To: Cary H. Sherman, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Chris Dodd, president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
All political leaders are falling into the trap of promoting Internet censorship. They are misinterpreting the impact of free access to content on the audiovisual industry and publishing market. I speak to you from a conservative perspective aimed at the consumer society, of course.
In the short term, users will flee to foreign file hosting services. These companies will be able to obtain more information than American datacentres. Exotic countries will play with personal information of million users. Cancellation of Megaupload doesn't brake all options. It's not necessary to cut files in pieces to upload it. Mysterious companies will offer entire storage services. Please, you mustn't allow it. This could mean the end of U.S. hegemony in global communications.
Second argument raised by the same strategic role. American literature is propaganda. Hollywood spreads propaganda, advertising of your system. Music production is propaganda. Many members of your Democratic and Republican Party, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are harming activities in the whole world.
Consequently, without a wide diffusion of these elements, hypothetical allies will not be able to know American positive virtues. Politicians and judges are hindering recruitment of potential allies related to the great American farce. Your country would leave the main virtue, creating and distributing false realities, deceptive dreams focused on generating admiration and respect.
Many creations weren't exclusively produced by commercial interests. Politicians and businessmen endure ignorance.
The novel Altneuland (1902) was not written for commercial purposes. The Molussian Catacomb (1931), may the Court remove this ideological creation? Ninotchka (1939), how many copies should be sold? No time for flowers (1952) has an useful background for the cause. The novel Exodus (1958), or its cinematographic version of 1960, does deserve to be known by all generations? For rich and educated people only? Big Jim McLain (1952), very funny movie that we all want to watch, but almost nobody would buy. All these titles have a common feature: ideological advertising!
This attack on the massive diffusion of your ideological armory represents a strategic break, a communication outage. Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
Politicians and companies are confusing propaganda with piracy. I'm not talking about culture and freedom of speech. I am referring to the survival and expansion of your country. I expose the ability to persuade, deceive, lead. America won the Cold War because convinced the world. The liberal system prevailed because sold a fake picture of happy society. "First dose for free, second you must pay."
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty discs of …. I have always paid the copyright (including a percentage of royalties), all my purchases have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. Free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies. We don't believe either that WikiLeaks is alien to North American intelligence.
Proceedings against this website caught millions of necessary files to continue the collective hypnosis. You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow strategic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from Megaupload, pornographic literature, modern rubbish music (99.9%), and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless, backward. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has scarce argumentative credibility. If they had seen really Spanish films selected by the Academy Awards, they would know that all our movies were lousy filth.
We suspect you have control on Megaupload. The world needs to recover million files that judicial authorities and FBI have retained. You must understand it as an investment, necessary subsidy to promote the cultural supremacy of the United States on the planet.
Contents inserted in popular video sharing websites are the best way of promoting works that might get lost forever. When you try to protect intellectual property erasing it, you're contributing to the failure of your own industry. The people forget rapidly. Traders know nothing on market strategy.
When you push to close an account or erase a YouTube content, you're condemning to forget an old performer, or his work, forever. Record companies won't be able already to sell the next collection because that artist will be known by nobody, references won't exist.
How can you censure a vinyl that nobody edits for fifty years? I cannot believe you represent the audio-visual industry. Are you stupid or ignorant simply?
Every file uploaded in some network share is spreading the talent of creators and promoters. This means free publicity. If you threaten this advantage, you're harming own economic interest.
Producers aren't acting rationally. You cannot sell an artistic product if public doesn't know it. YouTube realizes promotional campaign, the best marketing. When a company demands to erase a file, is causing millionaire losses in the future. You're sinking the market because you don't understand this system has evolved.
When trademarks denounce infringements systematically, user accounts are closed automatically, but this action will suppose future loss. This absurd legal request has erased its own product, everybody will forget it.
You try to protect the copyright, but you're reducing profit. You're killing creations forever. YouTube can rescue it. Streaming can increase your profit. Bad management is your worst enemy. The economic concept has expired. Renew you!
Mr. Eric Schmidt, we all are grateful for the collaboration of Google Inc. and YouTube towards the legal observance. For this reason I propose a simple requisite to satisfy different rights. When a supposed owner threatens to remove contents, he must justify his unquestionable legitimacy. Complainants should certify with proof of payment they are remunerating the respective royalty to the authors and performers.
Many themes aren't on the market because anybody edits this material for more than half a century. The uploaded file was coming from original vinyl, not new editions, it's out of print.
Some discs contain old recordings of missing «doo-wop» groups. Those firms have disappeared. Users have lost that artistic material because a suspicious commercial entity has denounced 'copyright infringement'.
If this copyright is still active, is the claimant paying the respective percentage to the authors and performers? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! Where are they now? The survivors and heirs of these ephemeral vocal groups should seek their old titles. If any music publisher is including their work in a new collection without notice to them, they can report possible fraud to initiate criminal procedures.
We can also find record companies and rash claimants who attempt an unlawful taking of royalties. Sometimes complainants don't have real property right about the product they are claiming. They want to replace an old brand disappeared decades ago. Who is the real owner of an old vinyl?
This could represent a copyright theft. That deserves to be known by the Justice Department. The business entity—first plaintiff—may also have a criminal sanction because is acting with illicit profit, unlawful taking.
I repeat the question, who is the real owner of an OOP vinyl? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! New music publishers prefer to bury their voices forever because managers can't exploit them again. Are they compensated with the corresponding royalty if their work is currently published for commercial use?
Some record companies want to charge property rights supplanting missing trademarks, old record labels. Can only collect their new products.
Most producers are merciless people. They forgot to Frankie Lymon. Managers never cared about the depression of Elvis Presley and Del Shannon. Businessmen just love their cash account.
The streaming collection of (…) in YouTube is now empty. This user has lost many hours uploading material almost impossible to find. We contemplate an unwarranted warning from (…).
If these firms aren't able to justify their property rights about those rare vinyl records, they should compensate to this YouTube user, to the real creators of the material removed, to YouTube and… they could have an appointment with the court. Well, it's only a hypothesis. I value the damage to the user at more than five thousand dollars and an apology from the chairmen. Are you gentlemen?
