Highly Flawed 'Piracy' Report Used To Support Positions That Are Unrelated
from the just-saying... dept
Last year, we pointed out that Steven Tepp, who worked at the US Copyright Office at the time, and was heavily involved in pushing for ACTA (and downplaying the legitimate concerns of ACTA critics), jumped ship to the private US Chamber of Commerce, which has been one of the stronger supporters of such bad laws. The Chamber of Commerce, which is basically a lobbying organization for some of the world's biggest businesses, has a history of making up absolutely ridiculous claims about intellectual property, so it's really not a surprise that it would hire Tepp, who did the same thing from within the government.However, when Tepp speaks out in support of greater protectionism, especially based on a complete lack of evidence, shouldn't the press point out that he was heavily involved in the crafting of some of the legislation he's now supporting from the "outside"? For example, Hillicon Valley has an article about a silly new study from MarkMonitor, which notes the unsurprising fact that, gosh darnit, there are a lot of sites out there that offer infringing products. Big shock. But the article then quotes Tepp saying:
"Online counterfeiting and piracy is a destructive force that threatens consumers, hurts our businesses, and costs American jobs."That's a sort of go to line that we hear all the time. Funny thing is, no one supports it with any actual evidence. It's purely faith-based. What's the neat trick that Tepp pulls is he says this in commenting on a report that sounds like it's presenting evidence to back up his claims. It is not. The report says that there are lots of sites out there offering pirated or counterfeit content. That's different than proving that those sites are "destructive" or harm consumers or businesses. In fact, over and over again, when you have independent research that looks at those actual questions, you discover that the actual impact of such activities is significantly less than industry lobbyists would have you believe.
So rather than just letting someone like Tepp, who is inherently biased, comment on a report that does not make the claims he says it makes, why not speak to folks who might question some of the claims from the report... or at least note that Tepp is hardly an impartial observer here, but someone who is paid to pretend that the impact of copyright and trademark infringement is significantly worse than any of the evidence actually suggests?
As for the actual report that Tepp was commenting on, it doesn't actually say what Tepp says it says. You can read the details of the report (pdf) here. It's almost laughably weak in its methodology. Nowhere does it support any of Tepp's claims -- and you would think that a journalist wouldn't quote a biased commenter making claims that have nothing to do with the report in question. Specifically, the MarkMonitor report simply looked at some sites that are used for infringement, then assumed that they were used entirely for infringing purposes, and then used Alexa ratings (perhaps the least credible measuring system out there) and simply added up all visits, and seemed to suggest that this was all for infringement. When it came to pharmaceuticals, the researchers did not appear to make much of an attempt to determine which offerings were really gray market importers of generic drugs, as opposed to counterfeits. Instead, it just made some assumptions based on the sites themselves.
So basically, all the report actually shows is that, according to Alexa (again, not considered to be even remotely accurate), some sites that may have some infringing downloads or may sell some unauthorized products get a lot of traffic. Like that's a surprise. And yet, that leads to a quote from a biased ex-government official, now paid to hype up the "threat" of infringement, as if this study proves we need the new laws he was a part of writing? How is that responsible journalism?
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: piracy, steven tepp, studies
Companies: mark monitor, us chamber of commerce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ummmm...
It's not but the media, for the most part it seems, feels no need to be responsible anymore. It seems they are more worried about making their advertisers happy and being seen as a source of entertainment rather than factual reporting. Not every media outlet and not all the time but definitely a great deal of them for a great deal of the time.
Just my opinion of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Origin of the article?
Cheers,
Drizzt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ummmm...
Journalism, like so many fields that become institutionalized, has (to a degree) lost sight of its actual purpose and started focusing more on it's tenets and accepted practices. Journalism students are taught a lot about how to snag an interview and churn out an article, but very little about how to actually dig for the truth - sure they get some inspirational speeches and maybe watch a few scenes from All the President's Men, but they never get into the nitty gritty of truly questioning the facts. Most journalists nowadays seem to think that as long as someone has a degree or a title that relates to the field they are talking about, then you can take what they say at face value.
