For Every Entertainment Industry Job 'Lost' To Infringement, Could 12 Jobs Be Created Elsewhere?

from the fun-with-stats dept

Tue, Mar 1st 2011 8:33am — Mike Masnick

For years we've debunked various entertainment industry studies claiming ridiculous job and economic "losses" from copyright infringement. These studies tend to have all sorts of problems; ignoring the ability to adapt and to introduce new business models, using "ripple effects" in just one direction to double, triple and quadruple count the same "losses" over and over again, and counting every download as a "lost sale." The ripple effects one is especially pernicious because the industry likes to pretend that the impacts of infringement only go in one direction. They ignore that the money not spent on such content doesn't disappear from the economy but can be used elsewhere -- perhaps in areas that provide greater economic growth.

A few years ago, the folks at CCIA smartly took the copyright industry's exact methodology and showed that for all the claims of how much copyright contributed to the economy, exceptions to copyright contributed even more. While the copyright maximalists totally missed the point and attacked the methodology -- not realizing that, in doing so, they had undermined their own methodology -- the point was made. If you believe the claims from the copyright industry, then you also have to believe that the exceptions are more important. The methodology is the same, so either neither are right or both are right.

It looks like Rick Falkvinge, of The Pirate Party, has now done something similar on the "job loss" side of things, and concluded that, using similar methodology to the industry reports, for every job "lost" by copyright infringement, the positive ripple effects in the other direction mean that 11.8 new jobs are created. So if we accept the claim that 1.2 million jobs can be lost due to infringement, it would mean that a separate 14.2 million jobs were created elsewhere.

The report broke down the "creative industry," by noting that (contrary to copyright maximalist claims), most of that industry doesn't actually rely on copyright to make money. In fact, certain "creative" industries could be seen as "copyright-inhibited." For example, advertising. As we constantly hear from copyright maximalists, various sites are making big bucks by using advertising in association with file sharing. So based on the industry's own argument, it seems that the advertising market is clearly copyright-inhibited, and it would grow if there was greater infringement. After going through the numbers, it was determined that the majority of GDP, by quite a bit, are likely in the "copyright-inhibited" arena.

Now, you can certainly argue with the methodology here. I don't think anyone actually believes these numbers are accurate. But it's using the same basic methodology, assumptions and thought processes behind the studies in the other direction. You can also, obviously, claim that Falkvinge is biased. He is. But is he more biased than the entertainment industry legacy players who do the other studies? It seems clear that the industries are likely to be more biased, since they have billions of dollars bet on keeping the old structures in place. I think both studies are probably far from accurate in all sorts of ways, but if you're going to cite the entertainment industry's claims based on this kind of methodology, it seems you should also have to accept these claims. Not doing so suggests serious cognitive dissonance or someone who is paid not to believe the truth.

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: jobs, piracy

100 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 8:45am

Meh.
(I hate playing devil's advocate on this because I agree with the article.)

Everybody knows that (Study Results) == (Whatever the person paying would like them to be).

Rational argument is obviously a waste of time with the MAFIAA. Anything which disagrees with their world view will be demonized and debunked. If gravity was proven to only work in favor of "infringers" then we'd see commercials tomorrow about how there's no such thing as gravity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Meh.
  The whole article is classic Masnick effect, 2 + 2 = 5, etc.
  
  Masnick hates studies that show his precious piracy is hurtful, so he tries to claim they've all been debunked (they haven't) or since they were commissioned by the industry, their data is all wrong (it isn't).
  
  In this instance, he puts up a ludicrous pro-piracy study and tries to equate it with real studies, thus hoping to harm them by association.
  
  What's hilarious is that he's deluded himself into thinking his con actually works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Meh.
    The symmetry is what I find most hilarious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Meh.
    Masnick hates studies that show his precious piracy is hurtful, so he tries to claim they've all been debunked (they haven't) or since they were commissioned by the industry, their data is all wrong (it isn't).
    
    I'm not sure why you always lie. It's really quite troubling.
    
    I have looked quite closely at the industry studies, and I'm willing to take credible studies seriously. To date, however, the industry ones are not at all credible, and yes, they have been repeatedly debunked by those who are much more credible.
    