Companies intend to flood the courts of the whole world with thousands of untenable demands, but the law enforcement may turn against them. 'Copyright theft' is the concept. Unable to find one hundred record labels registered to collect the same copyright. Even perpetual copyright must have only one firm to receive royalties.
I cannot understand either some companies are damaging their own publicity. What genius manages its marketing? I'm sorry, another department ordered it.
Why do you want we forget old artists? This way you'll sell almost nothing tomorrow.
Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies.
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty Gene Pitney discs, I have always paid the copyright (his royalty), all my buys have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times, the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. The free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow classic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from cyberlockers: modern rubbish music—99.9%—and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
All political leaders are falling into the trap of promoting Internet censorship. They are misinterpreting the impact of free access to content on the audiovisual industry and publishing market. I speak to you from a conservative perspective aimed at the consumer society, of course.
In the short term, users will flee to foreign file hosting services. These companies will be able to obtain more information than American datacentres. Exotic countries will play with personal information of million users. Cancellation of Megaupload doesn't brake all options. It's not necessary to cut files in pieces to upload it. Mysterious companies will offer entire storage services. Please, you mustn't allow it. This could mean the end of U.S. hegemony in global communications.
Second argument raised by the same strategic role. American literature is propaganda. Hollywood spreads propaganda, advertising of your system. Music production is propaganda. Many members of your Democratic and Republican Party, the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are harming activities in the whole world.
Consequently, without a wide diffusion of these elements, hypothetical allies will not be able to know American positive virtues. Politicians and judges are hindering recruitment of potential allies related to the great American farce. Your country would leave the main virtue, creating and distributing false realities, deceptive dreams focused on generating admiration and respect.
Many creations weren't exclusively produced by commercial interests. Politicians and businessmen endure ignorance.
The novel Altneuland (1902) was not written for commercial purposes. The Molussian Catacomb (1931), may the Court remove this ideological creation? Ninotchka (1939), how many copies should be sold? No time for flowers (1952) has an useful background for the cause. The novel Exodus (1958), or its cinematographic version of 1960, does deserve to be known by all generations? For rich and educated people only? Big Jim McLain (1952), very funny movie that we all want to watch, but almost nobody would buy. All these titles have a common feature: ideological advertising!
This attack on the massive diffusion of your ideological armory represents a strategic break, a communication outage. Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
Politicians and companies are confusing propaganda with piracy. I'm not talking about culture and freedom of speech. I am referring to the survival and expansion of your country. I expose the ability to persuade, deceive, lead. America won the Cold War because convinced the world. The liberal system prevailed because sold a fake picture of happy society. "First dose for free, second you must pay."
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty discs of …. I have always paid the copyright (including a percentage of royalties), all my purchases have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. Free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies. We don't believe either that WikiLeaks is alien to North American intelligence.
Proceedings against this website caught millions of necessary files to continue the collective hypnosis. You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow strategic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from Megaupload, pornographic literature, modern rubbish music (99.9%), and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless, backward. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has scarce argumentative credibility. If they had seen really Spanish films selected by the Academy Awards, they would know that all our movies were lousy filth.
We suspect you have control on Megaupload. The world needs to recover million files that judicial authorities and FBI have retained. You must understand it as an investment, necessary subsidy to promote the cultural supremacy of the United States on the planet.
Contents inserted in popular video sharing websites are the best way of promoting works that might get lost forever. When you try to protect intellectual property erasing it, you're contributing to the failure of your own industry. The people forget rapidly. Traders know nothing on market strategy.
When you push to close an account or erase a YouTube content, you're condemning to forget an old performer, or his work, forever. Record companies won't be able already to sell the next collection because that artist will be known by nobody, references won't exist.
How can you censure a vinyl that nobody edits for fifty years? I cannot believe you represent the audio-visual industry. Are you stupid or ignorant simply?
Every file uploaded in some network share is spreading the talent of creators and promoters. This means free publicity. If you threaten this advantage, you're harming own economic interest.
Producers aren't acting rationally. You cannot sell an artistic product if public doesn't know it. YouTube realizes promotional campaign, the best marketing. When a company demands to erase a file, is causing millionaire losses in the future. You're sinking the market because you don't understand this system has evolved.
When trademarks denounce infringements systematically, user accounts are closed automatically, but this action will suppose future loss. This absurd legal request has erased its own product, everybody will forget it.
You try to protect the copyright, but you're reducing profit. You're killing creations forever. YouTube can rescue it. Streaming can increase your profit. Bad management is your worst enemy. The economic concept has expired. Renew you!
Mr. Eric Schmidt, we all are grateful for the collaboration of Google Inc. and YouTube towards the legal observance. For this reason I propose a simple requisite to satisfy different rights. When a supposed owner threatens to remove contents, he must justify his unquestionable legitimacy. Complainants should certify with proof of payment they are remunerating the respective royalty to the authors and performers.
Many themes aren't on the market because anybody edits this material for more than half a century. The uploaded file was coming from original vinyl, not new editions, it's out of print.
Some discs contain old recordings of missing «doo-wop» groups. Those firms have disappeared. Users have lost that artistic material because a suspicious commercial entity has denounced 'copyright infringement'.
If this copyright is still active, is the claimant paying the respective percentage to the authors and performers? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! Where are they now? The survivors and heirs of these ephemeral vocal groups should seek their old titles. If any music publisher is including their work in a new collection without notice to them, they can report possible fraud to initiate criminal procedures.
We can also find record companies and rash claimants who attempt an unlawful taking of royalties. Sometimes complainants don't have real property right about the product they are claiming. They want to replace an old brand disappeared decades ago. Who is the real owner of an old vinyl?
This could represent a copyright theft. That deserves to be known by the Justice Department. The business entity—first plaintiff—may also have a criminal sanction because is acting with illicit profit, unlawful taking.
I repeat the question, who is the real owner of an OOP vinyl? Poor boys of the Bronx and Brooklyn! New music publishers prefer to bury their voices forever because managers can't exploit them again. Are they compensated with the corresponding royalty if their work is currently published for commercial use?
Some record companies want to charge property rights supplanting missing trademarks, old record labels. Can only collect their new products.
