Author Of Ridiculous 'Piracy' Report Defends Conclusions, Ignores Questions About Methodology
from the well-that's-convincing dept
We recently looked at the mysterious report coming out of Australia that suggested unauthorized file sharing was costing the economy $900 million per year. But after digging into the details, it became clear that this number was a complete fabrication, as it applied the same totally debunked methodology that was used in last year's TERA report in Europe.However, reader Ivan lets us know that the author of the Australian report, Emilio Ferrer is now defending the report and its results. Except, his defense seems to suggest he doesn't realize what everyone is complaining about. He focuses on the $900 million number, and notes that of course that's not the actual loss number, but says that it's okay, because he also offered other "ballpark" figures and the actual number must be somewhere in there:
"I've applied the methodology to countries that yield the highest and lowest level of impact," Ferrer said.But all of this ignores the main point: that the basic methodology he used for any of those calculations wasn't sound. People aren't complaining about the results. They're complaining about the methodology itself. And he doesn't seem to get that at all because he doesn't defend it at all.
"There are variables that are difficult to measure but whether you apply to the lowest country or the highest country the impact is between $500 million and $2 billion."
But Ferrer said such "technical" analysis was indicative only of a "ballpark" figure.
"When you apply business modeling and the average and end up concluding the impact was $900 million, of course the answer is not $900 million but we try to deal with that by looking at the range.
"The conclusion is there is a significant loss to economic activity and therefore jobs as a consequence of internet piracy."
I mean, look, I could use some bizarre fantasy methodology to claim that every time someone falsely claims that file sharing is theft, it means that a puppy gets kicked. And then, if people challenge me on that methodology, I could just say I didn't mean a puppy got kicked every time, but the methodology suggests that somewhere between 0.5 and 2 times it happens, a puppy gets kicked. But, of course, that's stupid. If the underlying methodology makes no sense, then the results make no sense. Just because they give you a range, doesn't make it any more justified that you used a bogus and debunked 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: australia, emilio ferrer, piracy, studies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
must.. resist... temptation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To kick a puppy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
97.5% of all piracy statistics...
Reference: 97.5% of all piracy statistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm..
Yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uhm..
[FTFA]:"The Australian report that was commissioned by content makers from music, software, publishing and copyright collection industries under the banner of the Australian Content Industry Group..."
I'll take Who Would Stand to Benefit the Most from These Results, Alex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The global recession is over. I've cracked the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is categorically impossible for piracy to remove value from the economy as it is a creation (duplication) of things.
A fire that burns down homes, the cave in of a mine, the explosion of an oil well. These things can remove value from an economy as they either destroy scarce resources or or force the application of scarce resources to get back to a previous state.
It's theoretically possible that piracy could completely wipe out the entertainment industry (although there is zero evidence that is happening), but that doesn't remove value from the economy. Resources that would have gone towards that industry didn't disappear they go elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Piracy in this case is a "lost opportunity" for revenue creation at the expense of the creator of content.
The problem is in many cases pirates simply have no opportunity to spend money on the content they want, at any price, so they seek pirate methods. The problem ultimately boils down to the industry should put forth 100% efforts to give customers what they want at the price they want it. Every second of delay is a lost sale/opportunity.
I stopped pirating games when I started simply using steam sales as my "opportunity cost." I basically said Steam games under $10 are worth it to me, because I get more than the game, I get the convenience of having steam on every computer I use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Although I think in order for that to work out it would have to be the case that more productive use of their time would have ensued.
On the flip side if you can say more productive use of that time would have ensued you might be able to argue the entire entertainment industry is a drain on the economy. :)
BTW I also love steam. It would say, in general, it's digital done right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that is an interesting line of thought.
On the flip side, though, if time wasted on pirated on materials is to be factored in, then time wasted on legitimate purchases that ended up being utter trash should be counted against the other side too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You have to compare it to the legitimate alternative, though. And often, though certainly not in all cases, pirating something is faster and more convenient. So it can actually end up saving time. And the money isn't a factor, since while you could have used it, yes, you still have it and will use it at some point. The fact that you didn't use it while pirating is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you eggheads always break out your logical reasoning and economics whenever someone says you can't steal things.
i got news for you poindexter: piracy is theft and theft is stealing.
the capital of nebraska is lincoln, ok? all the economic hibbety gibbety in the world isn't going to change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and aggregating news is piracy.
Somalian piracy, on the other hand, is nothing like any of these. Except aggregating news. It's still exactly like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
not recognizing sarcasm supports terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you don't like what we're doing with it: get hell off -- you won't be missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> the economy
This is brilliant. It is like the reverse of the Broken Window Fallacy (BWF).
Some idiots actually claimed that the destruction in Japan would help "stimulate" their economy. This is classic Broken Window Fallacy (where a kid breaks a window and everyone is mad until someone points out it creates work for the glazier and praise the kid). Of course, destruction may increase GDP but it never increases wealth.
But think of it in the reverse. If the kid could somehow duplicate the window, would that somehow "deprive" the economy? This is the claim that people who say piracy hurts the economy are saying. This is just the BWF in reverse. Sure, the glazier (or media companies) might be pissed off, but there is _no way_ it could make the whole economy worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting defense...
- We are losing $900m per year!
- What? The way you came up with that number is wrong.
- Well, I did not really mean $900m - the results of my study actually showed it was a range of $500m to $2b and by some really complex calculations, I have concluded that is best represented by $900m
- Oh?...Umm...yeah, I guess that makes it ok that you made all of these numbers up by taking numbers we know are incorrect and applying some made up multiplier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting defense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every time
...I'd pay good money to watch that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ballpart technical analysis
I cannot understand using the words "technical analysis" and "ballpark figure" in the same sentence. There is nothing technical in coming up with a ballpark figure - unless of course you are building ballparks.
Reminds me of an old saying: If you need statistics to prove anything, chances are it was not true to begin with.
PRK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]