    In this instance, he puts up a ludicrous pro-piracy study and tries to equate it with real studies, thus hoping to harm them by association.
    
    I did no such thing. Perhaps, next time, you should try reading what I actually said. Of course, you've been misrepresenting my comments for years on this site, so I doubt you will change any time soon. What's really sad is that if you actually bothered to pay attention to anything I had to say, maybe the band you work with who you keep complaining is failing because of YOUR own advice to them wouldn't be in so much trouble.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Meh.
      Just so you know, I'm making sure everyone at SXSW knows you don't believe piracy to be hurtful or cost jobs.
      
      I think it's important attendees be well informed about what the core beliefs are of the speakers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.
        You really despise the music industry, don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.
        "Just so you know, I'm making sure everyone at SXSW knows you don't believe piracy to be hurtful or cost jobs."
        
        If your comments here are any indication then I would wonder how you would first convince anyone to stop telling you to go away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.
        Just so you know, I'm making sure everyone at SXSW knows you don't believe piracy to be hurtful or cost jobs.
        
        Um. Ok. Why should I care what you say about me?
        
        And be aware that if you lie about my positions publicly, that is a form of defamation. You may want to be careful what you say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.
        And you may want to kiss my ass.
        
        Your words speak for themselves.
        
        Although the thought of you in court trying to tell a judge you aren't a hater of copyright and a piracy apologist is tantalizing...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.
        Your words are meaningless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:00am

Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
We've essentially taken most of our culture and tied it up to the point where only the owner of the work (who is probably not the creator) can make use of it, and in doing so we're holding back our culture. We know culture builds upon its past and its present, but more and more we see nothing but verticals. Sequel after sequel and anyone who tries to mix together various sources gets sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
  If I may ask, are you a culture "creator" or a culture "user"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
    That's a false dichotomy.
    
    Watching a video on youtube is a "user" activity, but what's commenting? Liking/disliking? Sending the link to friends? Sharing on facebook? Blogging about the video?
    
    Certain activities can be considered "creation" or "usage" but many activities blur those boundaries. We are almost all both creators and users, and in many derivative works, dong both "full bore". A big part of why the legacy companies are failing is their failure to understand this. They are stuck in a broadcast/distribution mindset, where they produce and everyone else consumes. The reality is so much more. Their failure to adapt and innovate drives the market to route around them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
      We all consume and we all create. Thanks to the internet. How many people are writing now as opposed to 30 years ago? Is it great writing? Maybe, maybe not but a boatload are still doing it. And that goes for drawing, videoing, photographing, etc.
      
      Everybody's doing it. All consumers, all creators.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
    If I may ask, are you a culture "creator" or a culture "user"?
    
    If you're asking that question, you don't understand how culture works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
      He understands perfectly how culture works. You just don't like the question.
      
      I don't think anyone actually believes these numbers are accurate.
      
      Yet you wrote an article championing it.
      
      You do realize that at this point people are just laughing at you, right Masnick?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
        Surely you've heard the phrase "beat them at their own game"? This principle (and clever applications thereof) is used extensively in quite a few industries and disciplines - the sciences and theoretical mathematics come readily to mind. It is generally not found humorous in the slightest (with the exception of the Squeeze Theorem).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
        Oops, missed a quote: Squeeze Theorem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
        Yet you wrote an article championing it.
        
        Wow TAM can't even read... that answers a few questions
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
        To be fair, it's all they have left, really.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 3:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works
        That was exactly the point of the article to show how ridiculous either of those numbers(i.e. from the industry and from Mr. Falkvinge are.
        
        The same way copytards laugh at those numbers freetards are laughing at the industry numbers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:03am

I understand what you're saying here...but isn't the methodology a tad wrong? Obviously piracy doesn't create jobs, we all know that. It costs jobs. I mean, it's in the actual study by the non-biased researchers.

Funny little story though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  Obviously piracy doesn't create jobs, we all know that. It costs jobs.
  
  Ummm...actually I don't "know" that at all.
  