Most producers are merciless people. They forgot to Frankie Lymon. Managers never cared about the depression of Elvis Presley and Del Shannon. Businessmen just love their cash account.
The streaming collection of (…) in YouTube is now empty. This user has lost many hours uploading material almost impossible to find. We contemplate an unwarranted warning from (…).
If these firms aren't able to justify their property rights about those rare vinyl records, they should compensate to this YouTube user, to the real creators of the material removed, to YouTube and… they could have an appointment with the court. Well, it's only a hypothesis. I value the damage to the user at more than five thousand dollars and an apology from the chairmen. Are you gentlemen?
Companies intend to flood the courts of the whole world with thousands of untenable demands, but the law enforcement may turn against them. 'Copyright theft' is the concept. Unable to find one hundred record labels registered to collect the same copyright. Even perpetual copyright must have only one firm to receive royalties.
I cannot understand either some companies are damaging their own publicity. What genius manages its marketing? I'm sorry, another department ordered it.
Why do you want we forget old artists? This way you'll sell almost nothing tomorrow.
Politicians have been guided by erroneous interpretations of bumbling businessmen involved in panic. They cannot sell something we don't want to buy in any way. I want to say that current production is really bad. Modern cinema and music are a load of crap, everything is disposable. All published in recent years could be protected because it hasn't strategic quality. Market gains censoring this rubbish. Idiots who love this garbage deserve to waste money.
I doubt Megaupload closure answers by legal transgression. This seems like a sham operation to satisfy companies.
Most of downloads were harmless to the market because its content was out of print or were poorly marketable productions. Many creations are no longer on the market. You have closed all possibilities for a simple business failure.
I will show businessmen are pirates, clumsy traders. An example, I have bought more than twenty Gene Pitney discs, I have always paid the copyright (his royalty), all my buys have been legal, in authorized establishments. Now I have hundreds of repeated songs that I have paid twenty times, the same songs. I have acquired new collections for one or two songs. This is a stupid logic. How many times must I remunerate anything that I have paid earlier? Record companies and music publishers don't want adapt the offer to new demands of dynamic market. Rigidity imposed by incompetent businessmen has propitiated a cultural revolution on the free world. The free society must not pay errors of inept businessmen. We cannot socialize managerial mistakes.
Most young people are quite ignorant. If they don't know great artists like Sammy Davis, Jr. or Eartha Kitt, young people won't buy their work in future. First, they must be known.
You can prevent free distribution of new creations, but you must allow classic content.
We consider right remove certain current contents from cyberlockers: modern rubbish music—99.9%—and trash violent films. FBI also should erase American reality shows that our television channels have bought. These spread the global idea of whole American youth is coarse, tasteless. The same applies on crap television series you export every year for uneducated and bored teenagers.
17 comentarios:
London School of Economics: la piratería no mata a la industria cultural
·La universidad londinense recomienda al Gobierno británico que cambie la Ley de Economía Digital
El País Madrid 4 OCT 2013 - 12:02 CET
La piratería en Internet no es la causa de todos los males de la industria cultural. Es la conclusión del estudio Copyright & Creation A Case for Promoting Inclusive Online Sharing, publicado por la London School of Economics and Political Science (LSEPS), que, además, afirma que Internet ha ampliado públicos y el consumo de música, cine y videojuegos.
El trabajo de los académicos recuerdan casos de éxito como SoundCloud, donde los artistas pueden distribuir sus trabajos con diferentes licencias de reproducción o el de YouTube, donde las discográficas difunden su música para promover las ventas.
Copyright and Creation señala que las estrategias punitivas como las tres leyes promulgadas en Francia no han tenido ninguna efectividad, y recomiendan al Gobierno británico que cambie la Digital Economy Act para tener en cuenta los intereses del consumidor y de los propietarios de derechos. En ese sentido promueve el uso justo de los contenidos entre los individuos y que se centre la represión en las empresas. "Recomendamos una revisión de la DEA para que haya un equilibrio entre los intereses de los propietarios de copyright, los proveedores de servicios en Internet y los consumidores. La industria creativa y sus consumidores pueden explotar el potencial de Internet, lo que maximizará la creación de contenidos, para beneficio de sus creadores".
No es el primer estudio universitario que se publica en este sentido y que llega a la misma conclusión, pero sí el primero de la reputada universidad londinense y que además se envía al Gobierno británico. "Los ingresos por las ventas digitales, servicios de suscripción, transmisión y actuaciones en directo compensan la disminución de los ingresos por las venta de CD", dice el profesor titular y uno de los tres autores, Bart Cammaerts.
El informe muestra que la industria de los videojuegos está creciendo, el sector editorial es estable y la industria cinematográfica en EE.UU está rompiendo récords en cifras. "A pesar de que la Motion Picture Association (MPAA), la patronal del cine norteamericano, dice que la piratería en Internet está devastando la industria del cine, Hollywood logró el pasado año el récord de los ingresos mundiales de taquilla con 25.700 millones de euros en 2012, un 6% más que en 2011".
http://tecnologia.elpais.com/tecnologia/2013/10/04/actualidad/1380880922_622660.html
London School of Economics analysts: Piracy is good for business
Will Conley, Oct 5th 2013
Pirates, you have scholarly advocates in the London School of Economics. The LSE’s Media Policy Project has published a report entitled “Copyright & Creation: A Case for Promoting Inclusive Online Sharing”, and it argues that copyright infringement is not harming the creative industries nearly as much as is common believed. The authors even go so far as to assert that putative laws aimed at curtailing the “inclusive collaborative digital culture” actually stymies artistic expression and, by extension, the industries’ long-term economic prognosis.
Citing global market figures, the MPP report observes that while the creative industries have seen an overall stagnation over the past 15 years, they have not experienced the drastic decline prophesied by industry executives and talking heads when Napster, Kazaa, the Pirate Bay, et al brought file sharing into the limelight. Declining sales of CD and vinyl—attributable to a variety of factors, like, say, a devastating global recession affecting every industry on the planet—have been largely offset by revenues from digital music downloads, live performances, merchandising, and other streams.
Perhaps most telling of all is the fact that digital now eclipses physical in terms of profits, as of 2013: “Revenue from online sources including recorded music sales, streaming, online radio, subscriptions and other is increasing,” says the report, “both absolutely and as a percentage of overall revenue.”
