Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
from the there-goes-another-one dept
Over the years, we've found that every single industry "figure" or "study" on the harm done by unauthorized file sharing wasn't supported by anything factual once you started to dig into the details. So, when we saw yet another report claiming huge "costs" associated with file sharing in the UK we dismissed it pretty quickly noting it made many of the same mistakes as previous studies had. Apparently, it's even worse than that. Ben Goldacre, known for his excellent Bad Science blog has now taken the time to pick through the details of that awfully bad UK report, and found it laughable.The big numbers being quoted, such as the £10 billion in losses? Not from any actual study. It's from an IP lawyer's press release, with nothing backing it up, other than "Rights owners have estimated" and that number includes both counterfeiting and "piracy" which are related, but different.
The other big figure quoted in the media? £120 billion worth of downloaded materials per year? Yeah, turns out that's based on (a) using a ridiculously high price of £25 per downloaded item and (b) totally and completely made up. You see, the number was already questionable, but the actual number in the report was not £120 billion, but £12 billion. Yet, the group blasting the report out to the press put the wrong numbers (just an order of magnitude off) in the press release, and only quietly changed it after one reporter caught the error. Goldacre asked the group what it was doing to alert the many, many reporters who went with the bogus number, and the group suddenly told him the interview was off the record.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bad science, ben goldacre, file sharing, harm, studies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
GNP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GNP
My god I didn't know they were doing that much damage!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't it be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Science
Ben Goldacre ended his blog with:
"Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is false, until proven otherwise."
The above seems like just as extreme a statement as the ones he is combating (correctly). Why does he have to shoot himself in the foot after a reasonably well written article prior to that?
As an example in his blog he cites the study
"... include all creative industries whose products can be copied digitally, or counterfeited, reach £10 billion (IP Rights, 2004), conservatively, as our figure is from 2004, and a loss of 4,000 jobs.”
If you look at all creative industries (I assume movies, music, photos, etc) then a job loss number of 4000 jobs in 2004 seems very reasonable. I know these jobs losses can be considered normal economic (i.e. buggy whip makers) displacement but still can people here deny that there haven't been signifigant job losses in these sectors?
I just want to make sure one Bad Science isn't replaced with another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> "Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is false, until proven otherwise."
> The above seems like just as extreme a statement as the ones he is combating (correctly). Why does he have to shoot himself in the foot after a reasonably well written article prior to that?
Extreme? Its his opinion. To characterize it as "science" (i.e.; "I just want to make sure one Bad Science isn't replaced with another."
How in the world is this bad science? Its opinion. No science involved. As for the numbers you quote; its difficult to see how any statistics would lend themselves to prove or disprove an opinion. Start attacking the man's facts, but don't use numbers to support or deny an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deal with it. "Downloading" and using commercial software without a license is stealing services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, what you're saying is that even if they didn't lie about how big the problem is, the problem would still be big. Well...if this is the case, why do they have to lie about how big the problem is?
Deal with it. "Downloading" and using commercial software without a license is stealing services.
Actually, it's not stealing. You've apparently made an incorrect assumption on TD's stance on the topic, but calling it by the right name isn't saying that it's ethical or legal. It's about calling it the right thing. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is is not bigger of a lie than saying that widespread downloading / file sharing / infringement / copyright violation / (some say theft of services) isn't causing any hard either.
it's a match between two groups lying through their teeth. It's too bad that only one side is getting spanked on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then it's a good thing that Techdirt has never made this statement. You might want to look up "strawman argument".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there are so many repetitions of this, then it won't be so hard to find an example, right? I can't think of any single instance where Mike or any Techdirt contributors has stated that copyright infringement hasn't caused any harm to anyone. (The new automobile industry caused "harm" to the buggy whip industry; it doesn't mean this was immoral or illegal.)
What TD has stated is that in spite of the moral or legal arguments against copyright infringement, if you're interested in making money, there are better ways to do so than to preoccupy yourself with who "stole" what and change your business model to account for the new environment. Would you rather be right and left behind in the new marketplace or "wrong" and make money?
The old "strawman" claim is a standard way of asking someone not to state everything in one place at one time.
While you have used the technique, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the strawman argument. Again, I suggest you look it up. Here's a hint: contradicting a statement that was never made in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Licensing media or content?
So now that I've made digital recordings of the content I have clearly bought - er, LICENSED - I'm never going to buy another copy of Abbey Road - have they considered their lost revenue is because none of us will EVER need to buy additional copies of music already bought? Hm, I wonder if all of started going back with defective MEDIA and asked to have the license transferred to a different copy of the media, would they have to give in? Any lawyers in the audience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Licensing media or content?
They want to both SELL you a product, (that just happens to have some particular data/information/music/film etc. on it), and therefore be able to stop you from making unauthorised copies of it, while at the SAME TIME, licensing the particular information on the disk, in order to control how you use it.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't seem to see that the two are NOT THE SAME THING, and are, in fact, conflicting with each other - (which the DCMA in the US reinforces).
The problem, is that they should not be allowed to DO both - they should just pick one, license or sell, and stick with it. The reason for this, is that they are both covered by different laws and regulations, which, as I said, conflict - (at least here in the UK).
But since they have the politicians in their back pocket atm, they're being allowed to get away with it. (While most people just work round it completely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a match between two groups lying through their teeth. It's too bad that only one side is getting spanked on techdirt."
No one I have seen representing techdirt has said that downloading isn't causing any harm. The point being made again and again is that nothing can really stop it, and that therefore people in the content industries should try to find a way to adapt to these circumstances.
I mean, does saying 'drugs are wrong' over and over again make people stop doing them? No. So why do so many people spend so much time and money doing just that?
It's the same situation with widespread infringement. Until the content industries achieve big-brother like powers (which, lets face it, they just don't have the money for) they will never be able to stop it. In any case, trying to stop it is like trying to get pee out of swimming pool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's a clue. If you have a problem with the logic presented in a Techdirt post, oh...I don't know, maybe you could actualy state what your problem is rather than making indirect attacks that sound pointed, but that are actually nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigger problems
The real cost has to do with incentives to produce. If, because of piracy, some useful content does not get produced, then a loss might happen. But they don't even try to start calculating this. So there's a bigger flaw in these industry reports than just overestimating some numbers. The whole logic of claiming losses to _society_ directly from illegal copying is wrong, whatever ratio of would-have-bought-otherwise is assumed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File-sharing, FACT and FAST
This states that ANY violation of the copyright act (copying, distributing, screening withour permisssion etc...) is punishable in the UK with an unlimited fine and a custodial sentence of 10 years.
So; for messing with a large industry's earning potential you may be punished more severely than for committing murder.
The same charming information is now displayed on DVD's too.
The whole file-sharing, copyright infringement issue is just a bully using legal threats to prevent people using the technology to their own ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]