MPAA Starts Backing Away, Slowly, From Bogus Piracy Stats (But New Bogus Stats Are On Their Way)

from the about-time dept

Thu, Apr 11th 2013 8:34am — Mike Masnick

We've been among the many, many people who have highlighted the MPAA's penchant for using totally bogus "piracy" numbers in arguing for why it needs ever stronger copyright laws and enforcement. Others have stepped in with thorough debunkings as well, including its favorite "$58 billion" in losses that was bandied about regularly during the SOPA fight. The Government Accountability Office famously mocked the MPAA's piracy claims as totally unsubstantiated, in part because the MPAA wouldn't even explain the basis for the numbers it used.

It appears that so many people now realize that the MPAA's claims on "losses" from piracy are so ridiculous that even the MPAA has decided not to use those numbers any more. Buried in a longer Wall Street Journal piece by Carl Bialik is this tidbit:

But the MPAA is focusing elsewhere, and no longer citing the earlier studies, after an internal review that followed the SOPA debate, MPAA spokesman Howard Gantman said. “At the current time we do not actively cite the figures directly relating to movie piracy, as the landscape has changed significantly since these studies were conducted both regarding the growth of broadband and the development of streaming technology, as well as the introduction of hundreds of new sites world-wide for viewing legal online content,” Gantman said.

That's not to say that the MPAA has suddenly become reasonable. The rest of that article highlights other, highly questionable, attempts by the MPAA to justify its maximalist agenda, including new research, some of which seems to rely on similarly questionable methodology. But, at the very least, it appears that the "old" bogus numbers have been so discredited that even the MPAA won't use them any more.

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: piracy, stats
Companies: mpaa

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 6:54am

... Is the world ending?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  No no my friend, they are preparing the next bogus numbers they'll throw around. If they are smart enough they'll trim down to more mundane and acceptable numbers still large enough to justify the need for more draconian laws. Shall we bet on this prediction?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeff (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:05am
    
    Bets
    I wouldn't take that bet if I were you...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Bets
      *pinky to lip*: Fifty - SEVEN billion dollerrrs...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:41am

One question
"hundreds of new sites world-wide for viewing legal online content"

Where are these 100s of sites for viewing legal content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: One question
  How about they show us a list of the 100 sites with urls. Oh wait I bet they dont.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:45am
    
    Re: Re: One question
    That would be seen as copyright infringement! You cannot make a list of the 100s of sites without having 10 pages of clauses about not being sued for possible future abuses of the list signed. If you weren't an anonymous coward like me I would have taken your blasphemy as stupidity!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: One question
      So they can't give us the list of 100's sites that they say are new and for viewing legal online content because that would be copyright. I can now see the 2 faced logic of the MAFFIA. They say there are new sites that are legal and yet won't give us the list because it's copyright well how can they expect us to visit these sites when they won't give us the details. Obviously they don't want us to visit these sites and its no wonder people are going to non legal sites when they won't give us the details of the new sites available. Still I bet they go screaming to the government stating that no one is visiting these new sites and blaming piracy again but its there fault for not giving us the details of the new sites. /Sarcasm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Brad, 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: One question
        Well, to be fair (not that they deserve it), it might be possible that globally there are in excess of 100 legal streaming entities. I doubt there are multiple hundreds, and I don't think they are all websites...
        
        As usual, it likely depends on the details... If I look on my Roku box, they advertise 700 "channels", and there are a number that have legal Hollywood movies to stream. Not that they are any good, but they are available (during a specific viewing window to be determined by the rights holder)...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:56am
  
  Re: One question
  The new sites will be called...Napster and Limewire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: One question
  There are hundreds alright, but there is only one exclusive contract per content, meaning in a de facto maner there is only one place to go.
  
  The beauty of monopolies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- psema4, 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: One question
  "Not available in your region"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 12:55am
  
  Re: One question
  There are probably hundreds worldwide right now. However, most markets have a choice of only one or two, if that - and they're probably just referring to localised services with very limited selections and not available outside of that particular region.
  
  For example, in Spain there's no Netflix, Lovefilm, Hulu, etc. but there are a couple of Spanish broadcasters that stream the content they show - mostly locally produced shows with few movies. There's also an on demand service with cable providers, but these aren't available in most places, or another service tied to certain ADSL contracts. Especially when looking at movies, the selection is very poor compared to the UK, and the UK's selection is pathetic compared to the US. It could be claimed that Spain has 7 or 8 legal sources by the broadest criteria, but until a Netflix is allowed to service the market, it's not a real alternative for large sections of the consumer base.
  
  So, they're technically correct that if you count up the number of sites available in the world, there's hundreds. But, sites available worldwide, as in you can access them no matter where you happen to be at the time without having to resort to VPNs and other trickery? Virtually none.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am

Mike,

Speaking of bogus numbers, when are you going to have an honest discussion on the merits as to the value of the articles Swartz downloaded from JSTOR? You've claimed that the feds had to fudge things to get to that $5,000 threshold, yet he downloaded millions of articles that sell for about $20 to $40 each. Why can't you have an honest discussion about that? I mean, clearly you're all about looking at the actual numbers, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  You keep on saying the same words in a different order.
  
  Snore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike's the one talking about the FUD-packing Hollywood Hatefest, so the question remains, what about this completely unrelated subject? How much does tea go for in China, huh, what about that? Just looking for an honest answer here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      About 2 bucks. But most of the Chinese have moved on to Starbucks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A bit more, I'm afraid.
        
        Someone stole all the tea again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  Might I suggest you check the numbers... of the meds you're supposed to be taking?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  I mean, clearly you're all about looking at the actual numbers, right?
  