“Copyright & Creation” also chastises public policies aimed at curtailing copyright infringers through warnings, Internet disconnection, website decommissioning and more serious punishments, pointing to anecdotal evidence from around the world suggesting that such measures do nothing to slow piracy or help the creative industries claim in any way.
SOURCE: http://www.lse.ac.uk//media@lse/documents/MPP/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation.pdf
http://www.slashgear.com/london-school-of-economics-analysts-piracy-is-good-for-business-05300355/
Internet y la piratería no perjudican a la industria cultural, sino todo lo contrario
04/10/2013 (12:43)
Según un estudio realizado por la Escuela de Economía y Ciencias Políticas de Reino Unido, la piratería no ha dañado la industria cultural y del entretenimiento, sino todo lo contrario. Una de las conclusiones de este análisis es que internet ha ayudado a popularizar productos y eso ha impulsado sus cifras.
En los informes de investigación realizados en los últimos años se ha comprobado el lado positivo que tiene intercambiar archivos en la industria del entretenimiento. "Los ingresos por las ventas digitales, servicios de suscripción, transmisión y actuaciones en directo compensan la disminución de los ingresos de la venta de CDs o registros", dice el profesor titular y uno de los autores del informe, Bart Cammaerts.
La Escuela de Londres de Economía y Ciencias Políticas ha entrado en el debate de la piratería para demostrar con su estudio, recogido por TorrentFreak, que la piratería no ha dañado a la industria cultural, sino que ha ayudado a impulsar la industria. Desde el año 2000 han aumentado significativamente las ventas digitales, compensando las malas cifras de venta de discos físicos. Los resultados están recogidos en la siguiente tabla (en millones de dólares).
Más allá de los grupos de presión
El también señala que la industria de los videojuegos está creciendo, el sector editorial es estable y la industria cinematográfica en EE.UU está rompiendo récords en cifras.
"A pesar de la reclamación de la Motion Picture Asociation of America de que la piratería en línea está devastando la industria del cine, Hollywood logró el récord de los ingresos mundiales de taquilla de 35.000 millones de dólares (unos 25.700 millones de euros) en 2012, un aumento del 6% con respecto a 2011", indica el informe.
Con este estudio, piden al Gobierno del Reino Unido que mire más allá de los informes de los grupos de presión de la industria, que son asiduos a descartar estos resultados y contrarrestarlos con estudios que han encargado ellos mismos.
El intercambio beneficia la creatividad
Los autores, además, insisten en que el intercambio de archivos puede beneficiar a las industrias creativas, como con SoundCloud, donde los artistas comparten su trabajo de forma gratuita a través de Creative Commons o el ejemplo de Youtube, que también se menciona en el informe, donde se comparten canciones con derecho de autor para impulsar las ventas.
En definitiva, el informe espera que el Gobierno de Reino Unido revise la Ley de Economía Digital basándose en informes independientes que tengan en cuenta las formas actuales de consumo de productos culturales.
"Se recomienda una revisión de la legislación relacionada con la DEA que logre un equilibrio sano entre los intereses de una amplia gama de partes interesadas, incluidos los de las industrias creativas, proveedores de servicios de internet y los usuarios de internet".
http://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnologia/2013-10-04/internet-y-la-pirateria-no-perjudican-a-la-industria-cultural-sino-todo-lo-contrario_36903/
La London School of Economics concluye que las descargas ayudan a la industria
El análisis asegura que internet ha ayudado a popularizar productos y eso ha impulsado sus cifras de negocio.
Libertad Digital 2013-10-05
"Los ingresos por las ventas digitales, servicios de suscripción, streaming y actuaciones en directo compensan la disminución de los ingresos por las ventas de CDs o discos", dice el profesor titular de la London School of Economics (LSE) y uno de los autores del informe, Bart Cammaerts. La recomendación del estudio Copyright & Creation A Case for Promoting Inclusive Online Sharing al Gobierno británico es clara: que escuche menos a los lobbys y reforme la Ley de Economía Digital para que sea más equilibrada.
La LSE afirma que a la industria del entretenimiento no le está yendo tan mal: el sector de los videojuegos está creciendo, el editorial se mantiene estable y el cinematográfico –al menos el norteamericano– está batiendo sus propios récords. "A pesar de que la Motion Picture Association (MPAA) asegure que la piratería en internet está devastando la industria del cine, Hollywood logró un récord de ingresos mundiales de taquilla de 35.000 millones de dólares (unos 25.700 millones de euros) en 2012, un aumento del 6 por ciento con respecto a 2011", indica el informe, según recoge TorrentFreak.
Además de certificar que la industria cultural está lejos de sufrir una dolorosa muerte en manos de las descargas en internet, los autores del estudio afirman que el intercambio de archivos puede beneficiarle en varios aspectos. Para ello ponen ejemplos como SoundCloud, donde los artistas comparten su trabajo de forma gratuita a través de Creative Commons, o Youtube, donde se comparten canciones con derecho de autor para impulsar las ventas. También citan el dato de que quienes más productos protegidos descargan de internet son quienes gastan más dinero también en productos legales.
Generalmente, la industria suele despreciar este tipo de estudios cuando muestran un posible efecto positivo, intentando contrarrestarlos con trabajos encargados por ella misma. Habrá que ver si lo podrán hacer en este caso, dado el prestigio de la fuente.
http://www.libertaddigital.com/ciencia-tecnologia/internet/2013-10-05/la-london-school-of-economics-concluye-que-las-descargas-ayudan-a-la-industria-1276501065/
New paper disputes claim that MegaUpload helped mid-sized movies
Wednesday 18 September 2013, 10:54 | By Chris Cooke
The Motion Picture Association Of America has welcomed a paper published by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies which questions that previously reported piece of research that claimed that the shutdown of MegaUpload had had a detrimental effect on smaller independent film releases.
The Hollywood trade body, of course, lobbied hard against file-transfer site MegaUpload while it was still running, them seeing it as a prolific enabler of movie piracy, and therefore welcomed the action by the US government that led to the controversial website being shutdown. And the trade body later told the Office Of The US Trade Representative that the closure of MegaUpload had been a “massive” benefit for copyright owners around the world.