It's the same as what causes the "view from nowhere" problem - journalism students are taught about the importance of "balance" and getting "both sides of the story" - and they are taught to keep their opinion out of it. Which is good. But they rarely seem to learn that there is a limit to objective tolerance: it is still their job to determine what is valid and what is ridiculous. It's still their job to help us weigh the two sides against each other. It's still their job to question both sides if what they say doesn't hold up to scrutiny - but these are all the parts they don't learn. Instead they come out of school thinking "as soon as someone tells me X, I just need to find someone to give me a token quote on the opposing Y and then I'm done"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Introduction of faith-based evidence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/accuracy-nuance-first-two-casualties-in -latest-war-on-piracy-salvo.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
[ link to this | view in thread ]
About to get worse here in Canada:
"CRTC Proposes to Change Standard for Broadcasting False or Misleading News"
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5570/125/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All I can say is I don't see the other side of the debate showing empirical studies that prove any benefit of piracy, except for people getting stuff way cheaper or for free.
I am not entirely clear on how you improve the economy by cutting the number of times money cycles through it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That being said, there actually is evidence in some industries that piracy and counterfeiting have measurable benefits
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If piracy does actually end up costing big media anything, I am absolutely certain that it's nothing compared to the amount of money they spend fighting it. If nothing else, I have faith in basic human incompetence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Somewhere along the line, that has to hurt.
With hundreds of millions of counterfeit goods being sold, you cannot easily say that it is doing any good, but it is clear that money that might have been spent on actual goods is being diverted, and satisfying the needs of the majority of buyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It only hurts if we know how many of those people would have bought the real bag if there were no fake options. We don't know that - but I see no reason to simply assume that more of them would have. That could be true, but I'd say there's a pretty reasonable logical argument for why less of them would have as well. Since we don't know, it's not at all fair to jump to the conclusion that it is harming anything.
but it is clear that money that might have been spent on actual goods is being diverted
Since counterfeit products typically cost way less than genuine ones, only a fraction of that money is diverted (and that's even granting the highly faulty assumption that most people who buy counterfeit goods would have bought the genuine ones otherwise - which frankly there is no evidence for and seems to defy common sense)
The rest of the money is still in their pocket to be spent on other things. Remember, we aren't talking about any one company or even any one industry, but the economy as a whole - and there really is no evidence to say piracy or counterfeiting has, in total, a negative economic impact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you are confused. The AC above was applying logic to the situation - I know, I know, at first it seems like a jumble of mysterious and indecipherable nonsense like "facts" and "deductions" that only a savage would understand, but with some effort you will find that it's quite a coherent language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Introduction of faith-based evidence
Only in the court of public opinion.
In legal proceedings, however, they are not legal forms of evidence, and cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.
However, for the "pseudo-science" nutjobs who believe in faith-based science, you are absolutely correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK, assuming your numbers are correct, do you understand WHY this is happening?
"With hundreds of millions of counterfeit goods being sold, you cannot easily say that it is doing any good"
I think you misunderstand what "piracy" truly is (ignoring corporate hype)
"clear that money that might have been spent on actual goods is being diverted, and satisfying the needs of the majority of buyers"
Isnt that what any legitimate company is supposed to do? Satisfy the needs of the customer = BAD???
"Piracy"/blackmarket are NOT forces that work against the market, let alone destroy it. They are actually an integral part of the market (ie the competition). If you build a business based on the premise of gouge the customer so that you can have a million dollar compensation package, you are going to have problems. Paying off a government to have your competition declared illegal (and assign it a "bad name") wont help you either. When 54% of the costumers are more satisfied with the "cheap knock-offs" it shows how you dont understand the market and dont know how to run a business.
"Somewhere along the line, that has to hurt"
Yes it does, in your million dollar compensation package. "Satisfying the needs of the majority of buyers" is how you build a business AND how you stay in business. A company who spends their money fighting the competition on "trumped up legalities" instead of innovating and satisfying the customers is pouring their money down a rabbit hole. They should instead fire the "million dollar compensation package" (along with the lawyers) and find a way to compete.
"Piracy" is not the problem... It is the result of the problem!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Introduction of faith-based evidence
Extra points for using a reference from an episode that was actually about copyright infringement!
--
Judge Snyder: Mr. Hutz! Do you have any evidence at all?
Lionel Hutz: Well, your honor, we've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Lets draw a graphic of "artists" income from the 80's to 2010 and make a comparison then.
Sure we can get data from the treasury about all those people who said in their income taxes "profession: Musician, Actor, etc."
