×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Misleading Data Undermines Counterfeiting Claims

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the fake-counterfeiting dept.

The Courts 91

An anonymous reader writes "Canada has been the home to a growing debate on counterfeiting with politicians, law enforcement, and copyright lobby groups all pushing for stronger copyright and anti-counterfeiting laws. Writing in the Toronto Star, Michael Geist reports that the claims are based on fatally flawed data. The RCMP, Canada's national police force, has been claiming that counterfeiting costs Canadians $30 billion per year. When pressed on the issue, last week they admitted that the estimate was not based on any original research but rather on 'open source documents found on the Internet.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Michael Liberal Geist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20662657)

Yep.

Yawn.

Re:Michael Liberal Geist (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20662671)

Yep.

Yawn.


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Michael Liberal Geist (2, Insightful)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 7 years ago | (#20665513)

I wouldn't call him a Liberal: he helped a Liberal (Sarmite Bulte) to lose the last election [boingboing.net] .

Re:Michael Liberal Geist (2, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#20665595)

What's so bad about liberals anyway ?

Last century it was communists, now liberals ?

Politics would make a lot more sense if people actually put a little thought into their choices, rather than spinning a wheel to choose who they hate this week.

Re:Michael Liberal Geist (2, Informative)

Lazarian (906722) | more than 7 years ago | (#20667593)

In Canada when we say "Liberal", we are usually referring to the Liberal Party of Canada. They have been embroiled in some of the worst scandals in recent history here ("Adscam" and our infamous two billion dollar gun registry come to mind).

Elsewhere the word liberal usually refers to people with particular social and idealogical leanings. Here we are referring to a particular group of corrupt dirtbags. :)

I have no idea of Mr. Geist's political affiliations, and it doesn't matter to me. He's done a lot of good things.

Wikipedia? (4, Funny)

PaintyThePirate (682047) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662665)

open source documents found on the Internet.

So... what are the chances they just browsed Wikipedia for it?

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

Volatar (1099775) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662707)

I would say the probability is as calculably close as you can get to 1.

Re:Wikipedia? (1)

tibike77 (611880) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663213)

Hey, "t3h intarwebs", and especialy wikipedia is always right !
Especially if the last edit was a few seconds ago ! :)

MediaDefender (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20662745)

My guess is they got it from MediaDefender and their ilk. I mean, they *bragged* about "blowing smoke" and making up wild piracy numbers.

They also made sure to tell their guys when they wanted stats on some album that "we're not protecting this one, so the higher the better" (paraphrased).

Hell, they also admitted to trying to sanitize their own Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] (click the discussion tab), so if they did get bad numbers from Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if MediaDefender or someone like them put them there in the first place...

I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (5, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662791)

So... what are the chances they just browsed Wikipedia for it?

If they are browsing Wikipedia, it's to insert their own BS into it. They pulled "articles" from "news" sites and ignored their own GAO estimates based on random sampling of real markets. In other words, they pulled it out of some industry (International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition) press release and an "estimate" by the Chief Economist for the Canadian Manufacturing and Exporters.

These estimate "pirate" product as %20 of the entire Canadian economy and that's insane. When you consider real estate, cars, domestic food product, gasoline and non branded commodities that dominate any economy, you would be lucky if %20 of goods were branded at all much less "pirated". How many fake Rolexes do these people think can be sold in a given year? Does anyone really believe that one in five dollars spent goes to something "fake"?

Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662947)

Also, this sounds like RIAA logic in some ways. It seems like the number either assume that the people buying, for example, fake rolexes, don't know they are buying a fake, and are actually not getting the product they expect to, or it assumes that if they didn't buy the fake rolex, and the counterfeit product wasn't available, that they would have bought the real thing. For the majority of counterfeit products, people know that what they are buying isn't the real thing, and just want some cheap imitation. I know it sucks for the makers of the real things, but think about it this way, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Fake rolexes (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#20667873)

I've got a fake Rolex that came from overseas. I know it's fake, but it still looks nicer, and the kinetic-motion part actually keeps a better charge than my previous authentic watch (which I think was a cardinal). I wouldn't take this one in the pool with me, but as a watch it works and looks better than my previous watches, despite costing less.

Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663225)

Does anyone really believe that one in five dollars spent goes to something "fake"?
Computers water down the concept of "fake," since every copy is as pristine as its original. Surely they don't mistake a warez copy of a game or application as 'fake?'

Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (5, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663419)

Does anyone really believe that one in five dollars spent goes to something "fake"?


I think they are counting lost sales based on any fake would have been a real sale. Just considering my daughters 30 gig Zen would lead to that conclusion. The Zen has 2,200 files on it (I know from making a backup). With the back-up copy also being a pirated copy, that at a dollar per song is about 5K dollars worth of pirated stuff. That counts just my daughters Zen, not my son's iPod. In the last year using those figures, they have collected together over 15% of my income for the year. I think this is the figures they are running with.

What they are failing to figure, is if all that music was paid for for each copy, is they could pocket that money. This is simply wrong. That money isn't there. At full retail with piracy eliminated the reality would be that neither kid would have any use for an iPod or Zen and they would be exposed to less music and would have bought far fewer CD's than they actualy did. With the portable music players and a large exposuere, they have become avid fans of some bands and buy CD's and go to concerts. Without the exposure, this would not have happend.

I grew up in the 1970s. Through those years, I didn't go to any concerts. The local AM station played country. In high school the next town over got a couple FM stations, one was rock. Piracy was mostly non-existant, but so was my involvement with any music industry product.