But last month research from the University Of Munich and the Copenhagen Business School claimed that, while the closure of MegaUpload and the resulting reduction in movie piracy had likely contributed to a slight increase in revenues for blockbuster movies, mid-sized films had likely lost out, because file-transfer sites enabled peer-to-peer promotion of films that couldn’t afford massive advertising campaigns, and that could result in more tickets sold at the cinema.
However, Dr George Ford of the Phoenix Center argues that the Munich and Copenhagen academics reached that conclusion because of “a poorly-designed statistical model” and a misunderstanding of the economics of the film industry. The study, therefore, Ford reckons, “adds nothing constructive to the debate – save a little excitement”.
A key problem Ford has with the Munich/Copenhagen report is how the researchers defined big and mid-sized movies. He says they did so based on how many screens a film was shown on during its first weekend which, Ford says, ignores the fact some movies open small but expand out to many more screens in the following weeks.
Welcoming Ford’s paper, the MPAA wrote in a blog post on Monday: “Individuals who watch pirated films online do not discriminate based on a film’s size, and a review of the academic evidence available finds that in fact online piracy does hurt sales”.
- See more at: http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/new-paper-disputes-claim-that-megaupload-helped-mid-sized-movies/#sthash.0COETXkm.dpuf
Megaupload: 10 millones de archivos eran legales
Un estudio de la universidad de Notheastern muestra que el material ilegal era menor del que se decía
El País Madrid 21 OCT 2013 - 19:30 CET
Más de 10 millones de archivos que albergaba Megaupload cuando fue cerrada por fuerzas policiales de Estados Unidos, eran legales, según un estudio pormenorizado de la Universidad bostoniana de Northeastern.
En enero de 2012, en una espectacular redada, policías neozelandeses, por mandato del FBI norteamericano, detuvieron en el país al fundador de la web Kim Dotcom por distribuir contenidos sin tener los derechos para la reproducción. Otros directivos fueron detenidos también en otros países. La detención fue seguida de una serie de ataques del grupo Anonymous contra páginas del Gobierno de Estados Unidos y cinematográficas.
En estos casi dos años del proceso, FBI ha sido condenado por abusar de su poder, también el Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda por espiar a uno de sus residentes; de la prisión de Dotcom se ha pasado a la prohibición de no salir del país, se le han devuelto sus propiedades y el juicio para la extradición a Estados Unidos sigue sin celebrarse.
El estudio demuestra que con el cierre manu militari de Megaupload, millones de personas se quedaron sin contenidos legítimos, que no infringían ningún derecho de propiedad intelectual. Los investigadores estiman que la eliminación de contenios afectó a 10,7 millones de archivos legítimos, eso supone un 4,3% del total; el 31% infringía claramente los derechos de autor y de reproducción y más del 65% del material, los autores del informe no han sabido determinar si el contenido tenía algún tipo de copyright o no han llegado a un consenso para su clasificación en una zona o en otra.
Los investigadores señalan que se ha corroborado lo que ya se sospechaba, que Megaupload se empleaba por algunos para distribuir ilegalmente contenidos, mientras que la mayoría albergaba allí sus archivos.
FE DE ERRORES
En una versión del texto se sumaba el porcentaje de archivos legales (4,3%) al de los "sin determinar", por lo que se daba un 70% de archivos legales, cuando no es así.
http://tecnologia.elpais.com/tecnologia/2013/10/21/actualidad/1382376608_304192.html
Atleast 10 million legitimate files affected during Megaupload raid
21 Oct, 2013 | by Nishtha Kanal
When the US government took Megaupload down for copyright infringement, a lot of users lost their source of file-sharing, owner Kim Dotcom lost a safe haven, but new reports have shown that users actually lost over 10,000,000 legal files in the raid too.
The file-sharing website was pulled down by government authorities two years ago and it has now been reported by researchers at Boston’s Northeastern University, along with colleagues from France and Australia that at least 10 million legit files got obliterated during the exercise.
Besides being a one-stop shop for all things current as far as movies and TV shows went, Megaupload was used as a genuine source of sharing personal files over the Internet. Unfortunately, a huge chunk of these files got wiped out alongside their copyright infringing counterparts.
Millions of legit files perished
The article posted by the researchers called “Holiday Pictures or Blockbuster Movies? Insights into Copyright Infringement in User Uploads to One-Click File Hosters” showed that a huge 31 percent of Megaupload’s content was clearly guilty of infringing copyrights but a significant 4.3 percent of these downloads were legitimate. TorrentFreak says that it means that of the 250 million files wiped out, at least 10.75 million of them were non-infringing. The researchers also found that FileFactory – with 14 percent of these uploads – had the most amount of non-infringing files.
Wupload and Undeadlink with 0.1 percent of these files had the fewest uploads that were clearly legit but had 79 percent of matter that was infringing. They also went on to reveal that one-click file hosting services were the worst offenders when it came to uploading pirated content. Tobais Lauinger, one of the authors of the paper said, “What I find most interesting about our results is that they support what many people were already suspecting before: That Megaupload was partially being used for ‘illegal’ file sharing, but that there were also millions of perfectly legitimate files stored on Megaupload.”
The only caveat that the research paper had offered was that the researchers were unable to determine the infringing status of a huge majority of the files and two-thirds of all these downloads remain in the grey. Kim Dotcom has claimed to TorrentFreak that the number of legitimate files on his service was far higher than being portrayed currently. While this may coax the authorities to try and look into the matter of letting legit file owners retrieve them, this will serve as a grim reminder to not rely on file-sharing websites alone to store your personal files.
http://tech2.in.com/news/web-services/atleast-10-million-legitimate-files-affected-during-megaupload-raid/918076
Megaupload takedown killed 10m innocent files
ERIC LIMER, 21/10/2013
When Megaupload got taken down two years ago, it took a whole hell of a lot of data with it.
And eventually it got obliterated.
Some of it was pirate data, sure, but some was legit too. And new research shows that, at the very least, 10 million innocent files got the axe.
Researchers at Boston's Northeastern University, together with colleagues from France and Australia, ran a study to try to check that copyright-infringement status of a ton of files that had been Megauploaded shortly before the takedown.
