As Usual, Media Outlets Mindlessly Parrot BSA Press Releases With Zero Scrutiny
from the par-for-the-course dept
When the BSA released its annual report on software piracy, Mike dubbed it "Bogus Stats Again", because as usual it employs plenty of ridiculous methodologies and unfounded assumptions to inflate the supposed economic loss. The BSA doesn't have to worry, though, because most members of the media just obediently parrot their highlighted "findings" without even bothering to read the report, let alone read it critically.
As reader Robert points out, this is certainly the situation in Canada, where multiple different sources of news are running the same Canadian Press wire story about the BSA report. The CP story is completely one-sided, and certainly makes the situation sound dire:
The value of computer software piracy in Canada totalled just more than $1.1 billion last year with 40 per cent of computer users admitting they acquired software illegally, according to a study released Tuesday.
The Business Software Alliance study found that nearly one in three copies of software was unlicensed in Canada in 2011.
"If 40 per cent of consumers admitted they shoplift -- even rarely --authorities would react by increasing police patrols and penalties," said Jacquie Famulak, head of the Business Software Alliance Canada committee.
"Software piracy demands a similar response: concerted public education and vigorous law enforcement," Famulak said in a news release.
That story is based solely on the BSA's press release (pdf), which draws partially from the global study and partially from the Canadian user survey (pdf). If a single reporter or editor had bothered to spend five minutes doing research, they might have realized that the real picture is much different. The news reports sloppily mash together the 40% figure with the "nearly one in three" (specifically 27%) figure. The former is the number of users who admitted to pirating software in a survey, and the latter is the estimated percentage of pirated software as a portion of total software installs. The methodology behind both figures is highly questionable, but even putting that aside, the BSA's own numbers tell another story when examined more closely. For example, the 40% figure is a summary of several different categories. Take a look at the full graph:
Only 14% of people said they pirated software any more than "rarely", and only 6% said more than "occasionally". To say that 40% of people admitted to piracy is not technically inaccurate—it's just highly misleading in tone and tenor. Then there's the 27% piracy rate for software. The press release, and the news reports that copy it, leave out a very important detail: 27% is an all-time low, and the result of a steeper decline than in any other country in the world. Michael Geist points this out, plus the fact that the BSA called Canada a "low-piracy" country in 2009, and rates have steadily declined since:
For the past few years, the BSA report has repeatedly found that piracy is declining in Canada. In 2009, Canada was characterized as a "low piracy country", in 2010 the industry noted that Canada's piracy rate was at an all-time low, and last year it dropped further to another all-time low.
The latest report says the Canadian piracy rate dropped further in 2011. In fact, over the past five years, the Canadian rate has dropped by 18% (from 33% to 27%), the sharpest decline in the world. No other country has seen its piracy rate drop as quickly.
Seems like that would have been worth mentioning in a story that gets distributed to news outlets across the country. But instead, we see the same pattern all over the world: Europe, the UK, South Africa, India, Malaya—anywhere the BSA put out a press release. Thanks to some combination of laziness, incompetence and indifference ingrained in the mass-media news cycle, the BSA can say what it wants and rely on the press to be its own personal PR vehicle.
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: bogus stats, bsa, canada, software piracy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
LOL
Stupid fuckers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
so,yeah I agree these are the same stupid F's who reprinted a CCIA propaganda piece researched by some tech blogger without a clue! hang um'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
software not FULLY licensed?
They're casting too wide a net with their survey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: software not FULLY licensed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: software not FULLY licensed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: software not FULLY licensed?
No, hence the inflated numbers.
(I know your question was rhetorical, I answered for the benefit of the slow. What do you want to bet they still don't get it?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We see again what the relaxing of the ownership of the newsmedia has resulted in with the parroting of this article with out fact checks. The merger mania that has gripped this country has lead to mass layoffs. News today isn't what news was yesteryear. Instead you have a few people so-called reporting the news and they are not doing 'feet on the pavement' reporting but rather they are taking syndicated feeds and either reprinting them wholesale or rewriting them to seem that their local outlet was somehow responsible for the reporting.
Gone is the day of the investigative reporting. Gone is the holding political offices and politicians responsible for their misdeeds. You can see this action in force, from the methods used to punish whistle blowers right on down to the incidents of reaction to Wikileaks over the exposure of what the US diplomats were doing in the citizens' names without having to expose the actions to public scrutiny.
Today's news comes straight from the American version of Pravda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's just be blunt about this
Yes, alright, alright, I know I'm being far too kind. Sorry. I'll try to do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's just be blunt about this
BSA for Bull Shit Art !!!
Let us all use the Name BSA ! The Organization who floats in scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's just be blunt about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just be blunt about this
this must really be a touchy subject, huh? creating propaganda for the CCIA is OK to be reported without review, but now the BSA... oh for love of the double standard I do love the hypocrisy...
afraid the bosses at the CCIA might not like to have their covers pulled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's just be blunt about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just be blunt about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's just be blunt about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was the person who made that pie chart color blind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was the person who made that pie chart color blind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course Canada would be dropping.