  And furthermore, I suspect that you are actually wrong on that if you consider ALL of the economy, not just one single industry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Every single person that has taken and enjoyed music they were supposed to pay for but didn't, who denies that their piracy hasn't destroyed recorded music sales is a liar and a slimeball.
    
    A scumbag for being part of these job losses:
    
    http://blog.artistforce.com/2009/01/26/layoffs-now-at-the-world%E2%80%99s-largest-label/
    
    http://paidcontent.org/article/419-warner-music-layoffs-tied-to-digital-restructuring-creates-new -programm/
    
    http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/01/15/emi-restructuring-plan-includes-2,000-layoffs
    
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article745701.ece
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Every single person that has taken and enjoyed music they were supposed to pay for but didn't, who denies that their piracy hasn't destroyed recorded music sales is a liar and a slimeball.
      
      Oh really? I like how your opinion is now factual.
      
      As for your links, have you looked at how much money Edgar Bronfman made the last few years? Perhaps they wouldn't have to lay off so many people if he didn't bleed the company dry for personal gain, while failing to embrace new business models.
      
      You seem to keep missing this point. Yes, the labels are struggling, but it's because (like you) their management refuses to adapt.
      
      Refusing to adapt is your problem. I have offered to help, and your response has been to lie about me and insult me. Incredible. You deserve to fail.
      
      The only ones "responsible" for job losses are the management at the labels who are too clueless to adapt. And, yes, folks like yourself who GLEEFULLY admit that you're too clueless to adapt and you'd prefer to fail, as long as you can blame it on folks who actually understand the market.
      
      You're an incredible piece of work. No wonder you're such a failure in life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike Masnick: Piracy apologist.
        
        "The labels shouldn't ask the law to be enforced, they should just shut up and try something else." It's like telling a rape victim to shut up, adapt and enjoy it.
        
        You are undeniably the biggest douchebag I have ever encountered on the web.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because rape and copyright infringement are the same thing!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are undeniably the biggest douchebag I have ever encountered on the web.
        
        Yes, for helping content creators make more money. That's so douchey.
        
        Do you spit in the face of everyone who tries to help you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  LOL. You got my vote for 'funny'
  
  Please, point out those "non-biased" researchers, and before you put a link in there, follow the money--see where their research funding came from.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why should anyone have to prove their "non-bias" to someone as blatantly biased as you fools?
    
    You're all willfully blind, and enjoy demonstrating it here every day. Do you actually think no one notices?
    
    Debunk this:
    
    http://www.ipcouncil.ca/uploads/The%20True%20Price%20of%20Peer%20to%20Peer%20File%20Sharing .pdf
    
    And helpful hint for the slow kids: Saying something is an industry study isn't "debunking". Post facts to the contrary.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I just got a virus warning for a trojan. That's pretty funny.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Having a look through it, it makes a basic assumption that is the crux of the argument: it assumes that all p2p downloading is illegal. It's not.
      
      ...That was too easy. I smell a trap.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why should anyone have to prove their "non-bias" to someone as blatantly biased as you fools?
      
      Because, these studies are being used to push for laws that seriously conflict with our core democratic beliefs. You know things like privacy, due process and innocent until proven guilty. It's extremely important that studies used in this manner are completely unbiased and not funded by those with vested interests.
      
      As, for your link, it's study from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a vested interest wouldn't you say?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If your "core democratic beliefs" include infringing on the rights of others, by ripping off artists...
        
        well fuck you pal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        in the constitution: due process, freedom of speech
        not in the constitution: guaranteed wages for artists
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even long dead artists?
        
        "No one cares about that!"
        
        Lawyers do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As, for your link, it's study from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a vested interest wouldn't you say?
        
        Not only that, but it was ONLY commissioned in response to a very credible academic, peer-reviewed study funded by the Canadian gov't that showed that P2P did not have a negative impact on music sales.
        
        The industry study is neither credible, nor peer-reviewed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  Is it sad that I can't tell sarcasm from actual IP shills anymore?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Is it sad that I can't tell sarcasm from actual IP shills anymore?
    