When I went into the Navy and spent time in the barracs, I was exposed to lots of neat music. I invested heavily in a very good stereo system including a linear tracking turntable and 2 cassette decks. I pirated a bunch of stuff and also bought a bunch of stuff. That was my peak music buying years. If Piracy didn't exist, I would have had little reason to get into stereo and invest in quality duplication decks in a big way. This is seldom figured in any anti-piracy study. For the new generation, the cassette decks has been replaced by PC hard drives and portable music players. The cost of duplication has gone down, the quality of copies has gone up and the media compainies still have way overpriced products.

The biggest roadblock to stopping piracy at the moment is simply overpriced product. This has not changed since I was in the Navy. I would have bought a lot more of my favorite music if it didn't cost so stinking much. I'm glad to see Nine Inch Nails make an issue of that. They are dead right.

Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (3, Informative)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663535)

While their number is ridiculous (about $1000 per Canadian), the Canadian economy is over 1 trillion. So their estimate is less than 3%.

$1000 is not really plausible, especially since this includes a large part of the population (small children and the elderly etc.) who do not purchase any or very little media and who do not have the capability to "pirate".

Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663717)

Does anyone really believe that one in five dollars spent goes to something "fake"?
--
Fake food? Pizza, Twinkies, Mc*** ?

Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 7 years ago | (#20664513)

>>Does anyone really believe that one in five dollars spent goes to something "fake"?

Certainly once genetic code can be copyrighted, trademarked or otherwise "protected" (as it often is in the form of plant seed), you can have consumers buying fake wheat, corn, oats even copyright infringing bananas.

Re:Wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20662803)

Don't forget - in Soviet Kanuckistan RCMP counterfeits reports on YOU!

Mirth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20663713)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAoh wait that's not funny in the slightest stfu kthxbye

just in case... (5, Interesting)

dohmp (13306) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662673)

some readers might not realize that the phrase "open source" has a number of common uses.

besides the one most slashdot readers are familiar with, another is possibly equally interesting to slashdot readers:

click here [wikipedia.org] for an alternative definition.

cheers.

Mod parent up. (1)

edlinfan (1131341) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662781)

I agree with parent. Given the legal context, it's very likely that this is what the RCMP actually meant.

Re:just in case... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20663463)

Awesome... I just edited that page to say "Open Source Intelligence is intelligence released under the GPL and, as such, is an oxymoron." Gotta love open source websites.
 

Re:just in case... (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663545)

some readers might not realize that the phrase "open source" has a number of common uses.

You see, that's why we should instead use a name that is completely unambiguous: free software. This way no one will ever be confused.

Oh, come on.... (4, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662677)

Is it that big a surprise that government and reporting agencies bloat numbers .... or even just lie to get their agenda covered?

It's not just Canada. It's the USA, all the countries in Europe, Asia..

Any peoples with a government body lie.

Re:Oh, come on.... (-1, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662765)

Oh come on indeed, piracy did cost the studios eleventy trillion billion cajillion bobillion majillion dollars last year. It's a fact!

Frankly, I'm surprised the RCMP admits the existence of computers. Thought they were all tied up getting killed storming farms [rookies] or giving tickets on the parkway ... :-)

Hates local cops, not because I'm criminal, but because they drive like shit and whenever I see them I get paranoid that they'll run into my car. Frankly Ottawa would be safer without Quebecer and OPP cars on the road...

Re:Oh, come on.... (3, Funny)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663233)

"Frankly Ottawa would be safer without Quebecer and OPP cars on the road..."

Hey, I resemble that remark, tabernac!

The reason Quebec drivers suck at it so much is because we're used to driving all over the road to avoid all the potholes of doom.

Actually, I agree with you ... between the speeding, cutting in and out of traffic, not signalling, (or signalling one way, and going another, or leaving the blinker on for the next 5 exits), the potholes, the craters, the detours, the badly planned road system (okay, it was never planned), the lack of street signs at a lot of intersections ...

Re:Oh, come on.... (3, Funny)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20665501)

The problem isn't that quebecers are the only ones with these driving faults. It's that you guys amplify them so darn much. I mean many ontarians cut in/out of traffic, speed, etc.

But it takes a quebecer to tailgate you 3 ft behind your car while doing 60 in a 60 (or 80 in an 80) for an entire 10 minute drive down carling ... At least the ontarians either back off or pass.

I so love driving the speed limit in the "fast lane." The looks on peoples faces are priceless. When they say "fast lane" they mean for going faster than the slow-pokes in the right hand lane who aren't doing the speed limit. They didn't mean for those wanting to speed.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#20667115)

"But it takes a quebecer to tailgate you 3 ft behind your car while doing 60 in a 60 (or 80 in an 80) for an entire 10 minute drive down carling "

Didn't you get the memo - you're supposed to jam on the brakes and raise your middle finger. I'm usually in the right lane - if I get someone who's crowding my tush, I either take my foot off the gas or, if they're really aggresive (flashing their headlights at me) down-shift. Of course, since there's no brake light when you downshift, they "wake up" when they find tiey're suddenly just inches away.

"I so love driving the speed limit in the "fast lane." "

Unfortunately, iirc, I remember reading about people getting ticketed for that - it was a hypocritical move by the OPP, because, lets face it, THEY do the same thing when they want to slow traffic down.

Their argument, which they won in court, was that the left lane is a passing lane only, and that people were "obstructing traffic". Of course we all know that if you're on, say, the Don Valley Parkway in T.O., the Decarie Expressway in MOntreal, or any other over-capacity road, there is no such thing as a "passing lane only."

I just sit in the right lane, going 80-90 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, and enjoy that I'm saving gas, wear and tear, etc.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20667355)

Well my argument would be you can't pass someone doing the speed limit (hint: you're not supposed to speed to pass someone). In which case, you can't be obstructing legitimate traffic by speed limit.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#20669925)

Oh, I agree 100% ... and they tried that. Unfortunately, "2 wrongs don't make a right" ... unless you're the cops.