Examining metadata from links to content that had been hosted on Megaupload, the researchers took representative samples of 1000 files at a time, and manually decided if they were infringing, non-infringing, or undecided.
In the end, the researchers found that a whopping 31 per cent of Megaupload's content was clearly infringing, but at least four per cent of the 250 million uploads - which translates to roughly 10 million files - was clearly not.
On top of that, there was a majority of 65 per cent where the researchers couldn't tell one way or the other.
Four per cent doesn't sound like that much - and it isn't! - but there are a couple important details to consider.
Copyright-infringing files are duplicates by their very nature, but non-infringing files are far more like to have been unique, meaning their deletion was a real, actual loss.
And any percentage of that 65 per cent could have been legit too, although it probably wasn't that big a slice.
Of course, if you were relying on MegaUpload and Megaupload alone to store your library of personal family photos, you were kind of asking for trouble.
But man, 10 million files is a lot of collateral damage. So remember folks: multiple backups.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/technology/9308682/Megaupload-takedown-killed-10m-innocent-files
Sólo 30% de los contenidos de Megaupload infringían el “copyright”
En enero de 2012, en una espectacular redada de policías neozelandeses, por mandato del FBI norteamericano, detuvieron a su fundador, Kim Dotcom
21 de octubre de 2013 | Por: Redacción / La Razón
Boston.- Casi 70% de los archivos que albergaba el sitio cuando fue cerrada por fuerzas policiales de Estados Unidos, eran legales, según un estudio pormenorizado de la Universidad Northeastern.
El 19 de enero de 2012, el FBI provocó el cierre del portal, motivado por las acusaciones de infracción de derecho de autor, generó 175 millones de dólares en gastos legales y se alegaron 500 millones de dólares de pérdidas por derechos de autor, en un informe del Departamento de Justicia de EU.
Fueron arrestadas siete personas en el país vecino del norte y cuatro de sus directivos en Nueva Zelanda, entre ellos su creador, Kim Schmitz, Finn Batato y Mathias Ortmann; la acusación fue por distribuir contenidos sin tener los derechos para la reproducción.
Luego de las de detenciones se generaron una serie de ataques del grupo “Anonymous” contra páginas del gobierno americano y cinematográficas.
El estudio demuestra que con el cierre manu militari de Megaupload, millones de personas se quedaron sin contenidos legítimos, que no infringían ningún derecho de propiedad intelectual.
Los investigadores estiman que la eliminación de documentos afectó a 10 millones de archivos legítimos, eso supone 4.3% del total mientras que 65% se desconocía el estatus y 31% infringía claramente los mencionados reglamentos.
Los analistas señalan que se ha corroborado lo que ya se sospechaba, Megaupload se empleaba por algunos para distribuir ilegalmente contenidos, mientras que la mayoría albergaba allí sus archivos.
http://www.razon.com.mx/spip.php?article193204
Nearly eleven million legit files blocked in Mega shutdown, says report
Monday 21 October 2013, 10:40 | By Chris Cooke
The shutdown of MegaUpload took nearly 11 million legit files offline, according to a new study by Northeastern University in Boston. Although the same report confirms that the majority of the files stored and shared via the now defunct cloud-locker and file-transfer service were likely infringing copyright.
The Northeastern study looked at content stored on five so called cyber-lockers in total, spying on FileFactory, Easy-share, Filesonic and Wupload as well as MegaUpload, and also monitoring the Undeadlink platform. The survey examined files and metadata on the file-transfer services, and focused in more detail on 1000 files randomly selected from each site.
The researchers conceded that it was hard to identify whether many files stored in the digital lockers were or were not infringing the copyrights of a third party, but of those that could be classified, more infringed than did not. Overall, researchers say that at least 26% and possibly up to 79% of files on the sites surveyed infringed copyright.
As for MegaUpload, arguably the highest profile of the file-transfer sites surveyed, and not just because of its dramatic shutdown by the US authorities in early 2012, the researchers reckon that at least 31% of the files stored on the service’s servers infringed copyright, while at least 4.3% did not.
Although the American music and movie companies that lobbied the US authorities to shutdown MegaUpload will see the academic report as vindication for their argument that the service existed primarily to enable copyright infringement (and that Mega chiefs turned a blind eye to that fact to further their commercial ambitions), opponents of the content industries will hone in on the fact that, according to the research, in the region of 10.75 million of the files taken offline were owned by the users who uploaded them.
As previously reported, the legit files stored on MegaUpload at the point of shutdown have been the subject of legal action in the States.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has led the charge on behalf of one former Mega user who also lost his local back-up of sports footage he had filmed, and who is therefore desperate to be reconnected with the files that are still being stored on long switched-off Mega servers. Assuming the files weren’t actually stored on MegaUpload’s European platform, which has already been wiped by the company who owned the hardware.
Although the American judge overseeing the case has been sympathetic to those who lost access to their own files as a result of the MegaUpload shutdown, the US authorities haven’t shared the judicial concerns, usually pointing out that Mega’s small print told users to keep local back-ups. Meanwhile the American entertainment industry has said affected users could be reconnected with their files, but only if copyright infringing content was first removed from the old MegaUpload platform, a condition that makes reconnection all but impossible.
Though, as previously noted, given that the easiest way to enforce copyright is to convince the masses that it’s something worth protecting, there would be a genuine PR benefit to the big music and movie companies in helping the little guys who used MegaUpload legitimately to reclaim their IP from the dead and dusty old Mega servers. But, as always, once the legal guys are involved, common sense PR rarely appears on the agenda.
And anyway, arguably the time for Mega-file returning has now passed (especially in Europe). Though by failing to act a year ago, reports like the one from Northeastern University, which should back up the arguments of the US authorities and entertainment giants, will instead be used by MegaUpload supporters to beat them around the head.
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/nearly-eleven-million-legit-files-blocked-in-mega-shutdown-says-report/
El cierre de Megaupload acabó con más de 10,75 millones de archivos legales
Publicado por Antonio José Ruiz el 19 de octubre de 2013
El día 19 de enero de 2012 será un día recordado entre todos los internautas por unas razones u otras. Tal vez así de primeras no caigáis en la cuenta, pero ese fue el día elegido por el FBI para cerrar por siempre Megaupload, el mayor portal de almacenamiento y descargas del mundo en ese momento.