    I know. I was assuming that's sarcastic, but I'm not totally convinced. Assuming it's sarcasm/satire, great job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I thought maybe it was sarcastic also, but the last line seemed awful condescending.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It was meant to be sarcastic. We still need a good sarcasm tag.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think I'm the only one who can't tell if you're being serious or satirical/sarcastic. Can you clarify?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jobs Lost To Infringement is a LIE, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:05am

Jobs being lost to infringement is the biggest lie. They just want you to think that. If you think of how many new revenue sources the music industry has at their disposal right now including advertisements on their content at places like Vevo/YouTube you'd realize that the labels are doing just fine so long as they have popular artists who generate a lot of interest.

They cut jobs because they are greedy, because technology makes many positions obsolete, and because it costs way less to make and distribute music these days. Piracy is just a way for them to point the finger and focus away from the fact its no where near as bad as they say it is. Whoa is me is working for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  Yup, no jobs lost. Have you considered applying for a job at your local music store? Oh wait, they have pretty much all disappeared since the Napster revolution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean the iTunes and Amazon revolution?
    
    But yeah, keep blaming it on piracy...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's streaming services! I blame streaming services!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Have you considered applying for a job as a stagecoach driver? Oh wait, they have pretty much all disappeared since the automobile revolution.
    
    Damn those cars, costing so many jobs...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I love debunking this stale canard...
      
      Music hasn't gone away or been replaced. It's still for sale.
      
      All that needs to be said about you guys' position is shown by the fact you can't even come up with a valid analogy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - teka (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just like "Transportation" has not gone away or been replaced. It is still for sale (/rent, /borrow, etc)
        
        You are mixing up Stagecoach Drivers (people working in the plastic disc sales business) and the Transportation Industry (Everything else in the music and creative industry).
        
        The former goes away due to changes in the latter.
        
        In other words..
        
        People no longer using stage coaches =/= people are no longer mobile.
        
        Just like..
        
        People are buying less plastic discs =/= people are no longer buying/selling and consuming music.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The stagecoach wasn't replaced by illegal activity.
        
        Nothing you say or do will make your analogy valid or less retarded. But keep trying. LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just so you know, I often take positions that counter the Techdirt conventional wisdom on here.
        
        I also share your frustration with a lot what I see as unquestioning swallowing/repeating of the party line from many Techdirt commenters.
        
        However, based on your comments on this thread, you come off as just as bad as the worst of kool-aid-drinking Techdirt comments, but with the opposite viewpoint.
        
        So, while you smugly guffaw at how *stooopid* all those Techdirt people are, just know that people who may be inclined to agree with you about some things think the same of you.
        
        (In the interest of goodwill, I'll note that my opinion is based on a limited sample size of your comments)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand that the use of the word 'retarded' is considered offensive to some.
        
        I'll refrain from using it here again.
        
        The rest... not so much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wasn't referring to that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well sorry buddy, I can't help you.
        
        If you don't like what I read, ignore it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, so even people who support stronger IP enforcement but don't accept tortured logic to get there just aren't extreme enough for ya, eh buddy? I always thought you were Pro-IP and a little bit crazy - turns out you are Pro-IP and Anti-Sanity
        
        (you should really consider listening to yellow snowflake)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I actually enjoy engaging in public criticism of many things that I disagree with, rather than just ignoring them.
        
        That's mostly how I spend my time on Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The stagecoach wasn't replaced by illegal activity.
        
        You do realize, at the time that the automobile was introduced, the existing transportation industry *did* cause the automobile to become effectively illegal in certain areas.
        
        When the only reason something is "illegal" is because someone doesn't want to adapt to the market, that's a problem.
        
        And, yes, that's why the situation is very much the same. Just because an industry got something declared illegal, it does not change that they are abusing the law to protect a business model rather than adapt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the existing transportation industry *did* cause the automobile to become effectively illegal in certain areas.
        
        ahahahahahahahahahaha
        
        As in people's physical safety concerns? Really? You're going to try that? wow. just wow.
        
        When the only reason something is "illegal" is because someone doesn't want to adapt to the market, that's a problem.
        
        The business model has nothing to do with anything. The reason it's illegal, is because copyright law has existed in this country since it's inception.
        
        The fact that some music mp3s could be traded with impunity wasn't going to change those laws.
        