Also, you ARE potentially obstructing some legitimate traffic - emergency vehicles have the right of way, as do regular people, in an emergency (same as funeral processions can go through red lights). Its like anything else in the world ... if they want to nail you, they will.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20670661)

Well so far no tickets or anything. I stay out of the away of emergency vehicles and all that, but the rest can suck it. I'm so tired of "not going the right speed." Even when I do 10 over there are always people wanting to do 20. So I say fuck it. I'll do the limit and they can pass me or deal with it.

It probably doesn't help that I wave to people too ... hehehe :-)

Re:Oh, come on.... (2, Insightful)

DerangedAlchemist (995856) | more than 7 years ago | (#20670871)

Well my argument would be you can't pass someone doing the speed limit (hint: you're not supposed to speed to pass someone). In which case, you can't be obstructing legitimate traffic by speed limit.

You don't know how to drive. The safe speed can be faster or slower than the posted limit, depending on conditions. I've know lots of drivers who go the speed limit who are MUCH more dangerous than speeders. There's something to be said for being capable of judging safe speeds and driving habits for yourself (and yes there are speeders who don't have this capability either.)

If you are not passing someone, you are not legitimate traffic in the passing lane (pot meets kettle). Learn what the lanes are for.

(hmmm. I think some frustration is showing through. I blame cops only ticketing speeding, rather than all bad/dangerous driving.)

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20675873)

I've heard this argument before. Unfortunately, it's not law. It's unlawful for a civilian to drive faster than the posted speed limit under ALL circumstances [including emergencies], at least in Ontario.

Even if you can "safely" drive 20 over the limit, it's not legal. therefore there is no reason traffic should be going that fast and you can't be obstructing it. That's like arguing that I'm obstructing traffic because I'd be in the way of someone wanting to go the wrong way down the highway. Just like you're not supposed to speed, you're also not allowed driving more than [iirc] 150 meters the wrong way down a road.

And finally, if you rear-end a car just because they're going slower than you [even under the speed limit], than *you* don't know how to drive. What if, suppose, their engine failed, or they're trying to slow down because the brakes failed, or any number of reasons. It's YOUR responsibility to pay attention to the road around you, and yes, that includes the possibility of you not doing the speed you want.

It's people like you why I take so much pleasure in driving PROPERLY.

Tom

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

DerangedAlchemist (995856) | more than 7 years ago | (#20683519)

I've heard this argument before. Unfortunately, it's not law. It's unlawful for a civilian to drive faster than the posted speed limit under ALL circumstances [including emergencies], at least in Ontario.

Even if you can "safely" drive 20 over the limit, it's not legal. therefore there is no reason traffic should be going that fast and you can't be obstructing it. That's like arguing that I'm obstructing traffic because I'd be in the way of someone wanting to go the wrong way down the highway. Just like you're not supposed to speed, you're also not allowed driving more than [iirc] 150 meters the wrong way down a road.

And finally, if you rear-end a car just because they're going slower than you [even under the speed limit], than *you* don't know how to drive. What if, suppose, their engine failed, or they're trying to slow down because the brakes failed, or any number of reasons. It's YOUR responsibility to pay attention to the road around you, and yes, that includes the possibility of you not doing the speed you want.

It's people like you why I take so much pleasure in driving PROPERLY.

Tom

I've never rear ended anyone, because I know how to drive. It has much less to do with how fast you are going, than how close you are following for current road conditions. It's the last part that seems to confuse the hell out of people who think everything is fine because they are following the RULES. There is less visibility at night. Snow and ice can make safe speeds much lower than the posted limit and different vehicles can handle them with different ability (and you can see lots of 4 wheel drives in the ditch during a snow storm as the drivers discover everyone has 4-wheel braking.)

The idea that one speed is always the correct or safe one is obviously absurd to anyone with common sense, but feel free to be smug about the lawyers deciding you are a better driver.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20695613)

Where did I say I drive faster than the conditions? My point was when it's clear and fine out, I drive the speed limit in the "fast lane" to remind people that speeding is not ok. If for only a second, it reminds people that they're speeding and gives them the chance to correct it. Most people just pass me speeding along, occasionally they get nabbed by the popo, but sometimes people also slow down and follow me at the speed limit.

When it's slushy/icy/snowy [y!] out i drive slower. Last year when a snow storm hit Ottawa I was driving about 20km/hr in an 80 (in the right hand lane cuz principle be damned, I didn't want to get hit by the speeders, and yes there were people trying to do 60-80 in the ice/snow).

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

DerangedAlchemist (995856) | more than 7 years ago | (#20699993)

Where did I say I drive faster than the conditions? My point was when it's clear and fine out, I drive the speed limit in the "fast lane" to remind people that speeding is not ok. If for only a second, it reminds people that they're speeding and gives them the chance to correct it. Most people just pass me speeding along, occasionally they get nabbed by the popo, but sometimes people also slow down and follow me at the speed limit.

Why is it so difficult to understand that just like driving conditions can make the safe speed lower than the posted limit, it could also make the safe speed faster than the posted limit? It is not the maximum safe speed. My point is that your whole safety claim is nonsense. You ignore the rules of the road involving which lane to drive in, they are ignoring the speed limit. As frustrated drivers pass you on the right, you create danger. Some of them are following, hoping you'll take the hint and get in your proper lane. There are sensible speeders who create less danger on the road than you do. Please acquire some common sense. If you claimed you're enforcing fuel efficiency, you might have a point.