I'd like to see a side by side comparison of their reductions rates and the rate that people are accessing legal software from online sources. I have a feeling that the low data caps are reducing legal traffic as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I did though was look up what a piece of software did and find an open source alternative :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b)if the report told the truth, there would be no need for the BSA
c)if the report told the truth and there was no BSA, there would be no Jacquie Famulak. she's gonna spin as much bull shit as possible to keep herself employed
d)if the report told the truth, governments would need to find other excuses to keep backing the entertainment and software industries, ramping up copyright laws, penalising the public and classing everyone as a criminal so that more and worse surveillance bills can be introduced!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
b)if the CCIA report told the truth, there would be no need for the CCIA
c)if the report told the truth and there was no CCIA, there would be no MM. he's gonna spin as much bull shit as possible to keep himself employed
d)if the report told the truth, governments would need to find other excuses to keep backing the tech and internet industries, ramping up disinformation, creating false fear in the public and classing everyone as a censor so that more and worse exploitation can be introduced!
yeah... what I thought too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's a TD CCIA censorship party! yeah!
a)if the report told the truth, it wouldn't sound as interesting
b)if the CCIA report told the truth, there would be no need for the CCIA
c)if the report told the truth and there was no CCIA, there would be no MM. he's gonna spin as much bull shit as possible to keep himself employed
d)if the report told the truth, governments would need to find other excuses to keep backing the tech and internet industries, ramping up disinformation, creating false fear in the public and classing everyone as a censor so that more and worse exploitation can be introduced!
yeah... what I thought too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: holy censorship batman!
Thou shall not call out the CCIA on their propaganda and false stats as researched by a tech blogger! Oh, no, no, no...
a)if the report told the truth, it wouldn't sound as interesting
b)if the report told the truth, there would be no need for the CCIA
c)if the report told the truth and there was no CCIA, there would be no MM. he's gonna spin as much bull shit as possible to keep himself employed
d)if the report told the truth, internet co's would need to find other excuses to keep backing scaring the public and government, from enforcing copyright laws, penalising the public and classing everyone censors so that more and worse exploitation can be introduced!
this time I'll take screen shots! oh for the hypocrisy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: holy censorship batman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: holy censorship batman!
Also of "censorship"
Persecution complex, perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With the penny on the way out, does this mean we will pay $0.35 for something costing $0.27?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What that seems to imply is that the information is bogus but was presented in such a way that makes it look valid. Hear how different it sounds if you phrase it as "is technically accurate" :-)
But, in fact, it that 40% figure _is_ valid. Totally valid, unlike most statistical manipulations I've seen in the past. Every one of the respondents, except the 54% who said they didn't pirate and the 6% who said "Get lost", _did_ admit to piracy. Even if "rarely" meant "once in my lifetime", that's still correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Small Critique
A little more contrast in colors would be nice. That graph is a bit tough to decipher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no laziness involved. That's what's scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always 2%
Mostly 4%
Occasionally 8%
rarely 26%
never 54%
Dont Know/Refuse 6%
lets do math, those who admit to it, 2+4+8+26=40%
hmm...40%....
you could, could also add the 6% who dont know or refused to answer, as a "possible" indication of guilt and claim 46% pirate software and not be technically wrong
but, who is being disingenuous here?
"Only 14% of people said they pirated software any more than "rarely"," above rarely is Always, Mostly, Occasionally
so in other words, 14% of the people pirate the software at all times and 26% pirate rarely, adding together gives you......40% software pirates....
this is why i asked about the color blind, could also be a typo on your part as well, ""and only 6% said more than "occasionally"."" occasionally is 8%, DK/refuse is 6%
""To say that 40% of people admitted to piracy is not technically inaccurate�it's just highly misleading in tone and tenor."" you try to cover yourself here, with your "not technically inaccurate"" bit, you admit it is NOT WRONG, but yet you still feel right claiming it is misleading????, the numbers are not misleading, you are steering people to see only what you wish them to see with your story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignoring the obvious spelling and grammar mistakes (which don't help to make your point, BTW), you criticize the OP for cherry picking (which is false, but anyway), then you cherry pick. Fail.
You could add the 6% of "don't know" if you were being disingenuous. How many of the other 40% Weren't able to buy the product legally, or tried and then bought, or just plain weren't served by the market? Surveys suck at specific answers.
And yes, you would be technically wrong. And generally wrong. Let's just say: you are wrong.
It all depends on how the questions are put forth.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, AC?
You are being disingenuous.
Non-sequitur. You make no sense here whatsoever. Take the cock out of your mouth and try again.
Now you like Mike? Make up your mind. Or are you schizophrenic?
...and you finally lost it all. Good luck to you (and your therapist, he'll need it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Only 6% said more than occasionally"
As in, 4% for mostly + 2% for always = 6% more-than-occasionally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, they're the Masters of Misinformation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]