The government actually have the data to see if what is being claimed is true or not they just don't want to see it right now for some reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Knock off companies come along, duplicate the appearance of the product, hijack the logos and brands, and attempt to pass themselves off as "the same". They didn't have to develop anything, except the ability to replicate the work of others.
That isn't competition. Competition would be someone making a product that is similar in nature (say a hand bag) and establishing that their product is of value. They wouldn't play off of someone else's name or someone else's brand to do it.
You are so completely confused, it is shocking you can walk without help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If 54% of the customers dont feel your price is FAIR for the "VALUE" then you lose sales. In this case 54% of those sales.
"establishes that their brand has value, that their goods are quality, etc, and charge a premium price for the goods based on the value proposition they put forward."
Value to who?? Not to the majority (54%) of the buying public. If people wont buy the product, from you, then it has no value for you, period. It doesnt matter how many times you say it or how many laws you get passed. the majority dont want it from you.
"Piracy" is not the problem. The problem is this twisted sense of corporate entitlements that jackasses like you have. "Piracy is the result of this problem. It is the competition that drives down the, as you put it, "premium price". Failure to realize this will result in your "premium" spot in the unemployment line when your company goes belly up. As for the people who actually designed or created the product, they will go work for the competition ("pirates") for fair market compensation.
And i walk just fine thank you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evidence?
Of course they do. You just don't want to hear the evidence and you want to pretend that it is-- what's your favorite word?-- "debunked". Have you ever pirated the movie "Princess Bride"? Do you remember when Fezzik says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You should pinch it again and check it out.
Consider this quote: "For the sixth straight year, home entertainment revenue has slid..."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/home-entertainment-sales-drop-sixth-69131
The re's plenty of evidence that piracy is a real problem. Just look around. You often cite it yourself. Every time one of your beloved torrent trackers goes down, you dance a jig when it appears somewhere else. I submit to you that 99% of the folks using that torrent tracker aren't using it to download Linux distros. So don't lie to yourself. You're providing the evidence yourself when you romanticize the way the cockroaches scatter under another counter when the light is shined under one.
What is sad is the way that you complain about Hollywood lobbying Congress but you see nothing wrong with Google's astroturfing groups doing the exact same thing.
If legislation influences you, would you like to have some input on its wording? Of course you would. So why are you so aggrieved when Hollywood does the same thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidence?
I have no idea but I can assure you my buying habits changed, no longer I fund those companies and artists and that is the end of it for me.
Have a nice day Sir.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now lets see, the USA was a bootlegger, heck it gained an advantage in production not only because of WWII but because they didn't respect any IP at all, this is also true for the Japanese and now the Chinese.
Also giant companies where all against IP laws, Microsoft didn't like those because they ripped everybody off, Apple did the same thing, Ford did it everybody did it, but now somehow that is not the case anymore, the only thing that changed is that people are working harder than them and they feel the need somehow that to retain power they must stop others from doing something.
IP law is paralyzing evolution and innovation and it is creating a bubble that when it bursts will wipe out everyone that believed in that crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every competition is unfair, somebody always loose at the end of it, but the strongest survive, change that and you create an eco-system of companies that can't compete with anyone and will loose every battle they engage in.
Ask the automakers how that turned out for them, the Japanese trashed them, now the Chinese, go complain to them that they are making 5th generation jet fighters, or the Russians that teamed up with Indians to produce their own 5th generation jet fighter. I want to see you go complain and see what the response will be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention the Nazi Horton 229, that was taken from Germany after the war, not to mention all the English research that was given to America and now people keep inventing this rules about what is competition or is not.
That is not only ridiculous is dangerous for the prosperity of any country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Evidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the public wants the product, great, they can pay the price as asked. If the price isn't fair, they are free to develop their own alternative, providing it isn't done on the back of the original maker.
You are confusing competition with ripping people off. If they want something better, they can design their own and make it. Ripping off someone else's design, name, logo, and attempting to pass yourself as them isn't competition.
It's pretty simple.