Ahora, un estudio de la Northeastern University de Boston concluye que más de 10,75 millones de archivos legales fueron borrados o clausurados por la agencia federal debido al cierre del servicio. Recordemos que en Megaupload no sólo se alojaban archivos y contenido de dudosa procedencia intelectual, sino que también cualquier persona podía colgar allí sus archivos personales, para tenerlos en la nube y poder así acceder a ellos desde cualquier sitio.
Recordando el pasado
Las autoridades federales acusaron al servicio de formar parte de "una organización criminal responsable de un enorme red de piratería informática mundial". Megaupload llevaba en funcionamiento desde el año 2005 y sus servidores permitían alojar archivos que posteriormente se podían (o no) compartir a través de Internet. Durante sus más de cinco años de vida, Megaupload amasó unos 175 millones de dólares en beneficios gracias a la publicidad y a los pagos de los usuarios de cuentas premium.
Un jurado de Virginia había acusado una semana antes del cierre a los siete responsables de Megaupload por delitos relacionados con la propiedad intelectual y el blanqueo de capitales. Señalar que sólo con los cargos de conspiración por blanquear dinero y asociación mafiosa suponen penas de hasta 20 años de prisión. La Fiscalía de Estados Unidos consideró que el servicio web había causado "daños a los derechos de autor por valor de al menos 500 millones de dólares" (387 millones de euros).
Según el FBI, Megaupload era visitado por más de 1000 millones de usuarios al mes o 50 millones al día, y representaba el 4% del tráfico en Internet, consiguiendo situarse en el puesto décimotercero de las páginas webs más visitadas. Algunas horas después del cierre del servicio web, páginas como la del Departamento de Justicia de EEUU o la de Universal Music permanecían caídas o funcionaban irregularmente. Algunas fuentes relacionaron estos fallos con un ataque coordinado de Anonymous.
Vida después de Megaupload
Tras un período de caos entre los servidores de alojamiento y descarga de archivos debido al cierre de Megaupload, poco a poco tanto los usuarios como los mismos servicios fueron recuperando la confianza. Aunque posteriormente, algunos estudios relacionados con Megaupload apuntaron a un descenso acusado de la piratería y un aumento en la venta de películas en algunos países.
Pero es importante señalar que aunque muchos medios de comunicación no se hicieron eco, no fueron pocos los usuarios de todo el mundo que alzaron la voz para denunciar la pérdida de archivos legales, desaparecidos para siempre con el cierre del servicio web. Y aquí es dónde entraría el reciente estudio realizado por la Northeastern University de Boston, donde la principal conclusión a la que han llegado es que unos 10,75 millones de archivos legales fueron eliminados o desaparecieron tras el cierre de Megaupload.
La universidad ha examinado los metadatos de los archivos pertenecientes a diferentes sitios de alojamiento. Así se puede determinar la proporción entre contenido legítimo o ilegítimo. En concreto han analizado los servicios Easy-share, FileFactory, Filesonic, Megaupload, Wupload y Undeadlink.
Algunas conclusiones interesantes a las que se ha llegado en el estudio son por ejemplo que este tipo de servicios de alojamiento se utiliza principalmente para subir y compartir archivos "piratas". En Megaupload, el 31% de los contenidos examinados eran infractores, el 4,3 % era claramente legítimo y en el resto no se pudo determinar. Es decir, al menos el 4,3 % de los 250 millones de archivos contenidos en Megaupload (según estimacionaes de la propia universidad), 10.750.000, eran completamente legítimos.
Hay que tener en cuenta que para el estudio han elegido una muestra aleatoria de 1.000 subidas por sitio, de la cual no han sido capaces de determinar el origen legítimo o no de dos tercios de la muestra. Tal vez una relación demasiado elevada como valorar el estudio como algo totalmente irrefutable.
http://www.elotrolado.net/noticia_el-cierre-de-megaupload-acabo-con-mas-de-10-75-millones-de-archivos-legales_22571
Piratear música no afecta a los músicos ni a las discográficas
Según la Comisión Europea no tiene impacto directo en las ventas
Un estudio publicado por el Joint Research Centre de la Comisión Europea afirma que la piratería de música en Internet no afecta negativamente a las ventas en los canales de pago o legales. Es más, los investigadores aseguran que hay discos que no se venderían legalmente si no estuvieran también disponibles de forma ilegal a modo de prueba.
Diariocrítico/Agencias 19/03/2013
El estudio 'El consumo de música digital en Internet: La evidencia de los datos clickstream' llega a estas conclusiones después de analizar el comportamiento de 16.000 internautas de Reino Unido, Francia, Alemania, Italia y España. Este análisis se concentra en conocer los hábitos de los europeos, midiendo la relación entre las visitas a páginas web de descarga de música frente a opciones legales y de pago o streaming.
El informe elaborado por el Instituto de Prospectiva Tecnológica, que forma parte del Joint Research Centre de la Comisión Europea, abordó esta cuestión de una manera única. Con datos de más de 16.000 usuarios de Internet europeos, se determinó cuál fue el efecto del acceso de la población a los sitios piratas sobre las visitas a las tiendas de música en línea.
Los investigadores encontraron que la piratería en general no tiene un efecto negativo en las ventas de música, sino todo lo contrario. Como afirma el estudio: "Parece que la mayoría de la música que se consume ilícitamente por los individuos de la muestra no se habría comprado si no estuviera disponible en los sitios web de descarga ilegal".
La mayoría de los efectos se encontraron al comparar las visitas de la gente a sitios piratas y tiendas legales de música. Después de controlar el interés en la música, los investigadores encontraron que las visitas a los sitios web piratas están positivamente relacionados con las visitas a las tiendas de música legales. "Si este cálculo se le da una interpretación causal, esto significa que los clics en los sitios web de compra legales habría sido del 2% menor en ausencia de la descarga de sitios web ilegales", escriben los investigadores.