Having signs that updated speed limits according to conditions would be better and has been considered, but expensive. Roads are designed assuming drivers will be driving over the speed limit under ideal conditions. This 'I followed the letter of the law (as currently written) instead of the intent, therefore I am safer' attitude is bullshit. It's an attitude that pisses me off regularly in many areas of life as I watch incredibly stupid actions undertaken to technically follow rules that were obviously meant for other purposes. It's scary really.


When it's slushy/icy/snowy [y!] out i drive slower. Last year when a snow storm hit Ottawa I was driving about 20km/hr in an 80 (in the right hand lane cuz principle be damned, I didn't want to get hit by the speeders, and yes there were people trying to do 60-80 in the ice/snow).

So you ignore the principles under conditions where they could actually do some good and get inexperienced drivers to reconsider their speed. There are many kinds of idiots on the road, and you're one of them.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20735067)

Unfortunately that's not how it works. You don't get to speed more freely just because I'm going to hide behind a longer [possibly] slower line of traffic.

Arguing that I'm the danger for not speeding is just loopy. Sure 20 over may be safe, but it's not the fucking limit, and frankly, I seriously question the majority of people in being to safely determine that. Often, there are other issues to consider. Sure you could bomb down a residential road at 80km/hr. But why don't you? Under your assumptions there are never any road hazards (like kids, or merging traffic or whatever). So it's safe to do whatever speed just the road will allow. But fortunately, the planning of roads doesn't follow that. Even on straight and level roads, they reduce the speed limit to accommodate potential hazards.

Prime example, I was eastbound on Carling Ave. [in Ottawa] doing 60 on cruise control. Some jerk turns right onto the road in the lane beside me and decides to cut into my lane (they were going slower than me). I couldn't go left as there was an island beside me, and I couldn't really accelerate because they would have clipped me. So I did the only thing I could do, slam on the brakes and let them fly past me (they were literally inches from hitting my car).

Because I was doing 60 and not 80, the car stopped a lot sooner (pretty much within 10-20 feet) and I avoided the accident.

Now that road is flat and level, you can see for a good km or two down the road. I could easily drive it in empty conditions at 120km/hr. But I don't? Why? Because I know jerks like to merge every which way (there are a lot of intersections on that stretch) and I need good stopping time to avoid hitting shit.

Despite whatever reasoning you may come up with, if you rear-end ANYONE who is going slower than you, you're at fault. Doesn't even matter if they were doing 10km/hr on the freeway. You just can't hit people. It's just that simple.

That's not saying doing 10km/hr on the freeway is "okay." It's wrong also. But doing the speed limit is never "too slow" or impeding traffic. The only people you could impede doing the speed limit are emergency services. And nothing you've said so far changes the fact that it's not illegal to do the speed limit in the "fast lane." Nor is it dangerous or wrong.

Re-arrange your thinking. If you think the limit should be higher, go to a city council session [or whomever is in charge] and take it up with them. Just speeding because you, mr. joe average citizen think it should be faster doesn't make it so. Speeding is illegal. Don't try to minimalize it with bullshit rationalizations like "I know better than the city engineers who designed the fucking road system anyways."

And on top of all that, it's just fun to see some jackass behind me blaring mad for having to do 60 in a 60 in the "fast lane."

Tom

Re:Oh, come on.... (0, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#20735179)

So you ignore the principles under conditions where they could actually do some good and get inexperienced drivers to reconsider their speed. There are many kinds of idiots on the road, and you're one of them.

[forgot to reply to this]

No, it means I'm a safe driver. When I drive the limit in the fast lane on clear roads, the people behind me should be well in control of their cars. So pissed off they may be, there is no reason for them to hit me. Chances of people actually hitting my car is low to nill. In icy/slushy roads, even though they're responsible for driving a safe limit, they don't and the chances of someone hitting my car is a lot higher.

All this means is I don't purposefully put myself in a situation where I'm very likely to get hurt.

If you can't judge your closing distance and adjust speed on a clear and open road, you shouldn't be driving regardless of whoever may be in front of you.

Re:Oh, come on.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20663473)

Why are you just blaming the government? What about the multinational corporations behind groups like the RIAA and MPAA have their own agenda? Pointing out government corruption is simply not enough, you also need to point out the corporate corruption that usually goes hand in hand with it.

Any collection of humans beings with a common purpose often lie/cheat/steal/kill/etc to further their own agenda.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663575)

That's not the issue. The issue is that we need to call them out on it every chance that we get. If you just dismiss it casually because they'll do it anyway, worse things will happen.

Re:Oh, come on.... (1)

westyx (95706) | more than 7 years ago | (#20664249)

Everyone bloats numbers to promote an agenda, from governments to individuals to corner stores.

more FUD from canada (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20662679)

I submit David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist
And I have the proof

How can one explain the phenomenal global success of one of this country's least talented individuals? There are only three ways.

* Mr. Hasselhoff actually is talented, but this goes unnoticed in his own country.
* Mr. Hasselhoff has sold his soul to Satan in return for global success.
* David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

I vote for the latter -- and perhaps, after seeing the facts involved, the rest of the world will agree.

The Facts First, the obvious. Add a little beard and a couple of horns -- David Hasselhoff looks like the Devil, doesn't he? And the letters in his name can be rearranged to spell fad of devil's hash.

What does this mean? Well, Baywatch is David's fad. David is the devil. The Hash is what makes Knight Rider popular in Amsterdam.

(I was actually hoping to make the letters in his name spell out he is of the devil, which would be possible if his middle name was "Ethesis," which it might be. I'm sure his publicist would hide such a middle name if it were true.)