        When are you going to wake up and understand that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rick Falkvinge, 1 Mar 2011 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ahahahahahahahahahaha
        
        Dear Mr. Anonymous,
        
        please look up the "Red Flag Act". Parent poster is correct -- stagecoach and railroad industries lobbied to neuter the threat of the automobile to their industries, and succeeded in doing so.
        
        Cheers,
        Rick
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I did. They were safety regulations. They're not germane to what we're discussing.
        
        See? That's the best you guys can do. You've got nothing.
        
        And you prove it every time you use invalid analogies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 1:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I did. They were safety regulations. They're not germane to what we're discussing.
        
        Ha! They were "safety regulations" in the same way that copyright laws are "about property rights." Neither is true. Both were laws to protect a legacy industry and a legacy business model. That you can't even realize that they're the same thing, once again, highlights your inability to comprehend what we adults are talking about.
        
        See? That's the best you guys can do. You've got nothing.
        
        We have the facts on our side. To date, you have been living off of lies and insults. Try to present SOME evidence that supports your position.
        
        Any evidence. Really. We'll wait.
        
        And you prove it every time you use invalid analogies.
        
        Your inability to comprehend basic facts does not make the analogy invalid. It just demonstrates your cognitive abilities to the world.
        
        Do go on, and show us more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're losing your mind, Masnick.
        
        Whatever laws that were there were not to protect "legacy business models". LOL Did you even read up on this?
        
        Copyright is never going to go away. Why do you delude yourself into thinking it has a chance to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whatever laws that were there were not to protect "legacy business models". LOL Did you even read up on this?
        
        Extremely familiar with the history of red flag laws, and yes, they absolutely were to protect legacy business models. Your ignorance of history is noted. We'll add it to the list of things you are ignorant about: business, economics, law and history.
        
        What do you know about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Music hasn't gone away or been replaced. It's still for sale."
        
        I think that's actually his point (i.e., to counter the "no record store" jobs, he points to new forms of music sales).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Transportation hasn't gone away or been replaced. It's still for sale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yet another reason the analogy is retarded.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You spelled freetarded wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, he spelled "I'm just making this shit up as I go along" wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And as usual Marcus, you've contributed lots of verbiage but zero effective counter-points to the debate.
        
        Your latest thing is to just include the words 'due process' in your post and expect them to magically cure your indefensible position. Sharp work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ummm I didn't say anything about due process. Do you just have all these threads open in tabs and aren't even paying attention which one you are feeding your mindless comments into?
        
        And: HAHAHAHAHA! Give you real counterpoints? You reject every single real argument, and every single shred of evidence, in some of the most impressively childish ways I have ever seen.
        
        As demonstrated in this very thread, even the people who are on your side of this debate think you are foolish and disingenuous. Why would I waste intelligent conversation on a grand joke like yourself?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous, 2 Mar 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no argument for breaking the law and ripping off artists, you ridiculous and silly fool. None.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, but there are lots of great arguments for updating the law and helping more artists make more money than they ever have before. I won't bore you with them though since I know you won't listen. Have fun failing!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:09am

For every 1 entertainment industry job lost due to piracy, 12 datacenter tech jobs are created. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:16am

What I've always hated
All the anti-piracy ads keep trying to tell me that they're going to fire the low-salary people in the industry. Why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut instead of firing the people he needs to make movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: What I've always hated
  Why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut instead of firing the people he needs to make movies?
  
  what are you some kind of communist?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re: What I've always hated
    Why doesn't the actor take a pay cut too?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I've always hated
      Keanu Reeves
      I may think hes a bad actor, but I respect him more than just about any other.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jfgilbert (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 9:32am

It is not the number of jobs that counts
It is the number of lobbyists and the number of people who contribute to campaign funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:04am

Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label. Of course, "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" is sort of a false dichotomy to begin with (an industry might be "copyright enhanced" without being completely "copyright dependent" for example).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  How is it a false dichotomy? it's the same damn argument the IFPI et al use every single goddamned year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, I think I explained one way in which it presents a false dichotomy: an industry could be neither overall inhibited nor overall dependent on copyright.
    
