Copyright Defenders Don't Realize That New 'Fair Use' Report Mocks Their Own Study

from the fair-use-this dept

Wed, Apr 28th 2010 8:18am — Mike Masnick

Last year, we had written about how the CCIA had taken the same methodology used by entertainment industry lobbyists to claim how "big" the "copyright industry" was and applied it to the "fair use" industry, to show that it was actually much bigger than the copyright industry. Both numbers are clearly bogus -- which is effectively the point that CCIA was making. The point that is clear, however, is that if you accept the methodology that claims that "copyright" brings $1.52 trillion into the economy, then weaker copyright/exceptions to copyright (such as fair use) bring in $2.2 trillion. Lots of folks have been submitting the news that the CCIA just recently updated the report to show that we're now talking about $4.7 trillion contributed by the "fair use industries." Again, this number is bogus -- but it's main point is to show just how silly the copyright lobbyist's argument that copyright contributes $1.52 trillion to the economy is, because it uses the same methodology -- a point recently confirmed by the GAO.

So I have to admit that it's absolutely hilarious to see Patrick Ross, the head of "The Copyright Alliance" (one of a bunch of lobbying/marketing groups representing the entertainment industry) lash out at this new report, making arguments that apply equally to the $1.52 trillion number he's famous for touting every chance he gets:

"It is not helpful to policymakers or the public to pronounce sweeping arguments that defy logic," said Alliance Executive Director Patrick Ross. "In its report, CCIA identifies broad industries, suggests some entities in those industries occasionally engage in what some might call fair use, and then lumps all revenues and jobs in those industries into a newly coined "fair use" industry..."

But, as we've noted, that's exactly the same methodology that was used by the copyright industry to defend the $1.52 trillion number. The methodology is a joke. It identifies broad industries (including things like furniture!), suggests some entities in those industries occasionally engage in what some might call copyright, and then lumps all revenues and jobs in those industries into a newly coined 'copyright' industry...

And guess who one of the biggest abusers of this bogus $1.52 trillion number is? You guessed it! It's Patrick Ross! He tosses the number around like it's going out of style and is regularly quoted in the press using that number as well.

Apparently, he's so wrapped up in this issue, he doesn't quite realize that the whole point of the CCIA report is to use the same methodology to show that if he and those who fund him are going to keep throwing around that $1.52 trillion number, they need to also note that the exceptions to copyright creates an industry that's even bigger. So I'm curious, Patrick, why is it "not helpful to policymakers" to use this number, when the number you throw out to policymakers all the time uses the same methodology?

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: copyright, fair use, studies

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

hank mitchell, 28 Apr 2010 @ 8:28am

it's the whole "opportunity cost" metric that is inherently flawed. someone could "prove" that I lost $500,000,000 by NOT going to medical school and then perfecting the cure for cancer. Instead I chose another career and "lost" money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zaven (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 8:39am

"why is it "not helpful to policymakers" to use this number, when the number you throw out to policymakers all the time uses the same methodology?"

Remember, laws only need apply if it's in the company's best interest. Apparently they believe the same applies to methodologies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dimwit, 28 Apr 2010 @ 8:45am

That guy Ross is a dimwit. I'm had the misfortune of speaking with him at a few events. That said, he's at least nicer than the rest of the *IAA types, who tend to be assholes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:04am

know the rules
I think you're underestimating Ross's intelligence, and overestimating that of the public. Ross is using bogus statistics because he can, because most of his audience will passively absorb the information and few will check the reasoning. It won't even occur to most readers that the numbers maybe completely groundless, and many popular news sources still don't have good feedback mechanisms to allow savvy readers to cry foul. (And the rules for the listening lawmakers are different; with politicians it's not what they believe, it's what they believe the voters will believe.)

Now the CCIA is using the same faulty methods to cook up pro-fair-use numbers, and Ross is crying foul, because he can, because the press reports on what he says. The CCIA report should have said plainly on every page that the methods were faulty and the results not meant to be taken seriously, only as an illustration of how meaningless the pro-copyright numbers are. Instead it's dry and serious, an easy target, something Ross can use to paint pro-fair-use folks as liars and cheats.

