Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday September 25 2017, @05:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the surprising dept.

Last week, Minister of the European Parliament, Julia Reda, unearthed a well-hidden 2014 study financed by the European Commission entitled Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU [warning: PDF] that studied the effects of copyright infringement on sales. The study cost 360,000 EUR to carry out and although it was ready in 2015, it was only made public last week when Reda was able to get ahold of a copy.

The study's conclusion was that with the exception of recently released blockbusters, there is no evidence to support the idea that online copyright infringement displaces sales. This conclusion is consistent with previous studies, and raises the following question: "Why did the Commission, after having spent a significant amount of money on it, choose not to publish this study for almost two years?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @09:49PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @09:49PM (#572806)

    Not for lack of trying. If the movie studios completely had their way, all types of recording devices would be outlawed, starting with the VCR. Remember this?

    Yes. I do agree that the major studios would love this outcome but it is separate from the scourge of DRM.

    They lost that fight, bud did manage to eventually work around it, so, for example, a completely legal activity (making backup copies, or repairing "your" stuff) is now made illegal by the mere presence of even the simplest DRM.

    It is indeed a ridiculous situation. But in reality, laws against breaking DRM have no real direct effect against individuals, because enforcement in this case is virtually impossible. Such laws make it somewhat harder for individuals to obtain DRM-breaking tools, but it's not particularly effective at this.

    What such laws do achieve, is to prevent legitimate manufacturers from building interoperable devices unless they license your DRM scheme. When you have enough clout in the market (like the major movie studios do), this effectively forces everyone building interoperable products to follow whatever rules you make up.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @10:11PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @10:11PM (#572817)

    No real direct effect? Having to break the law to make a backup, or play your media on a different device, pretty damn direct!

    Add on the various other amounts of bullshit DRM directly/indirectly adds to everyone's lives and it is much more than just device licensing. If they want to ruin some "hacker's" life they can just throw in any DRM violations they can find. Quickly some young adult finds themselves owing millions of dollars in fines, potential jail time, etc. unless they "play ball".

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:36AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:36AM (#573603) Journal

      As the years roll by, I am heartened by the observation that their propaganda becomes more and more untenable and flat out ridiculous. Their unreasonableness (such as unskippable advertisements), greed, extremity and dirty tactics of suing children and grandmothers has succeeded only in hastening the end of copyright as we know it. They even screw over the artists they depend upon.

      I have some friends who long ago believed their propaganda. Didn't bat an eye when industry equated copying with stealing. Most of the believers had a change of heart when industry forced them to miss episodes of their favorite shows because they weren't allowed to time shift, or otherwise inconvenienced them with extreme and unreasonable DRM. I haven't checked recently with the wannabe authors among them-- they were the most rabid in support of copyright. If they still accept the notion that copying is stealing, they would be the only people I know who do.

      I've gotten more compliments on my Pirate Bay t-shirt than any other shirt I've ever owned. I was a little nervous about wearing it when I first got it some years ago. Now I'm glad I did it. Even dared to wear it in front of a bunch of SF/Fantasy authors at a convention. I kept hammering them with a question about how they felt their SF could be realistic and futuristic if it contained antiquated notions of copyright, and none of them could come up with a satisfactory answer. Mercedes Lackey, their guest of honor, actually took the time to lecture me personally on how the publishing industry really works. What she described sounded dreadfully old fashioned and wasteful. She summed up with an intimation that anyone who advocated for the abolishment of copyright and didn't understand the industry was an idiot. I also once sent a letter to Piers Anthony and he actually replied. He said he didn't agree with me on copyright, stating that it was the only defense authors such as himself had from being exploited and forced to quit writing for a living.

      Of course, many SF works entirely bypass that issue. Oh well, been years since I heard of any quality, must read SF. From what I hear, Cory Doctorow is one of the few who gets it. I found Ursula LeGuin particularly disappointing. She's such a liberal, except on copyright where she's a fierce protector of her supposed rights. I suppose old age has made her more conservative. Seems adherence to the printed book format for a living has blinded and stupefied almost all authors on this issue.