Facilidad de acceso para incentivar el consumo
Parece que este comportamiento va estrechamente ligado a la facilidad de acceso al producto, de tal forma que los sistemas más inmediatos de consumo también afectan positivamente a la venta de música. El efecto de los servicios de 'streaming' legales sobre las visitas a las tiendas de música es aún mayor, y se estima en un 7% por ciento. Por lo tanto tienen un efecto de estímulo hacia el pago de contenidos.
Los investigadores admiten que puede haber factores externos que influyen en estos efectos que muestran que la oferta ilegal incluso estimula la compra legal, pero en cualquier caso la conclusión evidente de los resultados es que no proporcionan pruebas de que la piratería está perjudicando las ventas de música digital en Europa. Sin hacer interpretaciones, lo cierto es que los datos sugieren una relación positiva entre la piratería y las ventas de música.
"A primera vista, nuestros resultados indican que la piratería de música digital no desplaza compras legales de música en formato digital. Esto significa que aunque hay traspaso de los derechos de propiedad privada, no es probable que se haga mucho daño a los ingresos de la música", escriben los investigadores.
Los responsables del estudio no quieren hacer recomendaciones políticas, pero dentro de sus conclusiones sugieren que la piratería de música digital no debería ser vista como una preocupación para los propietarios de los derechos de autor. Además, afirman que sus resultados indican que nuevos métodos de consumo como el streaming de música afectan positivamente a los propietarios de dichos derechos.
El estudio influirá en el debate sobre la aplicación de derechos de autor en Europa, entre aquellos que están en contra de una mayor vigilancia policía y control de derechos de autor y el lobby anti-piratería.
http://www.diariocritico.com/educacion/huelga-lomce/431094
La oferta legal sigue siendo el mejor arma de la industria
La ruinosa inversión de perseguir la piratería. Millones invertidos sin que cesen las descargas
J. Gómez | 20 de Octubre 2013
La lucha contra la "piratería" en Internet está suponiendo una importante cantidad de dinero a quienes han apostado por diversas medidas para intentar atajarla. Tal es el caso de EEUU, donde se destinan millones a su sistema de seis avisos sin que ello haya servido para frenar las descargas P2P.
Los últimos registros del Centro de Información del Copyright revelan que la puesta en marcha de su sistema de seis avisos con el que se persigue a los usuarios de P2P ha tenido una inversión de 2 millones de dólares al año. Esta suma es aportada por la industria discográfica, la del cine y los cinco operadores que participan en este plan antipiratería anunciado hace dos años atrás.
Con su iniciativa pusieron en marcha el citado centro, conocido por sus siglas como CCI. Si bien esta organización ha expuesto con claridad sus objetivos, más trabas ha habido para conocer la cifra total invertida en este plan. Por ello el medio Torrentfreak ha investigado hasta conocer que entre los operadores y las citadas industrias el coste anual asciende a los citados 2 millones.
En esta cifra encontramos conceptos cuando menos llamativos. Por ejemplo, se ha sabido que la directora ejecutiva del CCI, Jill Lesser, ganó más de 43.000 dólares (31.000 euros) en los primeros ocho meses. De forma indirecta, Lesser ganó hasta 193.000 dólares por su trabajo en el centro. Esto muestra la poderosa inversión realizada en nombre de la lucha contra la piratería, aunque los gastos son superiores puesto que los titulares de derechos de autor y los operadores también costean el rastreo de los usuarios y el proceso de amenazas para que cesen su actividad en Internet.
¿Ha servido realmente esta inversión económica para acabar con las descargas? Nada más lejos de la realidad. El tráfico P2P tanto en EEUU como en otras partes del mundo no se ha visto mermado de una forma seria, lo que lleva a plantearnos hasta qué punto es rentable aportar semejante cantidad en un objetivo que dada la naturaleza de Internet se antoja inalcanzable.
Quizá sería el momento de plantearse alternativas y en Estados Unidos pueden dar fe del buen funcionamiento de la oferta legal de contenidos como mejor arma contra la "piratería". A pesar del P2P, Netflix cuenta con una importante cuota de mercado gracias a un servicio que ofrece lo que los usuarios demandan a un precio razonable. Es en este tipo de alternativas donde el dinero contra las descargas peer to peer debería destinarse si no se quiere que acabe en saco roto como parece estar sucediendo en algunos países.
http://www.adslzone.net/article12911-la-ruinosa-inversion-de-perseguir-la-pirateria-millones-invertidos-sin-que-cesen-las-descargas.html
MPAA slams study finding Megaupload's closure hurt films' revenue
November 30, 2012|By Richard Verrier
Hollywood's chief lobbying group is taking issue with some academic research suggesting that the shutdown of popular file-hosting website Megaupload has hurt some movies' box-office revenues.
Researchers at the Munich School of Management and the Copenhagen Business School recently posted a two-page summary concluding that the closing of Megaupload in January had a negative effect on box-office revenues of some movies, particular independent films that may benefit from the exposure to file-sharing sites.
"The information-spreading effect of illegal downloads seems to be especially important for movies with smaller audiences," the authors wrote in an abstract published on the Social Science Research Network. The findings were seized on by some bloggers and opponents of efforts to shut down websites offering illegal downloads of movies and TV shows.
But Julia Jenks, head of research at the Motion Picture Assn. of America, said the findings were "flimsy" and relied on a questionable methodology, including comparing the performance of movies before and after Megaupload was closed. Among other things, Jenks said, the report failed to account for various factors that affect box-office performance, including audience taste.
"It is impossible to evaluate the validity of the approach or the reliability of the conclusions based on the abstract, which does not fully present the methodology or results of the study," Jenks wrote. "In fact, in its present form, this abstract raises more questions than answers."
The U.S. Department of Justice shut down New Zealand-based Megaupload in January and charged its founder, German Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, with copyright infringement. Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz, has denied wrongdoing and is fighting attempts to extradite him to the United States.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/30/entertainment/la-et-ct-mpaa-blog-20121130
¿Ha afectado en el consumo el cierre de Megaupload?
A seis meses del cierre de la popular plataforma de descargas Megaupload, expertos, usuarios o tiendas alquiler de películas explican que practicamente la situación no ha cambiado
J.M.SÁNCHEZ / MADRID | Día 18/06/2012
http://www.abc.es/20120618/economia/abci-descargas-ilegales-megaupload-201206131915.html
Publicar un comentario