As if the proposed IPP Act of 2007 isn’t bizarre enough, we also have Microsoft sharpening the dull heads of their legal department to prepare for an attack on the open source community.  We also have another loss of sensitive employee data by an IBM “contractor”.   Yet another soldier has gone missing after a bomb attack in Iraq, and fears are rising that he is in the hands of Al Qaida, along with three others from a previous attack.

So, Spiderman 3 is said to have broken all previous opening day box office sales revenues at $59 million (US) and will likely (according to Sony) break the standing 3-day record of $135 million, set by Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man’s Chest. Revenue comparisons like this mean NOTHING to me. Sure, it means a lot to the film’s backers: producers, investors, partners, distributors, merchandisers, etc. But year-over-year, it means NOTHING. What matters is TICKET SALES VOLUME. How many TICKETS were sold. Given that ticket prices climb higher every year, how can anyone make meaningful claims like this when a movie five years prior might have sold more tickets? Does higher revenue mean more popular? Not necessarily. There is never any mention of adjustment rationale to address this either. NPV is not implied or stated. Average ticket prices are never quoted (bad PR for sure), so there’s no basis for comparing movie “A” in 2007 to movie “B” in 1999. So given that the stats are incomplete (or ill-justified) I can’t assign them any merit either.

It all smacks of spun statistics. My 4.0 GPA in “Advanced Statistics” from hazy college days, left me with one powerful lesson: Read the fine print. If there is no fine print, DON’T TRUST THE FIGURES. The fine print often gives away the entire game. For example: how many times have you seen this on the news…

A recent survey poll shows candidate William NoBalls leading challenger Sam LicksaLot by 52 to 48 percent.

But the fine print at the bottom says “margin of error: 5%“.

Guess what that means? It could be 48 to 52, 47 to 53, or even 50/50. Don’t see the problem? Read the boxed quote again, carefully, then read this paragraph again, carefully. Did you catch it?

Yes. It’s not technically “lying”, it’s simply “hiding the truth”. Legal? Yes. Ethical? Depends on whom you ask.

The closest report I’ve seen yet on comparative figures is at the web site The Numbers: All Time Box Office Record. At least they provide a table of inflation-adjusted earnings. Still, nobody breaks it down by ticket volume. That would be nice to know for a REAL comparison of popularity.

So let’s dissect a POSSIBLE SCENARIO here, with respect to Mr. Spiderman’s box office earnings record. If we were to assume that the average ticket price as of May 5, 2007 is $8.50 (a conservative estimate I’m sure), that would roughly equate to 6,941,176 tickets sold.

According to several official sources, Dead Man’s Chest ranks

If The Godfather grossed $302,393 on opening day (1972) and average ticket prices were around $1.50, that would roughly equate to 201,595 tickets sold.

I routinely engage (and enrage) my attorney older brother on a wide range of topics. Today’s enlightened verbage was focused on a comment posted on Scoble’s web site on whether Job’s remarks were somehow throwing stones at the RIAA while sitting comfortably on the Disney board. The obvious implication here being whether Job’s was implying that music should drop their defense shields, while he would allow movie’s to remain comfortable behind their IP shields.

Glass houses and all that. Ok.

The discussion with my brother turned into whether this was a fair transformation of the axiom from one industry to the other. He says “No! It’s not. Music and movies are entirely different”. I disagreed (respectfully, even if a bit loudly).

Let’s digress a bit, shall we?

Both industries produce a product which is (a) sold on fixed media under a shrink-wrapped EULA which imposes limited “fair use” restrictions, (b) provides for public performance or display, (c) incurs royalties and fees for certain residual or incidental use, and most importantly (d) pursues legal action to enforce the right to maintain their revenue streams relating to their products. They employ standing legal protection from DMCA, copyright, trademark, and sometimes patent rights.

Both are arguably “suffering” the effects (lost revenue and profits) as a result of piracy. Both are trying to defend their IP rights while struggling to maintain a fresh, happy face in the media. Neither is succeeding much.

He (my brother) states that they differ purely because of the capital investment required for each respective product. “A movie” he says “costs much, much more to produce and deliver than a music CD does.” That’s it. I scoffed. Impossible. No, not the difference in cost (I am aware of that), but the notion that we could split these darling identical twins apart at birth just because one has a few more dollars stuffed inside their diaper. *gasp!*
Then, out of nowhere, my bro pulls out the A-bomb of his argument: some named legal statute which provides a basis for assessing the punitive assignment in a guilty verdict based, at least in part, on the relative net “worth” of the victim, or the victim’s loss.

In plain English, this means (according to my brother) that it is in fact perfectly legal for the judge to adjust sentencing or punishment based upon the economic status of the victim. Ok, plainer English, even I had a tough time with that one: … It means the judge can punish you more severely if the person you robbed or killed was rich. I’m not talking about differentiating LARCENY from GRAND LARCENY. I’m talking about the PERSON. If the PERSON is worth more, the judge can punish you more??? Huh?!
So, if I take that at face value: The head juror would stand up and declare you guilty of “x”, and then the judge might pull up his book-of-punishments and say “well, now, that incurs a sentencing of 5 to 10 years without parole. However, due to the extreme richness of the victim, I will hereby sentence you to 20 years! Case closed!” (bang-bang). Oh, yeah, that was the gavel banging. Dramatic effect. Sorry.

If this is indeed true (he is scrambling to find me a URL to prove this), we do not live under the “All men are created equal…” vision of our fore-fathers. We now live in a communist/socialist/oligarchical state. Maybe I’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long and didn’t pay attention enough. When did we start splitting laws based solely on the economic status of victims? That’s it. I’m voting for Alfred E. Neuman next election.