My legs, my nose, my back, my toes

The MPAA funded and published a studdy that claims "movie piracy causes a total lost output for U.S. industries of $20.5 billion per year, thwarts the creation of about 140,000 jobs and accounts for more than $800 million in lost tax revenue". According to the study, 38% of piracy occurs on the Internet - with counterfeit DVDs accounting for the rest. I read through all the comments on Broadbandreports.com, with people coming in on both sides of the issues, and a bunch of people totally missing the point. So I wanted to just kind of ramble a little about how I feel about the issue. Feel free to skip this one, there's nothing interesting in it.

First off, I should point out that yes, I download stuff. A lot. Movies, music, software, Celebrity Jeopardy, you name it. Thus, the things I say will probably have a pro-piracy bias; however, I recognize that without the paying customers, for the most part, the industry wouldn't exist.

That being said...

First, I think their numbers are highly inflated. I would guess that they're using some bizarre, highly unscientific method to guess the number of copies of movies downloaded (perhaps tying it to sales of blank media, never mind the numerous legitmate uses?), then multiplying those by the full retail value (19.99? 25.99? I wouldn't know, I've only bought like two dvds in my life) of a commercial dvd. That's abusing the highly incorrect assumption that each copy of a movie downloaded equals one movie ticket sold or (more likely) one dvd sold. There are a lot of movies that people wouldn't pay to see, but if presented to them free, are more likely to kill a few hours watching it. Now, I'm not saying that makes it right, nor am I trying to rationalize the morality of it. The same thing goes for jobs and tax revenue, highly inflated by the amount of sales. The other point with those two is that yes, their industry is losing that money, but the country as a whole isn't. It's not as though that the money in question, not being spent on movies, is simply disappearing. As that income is disposable, it's most likely being spent on other things, other forms of entertainment. It's just the movie industry that's not getting part of it. While it's still a valid complaint, the fact that they try to project it onto a nation-wide tax revenue issue is very annoying.

I think people who complain about actors and high-powered executives being paid outrageous sums of money are missing the point, somewhat. I mean, yeah, it's odd to complain about losing profits when your highest paid workers receive extravagant sums of money, but that's not certainly unique to the movie industry. High-profile sports stars are the first comparison that comes to mind. So yes, it's a valid complaint that those people are highly overpaid (maybe it'd be better to say highly paid?), but I highly doubt the majority of people downloading movies are saying to themselves, "Haha! Suck it, movie executive!" and are pirating simply out of moral outrage at those inflated saleries. Well, in retrospect, I suspect a lot of people *are* thinking that, but it has little to do with their actual motivation for pirating. It does annoy me to hear them complaining about lost jobs due to losses from piracy with those saleries, though.

I think my opinions are a lot less clear-cut than I thought. Forgive me.

Then there's the people complaining about the lack of quality coming out of Hollywood, how most movies lately seem to be sequels, adaptations, or remakes, and/or really, really crappy. That, and highly formulaic. I'll agree to that, for the most part. I personally think it stems from the higher-ups being afraid to take a risk, put their comforts on the line. Of course, it's very amusing to follow that line of reasoning, when you have movies like The Hulk, which was atrocious. Incredibly atrocious. God, that movie sucked. I even payed to see that one, on opening day. It's something about superhero/comic book movies that I just love. Anyway. People use that to try to rationalize their theft, saying it's not worth paying for. I think that assertion really weakens the entire anti-MPAA movement. It allows the opposition to really latch on to that particular argument, bash it into the ground, and claim victory.

Related to that is the MPAA's fear of emerging technologies. The RIAA had it at first too - being highly against radio stations playing commercial music, blank media being available for sale, dual-head cassette players, and CD-R/RWs. However, they've at least taken baby steps towards making concessions towards the technological onslaught. Of course, their trying to shut down file-sharing sites, incredibly heavy-handed DRM, and suing individual downloaders makes me question whether the positive steps they *have* taken are sheer luck. The MPAA, however, seems to be unwilling to accept even that marginal change. I mean, download services that cost as much as retail DVDs, have lower quality, and can only be played on the computer you downloaded it on? That's ridiculous. What really cracks me up is their circular logic - they refuse to embrace new technologies because they fear it will cost them sales, then point to lost sales due to their refusal as justification. I mean, I know that a lot of people download things simply because they don't want to pay for them. But I know there are those who download things because it's more convenient, and they're accustomed to obtaining information that way. The question comes up again and again - if the movie industry is losing so much money to internet piracy, why not embrace it and recoup some of that lost revenue? I'm not making that assertion, just mentioning it as a usually unanswered argument.

Another frequent criticism is both industries price gouging. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the cost of producing CDs and DVDs has dropped significantly as their techniques are refined, improved, and spread out. That cost, however, doesn't seem to have been passed on to the consumer. Again, they often use the arguement that they're trying to recoup losses from piracy, when some of that piracy is frustration at that very sentiment. I find it amusing that one of the arguments made in support of those high prices, at least on DVDs, is the various bonus features and extras found on the dvd. What if the consumer doesn't want those? I mean, some releases have "Collector's Editions" with even more bonus features, but most dvds tend to include at least some. However, a lot of movies downloaded are just that - no extras. (As broadband spreads, that becomes less true, and it's more likely to find entire dvd rips, but speaking for myself, I really don't care for most movies' extras. I just want the movie.)

My favorite counter-argument is that most people against the MPAA/RIAA and criticizing these reports are just trying to rationalize theft. I'll admit, some detractors are doing just that - "Fuck you MPAA! Your movies suck! I'm not paying for them!". Now, I'll concede that point. It's still stealing, even from an industry doing the things I've already talked about. The 'virtuous bandit' myth that many might try to appeal to is really hard to sympathize with, in this situation. However, in focusing on the theft-rationalization point, they tend to ignore the other points and declare victory. That's a straw-man fallacy, and really leads to the entire thing devolving, and quickly.

So I'm not really sure where to go from here. Obviously, if everyone pirated their non-tangible entertainment, people wouldn't produce it. At least, not the people in it for the profit. Of course, you then have the issue of artists needing the means to support themselves. Most propose a borderline socialist solution, where they're given grants by the government. I mean, we have that in the Arts, and it draws a lot of criticism. It's really hard for people to do possibly offensive things, or really cutting-edge things, because people start doing reports like "Your tax dollars are being wasted on this crap!" So I'm not to sure about that one.

The Beach and Tia -- Suntan (Freemasons Club Mix Edit)