  Only when they support his cause. Otherwise... not so much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Unfortunately, you're right. Mike's demand for accuracy varies with the context. He will never actually address this because that would mean being honest about Swartz. Mike doesn't do honesty when it comes to Swartz. He's incapable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  The boy's off his meds...again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  "DEBATE ME!"
  http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2vevtGotO1rr6cyuo1_400.gif
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  The articles were available for free in MIT network - a network that had no security at all and was meant to be public - and Swartz did not make them available at any point even going as far as giving the HDD that contained the downloaded articles back to JSTOR who did not even pursue him. Your point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2013 @ 5:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oops, his head exploded.
    
    Please don't abuse AC with logical reasoning!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
artp (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am

Prediction
New research will NOT show that piracy improves sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 8:47am

they will continue to use the same numbers, the same stats but will rename where they came from and who arrived at the results. the really troubling thing is that congress will continue to use and take notice of whatever lies and bull shit the entertainment industries put out so as to be able to assist in any way possible and keep the coffers filled up with 'campaign contributions'. all the totally independent and reliable, truthful studies will still be ignored, just as before. let's face it, no politician received financial help from anywhere or anyone if they did and gave nothing in return
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:00am

Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
Study: Megaupload closure boosted Hollywood sales 10%

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/08/megaupload_piracy_study/

Which even Mike doesn't question as to fact, only quibbles with obvious conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  Odd that article wasn't subject of a TD follow up. Wonder why?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
    There actually was an article. Two, actually. Good to see you never pay attention.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
      Should check to see if he commented in them. That would be hard proof that he doesn't read them before commenting.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
        HE did. Which is the funny part.
        
        Maybe he should get checked out for dementia.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 11:31am
    
    Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
    Odd that article wasn't subject of a TD follow up. Wonder why?
    
    Odd, actually, that you'd say that when I actually wrote a three part series of posts about it, in which I actually noted that I thought the methodology was sound.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 12:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
      When are you going to have a follow-up on that study you quotes several times that said patent "trolls" cost us $29B per year? Did you think the methodology there was sound, or did you just ignore it and go for the FUD-filled headline? Hmmm....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ninja (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 3:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
        Hahahahahahahaha!!! Man you are pitiful! He just nailed you in the arse (when he didn't even have to bother since the articles are there and I was surprised to see him agreeing with the methodology even though it has several limitations) and you can't just stop attacking and actually say anything productive. You are comically pitiful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:04am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  Same tired link with the same limited study. Yawn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  Which was bought and paid by the MAFFIA and for the MAFFIA.
  
  Anyone who pays and buys a study to be conducted will always have the results to be shown in their favour.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  Remember the studies and finding reports that were conducted by Cigarette manufactures and written by their supporters that always showed that smoking does not cause harm. Guess when smoking causes lung cancer etc. that is no harm is it lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  The study didn't account for seasonal differences, nor the release of new movies and tv shows previously unavailable during the time period, thereby increasing demand.
  Aer you really that desperate, boy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
    Exactly! Another study even found that the seasonal variation was there a year before the closedown. That is, heck of a closedown, that is! When you can change the world a year before you arrive I will accept you as divine!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:41am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  A study was done amongst myself and 1 out of 1 me polled agrees that you are untrustworthy and lack credibility.
  
  That must be empirical evidence, because it was a study that was done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
    Hey, for the linked study above, Mike has already said that he has no issue with the methodology.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Magly (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  I would question it as fact. It looks like the study was more based on correlation of digital sales without looking at the wider industry. In the same time frame that Megaupload was taken down the following also happened:
  
  * Amazon adds 5000 videos to Amazon Instant Video and begins heavily promoting it on their site
  
  * Hulu starts getting real traction by adding advertising allowing them to expand their catalog.
  
  * A number of networks decided to follow some form of the route taken by South Park by hosting streams for their own shows/movies.
  
  * Digital download editions of physical media began to be sold
  
  * Walmart offers a digital transfer service that allows consumers to copy their DVDs to a digital format
  
  I'm sure there is more.
  
  So while shutting down megaupload may have had an affect on piracy the numbers are questionable due to the fact so many other big shifts to digital happened in the same few years and gained traction all around the same space of 12-24 months.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  CORRELATION EQUALS CAUSATION.
  
  ALWAYS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: Right, NOW they've EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:
  The academics were keen to stress that the study wasn't funded by the MPAA, and that the anonymous studios providing the sales data had no editorial control � but it's worth noting that IDEA itself was created last year with funds provided by the MPAA.�
  
  You see that? THE MPAA created an organization a while back so it could say "ah but this study wasn't funded by us"..but the whole study-group itself was paid for by the MPAA in the first place....there was just a delay between that and the studying being done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:26am

The landscape has changed in that when you say something absolutely ridiculous there are enough media outlets with large audiences that will call you out on it. The old model, where monopolists simply own the media and you can say what you want and get away with it, no longer works quite as well.

Still, this shows why government established media monopolies for private use should never be tolerated. Abolish government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  Now I'm not saying that the government shouldn't have any regulations over spectra whatsoever. What I'm saying is that the government establishing a monopoly over any spectra for private or commercial use should not be tolerated.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:55am

One thing doesn't make sense
How can numbers actually be so bogus that the MPAA won't use them? This would presuppose that the MPAA has some upper threshold on bogosity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 11:32am

Does the MPAA report these 'loses' on its tax returns?
If MPAA is going sue prirates for loses they should be at least able to prove where these loses occured - if these loses where proveable at all should they not be reported on there tax returns or in their accounting books? Much like lost revenue due to items in stores?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2013 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  I wonder if the IRS will be able to sue the MPAA for sending in false tax returns.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]