It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of ink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:05am

@1
to make even clearer
you go buy a hammer costing 20$ at canadian tire
the same hammer in a dollar store was 5$
you lost 15$ then cause you bought the more expensive hammer

OH and when you get you mind into this life style your going to start MAKING more money and having more STUFF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:14am

Re: @1
No, no you got that backwards. Someone buys the hammer at the dollar store for $5, and the hammer manufacturer claims a loss of $80 to the hammer industry. Canadian tire lost $20, the hammer manufacturer lost $15, the iron forgers lost $10, and the poor corn farmers lost $35 somehow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:14am

the stats are no more bogus than any of the other stats tossed around by both sides. i wish the masnick would come down as hard to bogus pro-piracy reports as he does on the anti-piracy ones. your hatchet needs another side there mikey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:15am

Re: know the rules
The CCIA report should have said plainly on every page that the methods were faulty and the results not meant to be taken seriously, only as an illustration of how meaningless the pro-copyright numbers are. Instead it's dry and serious, an easy target, something Ross can use to paint pro-fair-use folks as liars and cheats.

Unless people are quicker to discount the study immediately because it says upfront that it is farcical, without bothering to follow the implications of its satire as they apply to the copyright industry's number. At least if it's superficially serious, then the onus is on copyright supporters to explain why it's wrong by explicitly using logic that applies to their own study as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pitabred (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:17am

Because it doesn't fit his agenda
So I'm curious, Patrick, why is it "not helpful to policymakers" to use this number, when the number you throw out to policymakers all the time uses the same methodology?

I really hope that's a rhetorical question. Because the answer is that the facts don't match with his agenda, so he wants to discredit them wherever possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:17am

Re:
You must be one of those people that think Scary Movie is a horror movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 10:00am

Re:
It makes sense to me to focus on the Bogus numbers that are actually being used in policy making. The numbers no one is looking at are only important if they are right. The numbers people are depending on are also important if they are wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dorp, 28 Apr 2010 @ 10:00am

Re:
Hello Mr. Thompson, forgot to log in today?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 10:02am

Re: Re:
How dare you accuse TAM of thinking! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 10:29am

Re:
And I wish you would post using your identity, not use childish language, and not spout ideological nonsense, but who ever gets what they want?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 28 Apr 2010 @ 10:49am

Re: Because it doesn't fit his agenda
It's rhetorical, I'm pretty sure. ;)

At the same time, it is often necessary to point out the massively obvious flaws with many people's positions and arguments. Happily, Mike is civil enough to do so without resorting to name-calling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 11:07am

Re:
"i wish the masnick would come down as hard to bogus Anti-monopoly reports as he does on the pro-monopoly ones"

Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 11:20am

Similarily speaking- Patent Thickets
Rob Pegoraro over at the Washington Post makes an interesting parallel case that pertains to the a patent cross-licensing agreement:

[...]you, the customer, may see the resulting improvements in future smartphones:

* Nothing.

Well, you might pay a little more to cover the legal fees run up by everybody's intellectual-property lawyers. But that doesn't count as an "improvement" unless you're a patent attorney or you happen to sell goods or services to members of the patent bar...

Well said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:40pm

Re: know the rules
"I think you're underestimating Ross's intelligence, and overestimating that of the public. Ross is using bogus statistics because he can, because most of his audience will passively absorb the information and few will check the reasoning. It won't even occur to most readers that the numbers maybe completely groundless, and many popular news sources still don't have good feedback mechanisms to allow savvy readers to cry foul. (And the rules for the listening lawmakers are different; with politicians it's not what they believe, it's what they believe the voters will believe.)"

I was talking to our local Labour Party political candidate the other day and brought up the issue of fact checking statistics; suffice to say he was not interested. I got the impression that numbers just don't matter to these people in the same way that they do to those who understand them. It's got to the point where there needs to be strictly enforced regulations for governments using statistics. At least with ignorance about IT people tend to appreciate the fact they are ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vivaelamor (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:45pm

Re:
"i wish the masnick would come down as hard to bogus pro-piracy reports as he does on the anti-piracy ones. your hatchet needs another side there mikey."

I'm sure he has his hands full with all the anti-piracy statistics. I don't think he feels sorry enough for them to carry both sides of the argument by himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RadialSkid, 28 Apr 2010 @ 4:22pm

Geez Mike, how many times can you misuse the word "methodology" in one news post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 29 Apr 2010 @ 6:29am

Re: Re: @1
I think they use corn oil when forging steel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]