Second -- and most importantly -- David Hasselhoff and his television series were foretold in the Bible. Biblical scholars worldwide may quibble over interpretations, but they all agree on this. For a few telling examples let's skip to the end of the Bible. If any book of the Bible will tell us who the AntiChrist is, it's the Revelation of Saint John, which basically describes the AntiChrist and the Armageddon He causes. I'll just give you the verse, and the current theological interpretation of that verse.

Who is the Beast?
Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns The Beast, of course, is David Hasselhoff. The Heads are His separate television incarnations. Young and the Restless, Revenge of the Cheerleaders, Knight Rider, Terror at London Bridge, Ring of the Musketeers, Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. The ten horns represent His musical releases: Crazy For You, David, David Hasselhoff, Do You Love Me?, Du, Everybody Sunshine, I Believe, Looking For Freedom, Night Lover and Night Rockers. Not only does Mitch The Lifeguard literally "rise out of the sea" on Baywatch, but David's musical career has mostly occurred in Europe, a metaphoric rise to fame from across the sea. Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Of course, this is a reference to his third head: Knight of the Phoenix, the first episode of Knight Rider. In this episode, "Michael Long, a policeman, is shot and left for dead. The shot is deflected by a plate in his head, but ruins his face. He is saved and his face reconstructed. He is reluctant, but agrees to use K.I.T.T. to help the Foundation for Law and Government fight criminals who are 'beyond the reach of the law'. " Knight Rider has been shown in 82 countries. Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. The following blasphemies are actual quotes from David Hasselhoff -- I read these while he was 42 years old.
"I'm good-looking, and I make a lot of money."

"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me."

"I'm six foot four, an all-American guy, and handsome and talented as well!"

"Before long, I'll have my own channel -- I'll be like Barney."

"(Baywatch) is responsible for a lot of world peace." which the Hoff said at the Bollywood Oscars. Don't believe me? Read the original article!

And here's a blasphemy that came from David's recent (Feb 2004) visit to the Berlin Wall museum. I couldn't have made something this great up by myself. He was upset that the museum didn't spend more time devoted to his personal role in the fall of Communism. You can read more about it here, if you don't believe me.

The Second Beast: Television
Rev 13:11-13And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

The Second Beast, with it's dual antennae, is obviously the Television -- merely a pawn in Hasselhoff's underworldly regime. His stereo speaker (the dragon's voice) spews forth the blasphemy of Baywatch until He has caused all people of the earth to worship and watch Baywatch and Baywatch Nights. How well has he done? Baywatch is now seen by about one billion viewers in 140 countries -- the most watched series ever.

You probably never knew this, but the entire historical purpose of television has been to attract a worldwide audience for the eventual syndication of Baywatch. And how does it accomplish this global distribution? Via satellite - from heaven to the Earth.

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. How does television work? By giving life unto Hasselhoff's image. I'm pretty sure the second part hasn't happened yet.

Lifeguards: Denizens of the Underworld

These biblical revelations will show that the lifeguards on Baywatch are foretold as servants of the Devil. (Need I say who that is again?)
Rev 20:11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them

Rev 20:13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them...
Doesn't this sound like an exact description of what the lifeguards on Baywatch do? They sit on their big white wooden throne, and watch out over the sea -- waiting for a dying person to get cast up. Rev 9:6 And in those days shall men seek to find death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

One word: CPR
Rev 10:2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, Sounds like a lifeguard, eh? Standing on the beach reading a paperback?

Rev 17:3-5 ...and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

and if that wasn't enough, try Ezekiel 23:17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

The fabled "Whore of Babylon." Well, people have been calling Hollywood "Babylon" since long before I was making web pages. And of all the women in Hollywood, whose wedding night video is the most popular? Hmmm.... Did someone say "Barb Wire?"
Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more Do you know any merchants who invested heavily in the acting career of this "whore of Babylon?" I've seen that "VIP" show of hers, and I'd be weeping if I had spent money on the merchandising rights.
Rev. 18:21 ... a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea,...

Speaking of lifeguards chucking rocks at innocent people, listen to this excerpt from a recent lawsuit against his Hasselness: "while Plaintiff was in the audience of the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Defendandt DAVID HASSELHOFF came on stage and threw a stack of cards depicting himself into the audience, striking Plaintiff in the eye. . . [he] should have known that throwing cards into an audience could cause injury to the audience."
Rev 18:14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. He stands to lose money in this lawsuit -- or maybe even all those dainty and goodly things he bought.

The Number of the Beast
The Bible shows us another way to prove a person is the AntiChrist, namely through numerology. Rev 13:18 says: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

That's a bit cryptic, to be sure. One score is twenty, so threescore is 60, the number of the beast is 666.

Now, the way biblical scholars and numerologists usually convert the names of men into their numbers is through a simple numerical code. Let's assign the 26 letters of the alphabet the numbers 1 through 26. It looks like this:

a 1 i 9 q 17 y 25

b 2 j 10 r 18 z 26

c 3 k 11 s 19

d 4 l 12 t 20

e 5 m 13 u 21

f 6 n 14 v 22

g 7 o 15 w 23

h 8 p 16 x 24

Now, we take the letters from Mr. Hasselhoff's name, assign numbers to them, and calculate his number.

D A V I D H A S S E L H O F F

4 1 22 9 4 8 1 19 19 5 12 8 15 6 6

Now, since thirteen is such a fitting number for evil, let's multiply the first 13 numbers together. The total (65,874,124,800) is approximately 6.6 billion. Tack on the remaining 6's from the end of his name, and you've got yourself the mark of the beast.

Another tactic you could use would be to add the letters in "David" (I think you should get 40) and the letters in Hasselhoff (99) and then multiply them together. 40 x 99 = 3960. Now, 3960 is 660 x 6. And of course, 660 plus 6 is -- again -- the mark of the beast.