    That some group (the IFPI) uses a false dichotomy does not make the dichotomy gospel or valid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Uhh, yes, that's kind of the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well, the poster above seemed to have trouble grasping my point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So it's a false dichotomy when other people use your arguments against you. Good to know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What gives you the impression I am affiliated with IFPI? I never made the argument; I called out the fallacy of the argument.
        
        It's a false dichotomy no matter who uses the argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And that's the whole point of the article: don't use a flawed methodology.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Glad to see we're on the same page now, I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label
  
  That's the point: both studies are ridiculous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I guess. The only chart I looked at was the Pirate Party one. I didn't click through to other sources.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  "Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label."
  
  Absolutely right.
  
  This article was ridiculous and as even Mike points out, the methodology is utterly flawed and the results ludicrous.
  
  It may be that the methodology used by publishers is also flawed but it doesn't actually matter if it is or not.
  
  We know for a fact that piracy costs jobs and money and hampers creativity without doing any research at all.
  
  We only use studies to try to give the general public an "understanding" of how much harm piracy does and also so that, politicians have something to say when presenting the legislation that the publishers write.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2011 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    To the extent he is accurately describing the "pro-IP" studies, the article highlights the deficiencies in both camps' arguments.
    
    Of course, I take such descriptions with a grain of salt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 2:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How in the Nine Circles of Hell does piracy actually inhibit creativity? It enhances it (sometimes in 'illegal' ways - see deCSS and the MOD chip for examples). IT gives people something to work against (DRM) and it encourages experimentation and evolution of our collective consciousness.
    
    And there is always a bias of some sort. I have yet to see a single piece of research that is not biased, even subconsciously. And I read a ton of journals for fun.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We know for a fact that piracy costs jobs and money and hampers creativity without doing any research at all.
    
    Considering research has suggested the exact opposite, just how do we "know for a fact" that claim?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mr. Anonymous Coward finds your lack of faith disturbing, Mike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm pretty sure - and boy do I hope - that you got suckered on sarcasm with this one. Read that last line:
      
      and also so that, politicians have something to say when presenting the legislation that the publishers write.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm pretty sure - and boy do I hope - that you got suckered on sarcasm with this one. Read that last line:"
        
        The hilarious thing is that the satire tends to make more sense than the subjects of the satire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Mar 2011 @ 3:10pm
  
  Re:
  Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label. Of course, "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" is sort of a false dichotomy to begin with (an industry might be "copyright enhanced" without being completely "copyright dependent" for example).
  
  Exactly the point. The original studies lump any industry that touches copyright in as saying that it's entirely *due to copyright*. My favorite was one such study (I forget which but I'm sure it can be dug up) that counted furniture and jewelry as part of "the copyright industries."
  
  The whole point of this post was certainly not to claim that Falkvinge's analysis is right. I don't think it is. But to question how anyone can believe the other side's claims when using the same methodology (in fact, Falkvinge appears to go deeper than their methodology) to make their own claims.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Chtistensen, 1 Mar 2011 @ 11:55am

a fix for our economic struggles?,,, Stricter copyright laws, and harsher punishments for those who 'infringe' upon the 'studio marketing labels'. With privatized 'reform' institutions being the #2 economic 'producer' in the US of A, Entertainment, ie; paid entertainers and the studios that own them, is #1,,, and we wonder why we are in heavy debt to the REAL producers of GOODS in the world....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barry Shrum, 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:12pm

Rebuttal
Falkvinge's conclusion are based on nothing but made up statistics. Read my rebuttal here: http://wp.me/p1l3Qo-pl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re: Rebuttal
  Falkvinge's conclusion are based on nothing but made up statistics. Read my rebuttal here:
  
  Am I missing something or is your rebuttal just the headline of a post where you say "he's wrong!"
  
  Separately, did you not read my post in your rush to promote your response? Everyone knows that his numbers are made up. *That* is the point. But his numbers are based on the same methodology as the claims that piracy "costs" jobs. Your claim that "everyone knows" this is true is false. Many people do not know that because the evidence suggests it is not true.
  
  But, you know, why bother with facts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]