Australian Press Prints Movie Industry Myths About Piracy Funding Terrorism
from the does-skepticism-exist-down-under? dept
Isn't the press supposed to actually investigate claims handed to them by industry lobbyists? Apparently not. A bunch of folks have sent in the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald has published a totally one-side and unsubstantiated article claiming that "movie pirates fund terrorism." There are just a few problems with this -- including the fact that the so-called evidence for this is weak or non-existent, and the only evidence that is provided comes directly from the movie industry itself, who has every incentive to push this ridiculous story, despite the fact that the movie business continues to have record breaking years at the box office, and attendance is way up this year so far -- despite a massive worldwide recession.None of that makes it into this article, by two supposedly professional reporters.
Instead, we're told that "piracy" costs the Australian movie industry $233 million per year and "affects at least 50,000 workers." Affects how? That we're not told. As for the $233 million number, that comes from AFACT -- the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, hardly an unbiased party, though the gullible reporters seem to take its spokesperson's words as gospel that cannot be questioned. About the only thing that said spokesperson, Neil Gane, can show as someone being impacted is that "the people who own the local DVD shop who are having to lay off staff." Uh huh. And the people who own the local CD shop are doing so also -- but it's not because of "piracy" but because of competition. You know who's staffing up, though? Apple stores and video game retailers... Hmmm... Why is it that AFACT doesn't count their job growth in its numbers? I wonder...
Then there's the claim from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's director, Simon Whipp, claiming that all this piracy is impacting the least well paid people in the industry: "We're talking about a group of people who earn an average wage of about $15,000 a year." Honestly, all I can think is that (1) why is the industry paying people such crappy wages and (2) they're probably a lot better off in other jobs then, where they might earn a bit more. I don't see that as a problem of piracy. It seems like the movie studios aren't paying those employees enough to keep them in their jobs.
From there, the article moves on to the absolutely ridiculous, promising to "show how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002." That would, indeed, be quite interesting, but the article fails to even come close. Instead, it talks about a guy in Sydney who camcorded some films and uploaded them to one of many online groups. What the article doesn't mention is that the same films were almost certainly uploaded by numerous other people, and there's a good chance that most of those films pretty quickly had official (non-camcorded) versions leaked online by industry insiders. But, wait, we're supposed to be learning how this one guy's movies are connected to terrorists.
But, we don't. Instead, we find out that the movies he recorded (but no mention as to whether it's specifically his recordings) showed up in Britain, the United States, Mexico, Spain, Malaysia and the Philippines. We're told that the movies are manufactured and sold in the streets. That's great, but it ignores the fact that, thanks to all this "online movie piracy" the whole "counterfeit DVD" business has been going downhill. In fact, if you must connect the sale of counterfeit DVDs to terrorists, then you should be happy for online piracy taking away that market.
Is any of this suggested in the article? Of course not.
But wait, weren't we supposed to be finding the elusive missing link between movie downloading and terrorism? We were following the camcorded movie recorded by the one guy in Sydney, which showed up in other places... but there the trail ends cold. Instead, we're told to just trust the experts. Ganes (quoted earlier) shows up again to claim: "It has been recognised by governments... that there is a link between movie piracy and terrorist funding." Oh really? It has been recognized by whom? Only by a study funded by the MPAA which didn't really talk about online piracy, but about counterfeiting, and which had numerous methodological problems. At least the article admits that the study was funded by the MPAA, but never considers that it may be biased because of this.
The article quotes the authors of the study, claiming: "If you buy pirated DVDs, there is a good chance that at least part of the money will go to organised crime." Of course, organized crime is not the same as terrorists, but does the article mention that? Nope. It wants you to assume they're the same thing. It also doesn't discuss the declining sales of counterfeit DVDs.
But it does jump back to the Philippines, where local actor Eduardo Manzano has the definitive proof of the link to terrorists. It's because he says so! "In this country, we have the triad, and we have terrorist organisations which are being suspected now of using profits derived from DVDs for possible terrorist activities." Then, in dramatic fashion, the reporters discuss a raid on counterfeit DVDs, and from there we're told that the guy who camcorded movies in Sydney didn't get a big enough sentence.
Got it? With some gullible reporters, a lack of fact checking, questionable information, a lack of context, a total dearth of anyone who might question the bogus information put forth in the article, we have an article promising to show the link between piracy and terrorism that does nothing of the sort. Now who's out there complaining again about how these professional reporters need to have special protection since they actually do real investigative reporting?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, journalism, movies, piracy, terrorism
Companies: afact, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The real truth...?
(If they did not produce these movies which the 'pirates' [where?] are using to fund terrorism, then, no funds.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real truth...?
Wrong! The Movie studios ARE terror! They are the worse form of organized urban terrorists. Their militant branch the MPAA, and affiliate terror organization the RIAA, have more victims than 911.
They go after the weak. They terrorize them. Bankrupt them. And then... move on to new targets.
When will the terrorism stop?
When we MAKE it stop.
Viva La Resistance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The numbers? Who knows? They are all estimates (from every side).
The truth is this: in any illicit business where there is a ton of money to be made, you will find organized crime. Many terrorist organizations get involved in organized crime as a way to finance their actions. You sort of have to have your head in the sand to think it isn't happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever looked at the quality?
The fact that the movie industry conveniently forget.... why are they always able to seize 100,000's of pirated dvd's... because no one buys them so there are always plenty to seize.
Just more lies and distortions from those that really do steal from the artists, the Shylock movie distributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
low paid workers
If copyright is so great, then why are these guys getting paid so damn little? And if movies are grossing 100 million+ and these guys are getting paid so little, where is all that money going?
(these are rhetorical questions because these guys are full of shit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: low paid workers
Let's try to think of minimum wage jobs affected by piracy:
DVD cardboard box folders
DVD shrink wrap machine maintenance workers
Movie theater floor sweepers... No, theaters are doing fine.
DVD price sticker attachers
Anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
organized crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
How does one thieve a person or organization's limited monopoly on a product?
HEEEEY! You stole my monopoly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who buys dvds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, you have to consider the deliverer of such news: Perhaps the largest media owner in the country: one "sir rupert murdoch" (lower case on purpose.) played a part in this.
It's possible that in his dealings with the US and disgust of his failing MySpace investment, that he's seen and re-developed a British-Friendly ideology regarding property and ownership rights as they are used for economic exploitation.
I wouldn't be surprised if other British Commonwealths are also asked to tow this misguided line, and asked to do the same.
Where's Nicolas Sarkozy? He should know this fully.
Additionally, we should look at putting Hawaii back on the Table. Puerto Rico can take it's place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was my bad british humor coming out, meant to be delivered in the style of Norton Graham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=norton+graham
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funding terrorism??
Maybe AFACT should drop their action against iiNet since people downloading their own content is in the country's interest :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely not, I mean, there are many reasons for terrorism existing in the modern world, and its definitely not because terrorist can find money for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are going to make a case that piracy of Australian movies fund terrorism you should probably:
a) Use an Australian movie as an example.
b) Provide some actual evidence rather than some shit on 6 degrees of seperation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the SMH Fail story?
I would think that this is a good opertunity to point out the quality of the journalism going on at the SMH. Hell Mike's done most of their research for them :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh my god
I hate polititians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]