Not enough proof for you? Well, let's see what else the winning combination of the Bible and numerology have in store for David.....

As he explains it in his interview, David Hasselhoff first decided to act at the age of 7 when he saw a local production of Rumplestiltskin. His acting debut was in Peter Pan. Knight Rider ended its run in 1986, when Hasselhoff was 32. Baywatch debuted in 1989, when Hasselhoff was 35. His first televised role was as Snapper Foster on the Young and the Restless at the age of 19. If we look at the 37th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible (Psalms) -- at verses 32 and 35, we notice an interesting phenomenon. Take a look:

32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

Viewers of Baywatch may have thought they were watching the good leader Mitch Buchannon -- whose main job as head lifeguard is to watch over the righteous babes at the beach, and save them. According to the Bible, he is really trying to slay them. But can we be sure that the show in question is actually Baywatch? Well, count the number of letters in Rumplestiltskin and Peter Pan. 15 and 8, right? Now look at those bible verses again. Find the 15th word of verse 35 - and the 8th word from the end of verse 32. Put them together. 35. I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. 32. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.

Great news for the U.S. (5, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662751)

As the Canadian dollar appreciates relative to the U.S. dollar, counterfeiters will make the transition from U.S. to Canadian money and Americans will save $30 billion per year. Not to mention that it's good for the Earth when counterfeiters find ways to cut down on their use of paper.

Re:Great news for the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20667515)

Idiot...at least 'paper' is biodegradeable...

It's your plastic credit/debit cards that are the REAL problem.

I'll stick with cash when I can, thank you very much.

Re:Great news for the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20668853)

Idiot...at least 'paper' is biodegradeable... It's your plastic credit/debit cards that are the REAL problem.

Because we all know deforestation [google.com] isn't a problem... In their defense, credit cards sequester carbon and prevent its emergence from tailpipes.

Obviously (4, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662783)

Canada's national police force, has been claiming that counterfeiting costs Canadians $30 billion per year.

Umm no it doesn't cost Canadians anything, they're getting all that counterfeit stuff for free, that's kinda the whole point of piracy. It might be more accurate to say that $30 billion per year worth of wealth is more evenly distributed in Canada, thanks to counterfeiting. (I'm only being partially sarcastic)

Re:Obviously (1, Insightful)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663363)

You're assuming that each pirated copy would never have been a sale. Consider, though, that much of piracy (both in terms of counterfeit branded goods and software) involves unwitting consumers (the man who gets suckered into a Rolex deal that's too good to be true, for example). These are a lot grayer, and it could very well be that the consumer who bought the counterfeit goods would have bought the legit item if given the opportunity and the knowledge.

So yes, while I agree that piracy numbers are severely inflated but benefiting parties, it is not a victimless crime. There is a substantial dollar loss tied to it.

Re:Obviously (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663537)

Consider, though, that much of piracy (both in terms of counterfeit branded goods and software) involves unwitting consumers (the man who gets suckered into a Rolex deal that's too good to be true, for example).
Ummm... I'm going to have to disagree with you there, at least about the Rolex.

People in the market for a 10~100 dollar (fake) Rolex are not the same people who are in the market for a 5,000~10,000 dollar Rolex.

Re:Obviously (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#20665237)

People in the market for a 10~100 dollar (fake) Rolex are not the same people who are in the market for a 5,000~10,000 dollar Rolex

Bingo. I think only you, in this entire discussion so far, even read the FP, much less TFA.

Counterfeiting != Piracy, people.

The RIAA has a pretty good argument (even if they use massively inflated numbers) when they say that the average person who pirated popular-song-X might have bought it instead. That doesn't scale up to tens of thousands of songs, but as a one-off, they have a valid point.

When the IACC [iacc.org] tries to make the same argument, it falls completely flat. These jokers make the RIAA look reasonable by comparison. The average person simply will not ever buy a $1500 handbag or a $5000 watch. This organization doesn't protect the average Joe (they even admit the counterfeit goods usually have comparable quality to the real thing, making them harder to spot); They don't protect the manufacturers (since counterfeiting results in no lost sales); They don't help anyone but the mega-rich.

They make sure Paris Hilton doesn't need to run home and change because her cellmate wore the same (if $10k cheaper) shoes to the press conference.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20669215)

If someone was competing against Rolex with a similar watch, this wouldn't be an issue and you are right that it is only the Paris Hiltons of the world that would pay. But, when someone sells a watch that they claim to be a Rolex, it does cause harm to the brand name. If you were in the market for a Rolex, how long are you going to consider whether or not it is real? Will you potentially back out of the purchase because "you just don't know"?

Now... apply that to less costly products... what if someone was making fake Craftsman wrenches and they didn't hold up as well. Would Craftsman wrenches get the image that they weren't very good? Would you continue to buy them?

I'd have to agree that Counterfeiting != Piracy, but it does still hurt the companies.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20664475)

Umm no it doesn't cost Canadians anything, they're getting all that counterfeit stuff for free, that's kinda the whole point of piracy.

That isn't exactly right. Although organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are directing a campaign to define each and every file exchange as "piracy", the real meaning of "piracy" is the purchase of a work whose commercialization wasn't authorized by the owner of the rights to that particular work. Piracy is buying a counterfeit DVD from a street vendor. It isn't downloading a movie. But hey, the origin and usage of the term "piracy" was always to connect a loaded expression (blood-thirsty plunderers of the seas) with the innocent actions of someone who merely copies a CD and sells it.

Re:Obviously (1)

butlerdi (705651) | more than 7 years ago | (#20664743)

Also could be seen as keeping 30Bn in Canada as opposed to US and all of the offshore accounts held by record companies.

in mother russi (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20662875)

misleading data mines you!