I assume you have nurses or something to help you walk, you fail the basic tests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you cant run with the big dogs stay on the porch
Get a life you loser
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's pretty simple, even for a loser like you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Hint: that cap limit in the law will get reached pretty easily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to play your game for an instant if your read your post and mine you are saying exactly what i am telling you but you refuse to admit to yourself that what I said is actually correct. People will find another way. "Piracy" might be an issue, but its not the problem. It is a result of corporate (and personal) arrogance and delusional self worth (the actual problem). Thats why you think "piracy" is the problem. But Ill tell you what. As you are on your way to cry the blues to a bankruptcy court judge, I will wave politely as the competition (the "pirates") are laughing all the way to the bank. Its no big deal. Some people, like yourself, just have to learn the hard way. Good luck and see you when all your crying is over. Dont forget to tell the judge that the reason you failed was because of PIRATES ARR.
OH and by the way, I hope you only make those walking comment on peoples blogs. If not, you may want to review the Americans with Disabilities Act to see how it is enforced and what your penalties will be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidence?
Typical, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Evidence?
Total income was up slights. Actual ticket sales were down significantly, only offset by higher prices for 3D films. The number of "released" film (those that got screen time in a commercial theater) remains high, making the average income per film some it's lowest in decades. The theatrical lifespan of a movie is down, thus it's earning potential somewhat limited.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/
2009 to 2010 saw near 10% drop in ticket sales, with about a 2% drop in revenue. Ticket sales are off 22% from the peak in 2005, which is about the time that online movie piracy got active, with users having enough bandwidth to do it.
So, exactly where do you see them having their best years?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence?
In the past.
Back when there was a movie theater to go to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Evidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence?
As is done with Hollywood Accounting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm struggling to make sense of that sentence a bit, but I'll respond to what I think you're saying. You're obviously not merely talking about the facts of law, as you appeal to emotion. In that case then why are people who feel differently to you any less justified in their position that copying is OK?
"If the public wants the product, great, they can pay the price as asked. If the price isn't fair, they are free to develop their own alternative, providing it isn't done on the back of the original maker."
This seems like the 'sweat of the brow' argument. Basically, you appear to be suggesting that merely because time and effort were expended then anything resulting from that time and effort should be a protected source of income. In that case then I have to ask why the same argument is not applied to other industries? If a lawyer makes an argument then should they not be entitled to some sort of royalty every time that argument is used? When someone makes a parody then why are they excused by 'fair use' clauses?
"You are confusing competition with ripping people off. If they want something better, they can design their own and make it. Ripping off someone else's design, name, logo, and attempting to pass yourself as them isn't competition."
Yes, it is. Illegal competition is still competition, you appear to be exhibiting denialism. I find the argument about logos especially funny, because logos tend to be little more than status symbols. If someone is willing to pay less for a product that looks the same, but isn't genuine, then I can see no reason why they shouldn't have the choice. If it's hurting someone's bottom line then maybe they should invest more in their products and less in aggressive marketing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidence?
Why are you implying that Mike pirates movies? I freely admit that I willfully infringe copyright, but I would wonder why you accuse Mike of doing so when he has denied it repeatedly.
Evidence is no longer evidence if it has been debunked. I'm not sure what you think the word means, but if Mike believes that the claimed evidence is not based on facts, in other words: not evident, then he isn't going to call it evidence. You plainly disagree, I get that, I don't get why you would take issue with his use of the word evidence.
'Consider this quote: "For the sixth straight year, home entertainment revenue has slid..."'
Is an increase in the number of deaths evidence of an increase in the murder rate? On its own, no. What exactly do you want us to consider about that quote?
"The re's plenty of evidence that piracy is a real problem. Just look around. You often cite it yourself. Every time one of your beloved torrent trackers goes down, you dance a jig when it appears somewhere else. I submit to you that 99% of the folks using that torrent tracker aren't using it to download Linux distros. So don't lie to yourself. You're providing the evidence yourself when you romanticize the way the cockroaches scatter under another counter when the light is shined under one."
That would be evidence that 'piracy' exists, not that it is a real problem.
"What is sad is the way that you complain about Hollywood lobbying Congress but you see nothing wrong with Google's astroturfing groups doing the exact same thing. "
What do you base this assumption on? Has Mike said 'I support Google's blah blah blah'?
"If legislation influences you, would you like to have some input on its wording? Of course you would. So why are you so aggrieved when Hollywood does the same thing?"
Because they tend to lie and (as you've admitted) spend a lot of money lobbying the lawmakers. If they just wrote strongly worded letters like the rest of the voters are capable of then I don't think anyone would be quite so bothered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]