MPAA admits piracy figures wrong
The MPAA has admitted that there was a flaw in the figures regarding piracy that it produced in 2005. Figures which stated that students were responsible for 44% of U.S. piracy losses have been revised and now actually state that only 15% are responsible.
These were figures that the MPAA have been using to try and get colleges to take harder measures against allowing students to file share on campus, and there's even legislation in the House of Representatives being considered as law which is based around these figures.
Now that's quite a drop. While the MPAA say that no other figures were incorrect they do admit to this error that was simply a mistake by a person rather than anything else, putting it down to a human error.
Taking the 15% figure the MPAA is now revealing as the correct figure for College related piracy and applying it to the dollar cost of piracy, which they claim is being lost, we get some interesting figures.
"Domestic" (to the U.S.) losses are placed at around US $1.3 billion, 15% of that is US $195 billion, which is a mere 3% of the total losses due to piracy.
So 3% of total losses is the basis for the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, which would be a requirement for universities and colleges that tie their funding to the purchase of official DRM download services, and the implementation of systems to ensure that students do not use file sharing systems.
That to me is insane. The cost of the bill, the basis on blatant inaccuracies and the fact that it would begin to address just 3% of the piracy market just doesn't add up.
Why isn't that money invested into finding a legitamite download system for Hollywood? One that would be as easy to use and attractive to the user as file sharing? Or heavin forbid, targeting the large exploiters of illegal downloads? Most of the films I've heard about online are screener copies or those digitally copied from actual prints, neither of which are college students.
It's another sign that the MPAA are too focused on fear and punishment rather than finding a legitimate solution for the industry it represents. More to the point what else are they lying about in order to prosecute the individual?