There will never be accurate data on any of this. (3, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662939)

It's just too plain complicated process to come up with a simple number and claim "that's it", even for a team of neutral experts.
And that's the ideal case (people are never neutral, especially on a topic such as this).

The reason they need this number most is they want the government to put a law that artificially "restores the balance" by splitting the loss on blank media and players, taxing those.

The flaws of this approach are visible from a mile away, even if you had the perfect data in your hands.

So bottom line: we can't obtain proper data, but we shouldn't need it in the first place.

Re:There will never be accurate data on any of thi (1)

Antony.Muss (1152597) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663571)

So people who give numbers on this topic should really give a range or a distribution or something, and be explicit about their assumptions.

I wouldn't frame this as a "debate", exactly ... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20662993)

Canada has been the home to a growing debate ...

From dictionary.com:

Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

There's plenty of opposing viewpoints, but really there's no "discussion" here ... the individuals and organizations in favor of these shenanigans have no interest whatsoever in debating anything with anyone. They simply want their way, and they'll do pretty much whatever it takes to get it. Nobody else's perspective but their own is of any consequence to them.

A couple of more appropriate words might be "rubberstamp", or perhaps "steamroller". But not debate.

Re:I wouldn't frame this as a "debate", exactly .. (1)

jagdish (981925) | more than 7 years ago | (#20671123)

From Monty Python: [mindspring.com]

Argument: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, an intellectual process.


There's plenty of opposing viewpoints, but really there's no "discussion" here
Which brings us to the next word of the day.


Contradicting: Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Piracy is not the problem (3, Funny)

teh moges (875080) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663029)

I would wager that moves like "Evan Almighty" cost the industry more then piracy.

Re:Piracy is not the problem (5, Insightful)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663369)

I would wager that moves like "Evan Almighty" cost the industry more then piracy.

I know you were joking, but I thought that its worth pointing out, there is no longer such a thing as a bomb in Hollywood. Between the globalization of the film market(by which I mean that Hollywood is now king almost everywhere), DVD sales, PPV, broadcast rights, and merchandizing it is virtually impossible for a Hollywood film to lose money anymore. "Evan Almighty" made back $100 mil of its $175 mil budget just in domestic box office, and given that Hollywood films now generally make more money abroad than at home, its sure to show a profit before its done with theatres.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413099/business [imdb.com]

Re:Piracy is not the problem (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#20665353)

I hear people say that X movie was bad, despite it raking in tens of millions of dollars in the first weekend... If it was REALLY that bad, they wouldn't have made that much money. In fact, I really enjoyed Even Almighty. I think it's a better movie than most movies 50 years ago. It may not be as good as the best movies, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be entertaining.

I think we've been jaded by so many truly good movies that we've lost sight of what a 'bad' movie really is. I've a friend who regularly finds movies on IMBD that get like 2 and 3 stars, and he watches them... And reports that they were indeed as bad as people said. Those movies are so bad that they couldn't get investors to advertise them. And yet, the few I've watched are comparable to most of the ones in the 50s... Horrible acting, bad sound effects, bad or no visual effects, and totally transparent plot.

In other words, to find movies as bad as a typical 50s movie, you have to look hard these days. The industry has come a long way.

Chilly, eh? (1)

cez (539085) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663065)

TFA:



Similarly, this year the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which counts most industrialized countries as members, issued a comprehensive report on counterfeiting that placed the global cost at $200 billion annually. That analysis, which makes suggestions that Canadian counterfeiting costs $30 billion each year even more implausible, was less than a third of what some business groups had previously claimed.


In fact, the OECD report concluded that while counterfeiting was an issue in all economies, it is most common in economies "where informal, open-air markets predominate." This suggests that far from being a hot-bed of counterfeiting, Canada is rarely the source of counterfeit products and it consumes far less than many other countries worldwide.


hah... totally agree, not too many "open-air markets" in Canada...


but in all seriousness, someone better stop the Ice Road Truckers [wikipedia.org] for inspection! Who knows how many DVDs and CDs they could fit in those bad boys? I'm sure some **AA lawyerobbyist knows. We need him on the line stat to make up some new estimates based on this open source information I just provided ...

$900 per person? (4, Interesting)

Myria (562655) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663071)

So, does anyone really believe that piracy costs Canadians about $900 per person per year?

Re:$900 per person? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663349)

Sounds like a job for Geico.

Re:$900 per person? (1)

oldgeezer1954 (706420) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663903)

Have you checked out the price for a decent eye patch or skull and bones flag recently? I've been trying to get their manufacture outsourced foe years.

Re:$900 per person? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20664095)

Well, those are Canadian dollars. *looks at exchange rate* Oh, wait.

It's invlated and here's why (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20665715)

I know I probably personally pirate $900 a year worth of stuff.

But if I didn't have that opportunity, would I have spent that $900 on the same material? No. What would I have spent on it? $0.

This is because movies I really like I always buy the DVD copy of anyway to add to my collection. Movies that suck, well, I download because I have nothing else to do when I am bored. If the ability to pirate this stuff was taken away I would just find something else to do with my time (and would probably lose interest in movies altogether and therefore stop buying even the DVDs I do buy!)

Hollywood really needs to take a strong look at what they are trying to accomplish because I am just one of many people who fit in this boat... There are way more ways to entertain yourself than there were 30 years ago. Television, movies, and the RIAA, who used to have a monopoly on home entertainment, now have to compete with video games and the internet, which itself is all of those mediums combined plus more. If they keep alianating their audiences, they will just leave.

Re:$900 per person? (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 7 years ago | (#20666107)

So, does anyone really believe that piracy costs Canadians about $900 per person per year?

I do, in fact it is much more. Just that it is the total load government taxes that the pirates take from us. This is typical Canadian government misdirection. This sounds more like a ploy to make for an ever bigger government to fix a problem blown far out of proportion.

Think, 2 of 3 days each of us has to buy a CD for life, maybe full of DRM/trojans too.

And... (-1, Troll)

teh tw (1055686) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663075)

I bet they used Wikipedia for their facts

Re:And... (3, Informative)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663273)

If you read the article, they goggled and found some material that some guy made up. Subsequently they found a power point presentation by another guy where a single bullet point on a slide sort-of correlated with what the other guy made up. Two guys can't be wrong, eh?

Sadly, I am not making this up.

]{

Re:And... (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 7 years ago | (#20666087)

Is Slashdot hiring? These guys sound perfect!!

Rick, I'm schocked, schocked... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663087)

So a law enforcement agency overstated the threat/street value? I'm schocked, simply schocked...

Open source on Internet != untrustworthy (3, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663115)

It just means "consider the source." If Alan Greenspan edited a financial article on Wikipedia and authenticated himself on his user page, I'd take his edit as more authoritative than if 132.147.63.12 made the same edit.

On the other hand, if anyone including the folks at 132.147.63.12 made an edit and quoted Greenspan, the quote checked out, and the edit itself was written well, I would consider it just as authoritative.

You should ALWAYS consider the sources - and the original sources if it's not one - when using other people's data.

Re:Open source on Internet != untrustworthy (1)

Wingnut64 (446382) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663361)

Leave it to Darl edit Wikipedia anonymously.

RCMP... (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663293)

If you have to look it up like i did, I'll save you the trouble: Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mean, they are still riding horses, did you really expect an elaborate financial analysis on the impact of piracy from them? Jeez...

Re:RCMP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20663379)

Are you actually from Long Island, Ecuador? How can you not know what RCMP stands for? And the riding horses thing? Har har. Let's not get into the "whose law enforcement is more stupid" "debate", you ignant foo.

Re:RCMP... (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663553)

I know of at least one Canadian that has no sense of humour... :)

Nope, I did not know RCMP, and I did not grow up in LI (did Grad School there though) or even the US...

Re:RCMP... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663633)

They mostly ride cars and helicopters these days, much like the US Cavalry.

The horses do come in handy occasionally though.

Re:RCMP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20663961)

Yes yes, and what of the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen? Yet again their dedication, their selfless sacrifice....all for not. Completely unmentioned.

Meanwhile, in other news ... (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663301)

... the RCMP announces the breakup of a massive counterfeiting operation based in Shivering Moose, Alberta.

Shivering moose? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#20668351)

You know, I'm Canadian (though not Albertan) and I still had to double-check that such a town didn't exist. We do get some weirdly named ones up here :-)

Reminds me of an old joke.

Two Americans - a man and his wife - become lost while driving around in Canada during their holidays. After wandering aimlessly for awhile, the man finally takes the advice of his wife and stop to ask for directions. They pull into a small gas station, and the man asks the burly attendant therein if he could tell them exactly what city they're in.
The gas attendant looks up, and replies "Saskatoon, Saskatewan"
The man turns back to his wife and says, "Sorry honey, I guess we'll have to keep going until we find somebody who speaks english"

Who did the estimate for Google...? (1)

PSaltyDS (467134) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663309)

Who did the estimates of the billions lost by Google?
Wasn't the RCMP, was it? [slashdot.org]

:-)

Well that is nothing... (2)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663311)

Last year I lost 500000 Billion dollars to people stealing my "stuff"...By my own internal research of course...

In short, there is an old saying for this... You didnt loose what you never had... :-)

Re:Well that is nothing... (2, Insightful)

warrigal (780670) | more than 7 years ago | (#20665055)

This being slashdot everybody thinks in terms of warez or music. How would you feel about being treated by a counterfeit doctor (it's happened in OZ recently) with counterfeit drugs? Dollar costs are hard to calculate in these circumstances.

Re:Well that is nothing... (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 7 years ago | (#20669213)

Counterfeit doctors, drugs have been around since the beginning of times. The success of the current medical industry dictates that they put processes in place to manage this type of issue, and they do this quite effectively...

What I dont hear the medical industry saying, however, is what Google is trying to say... And that is them trying to calcuate the business that these fraudulent vendors are taking away from them. Meaning, if they never made the money, then it does not belong to them in the first place.. Who knows that the person would have done in another case, but it is not worth calculating??

I wish (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663371)

I wish it worked the other way too.

Australian government initiative to spend $84 million to develop a content filter.

Counterfeiting is more than cd's (3, Insightful)

m0nkyman (7101) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663483)

There is a growing problem with counterfeits outside of IP crap. There are the brand name knock-offs of stuff like designer goods, but there is more and more counterfeiting of things like tires and automobile parts. That genuine GM part might be a sub-par knock off out of a chinese factory.

It's cool to pretend stuff like this doesn't matter, but it does.

Re:Counterfeiting is more than cd's (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#20663509)

What I've found really annoying lately is that bag, watch and clothes makers have started calling "look alike" products "counterfeits" even though they don't have the same logos or pretend to be originals.

And yeah, who couldn't see that coming.

0.02% by value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20664571)

As the article points out, the actual figures when the US examined containers to determine counterfeit goods, was 0.02% of the goods by value.

"It's cool to pretend stuff like this doesn't matter, but it does."

It matters 0.02% of trade, so it hardly matters at all.

Internet Big Brother (1)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 7 years ago | (#20666933)

Come on, if it's on the internet then it MUST be true!

In other news... (1)

ZuluZero (1159015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20668791)

...counterfeiting saves Canadians $30 billion per year
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?