Bogus Copyright Numbers Enter The Fight Over Cyberhacking As Well

from the is-there-nothing-those-numbers-can't-do? dept

Wed, Feb 27th 2013 7:51am — Mike Masnick

For many years, we've talked about just how bogus the numbers are that get thrown around for "losses" and "job losses" due to copyright infringement. And yet they keep getting repeated. Two years ago, we were particularly stunned by a report from the ITC that claimed $48 billion dollars in losses directly due to Chinese piracy. But, as we looked at the methodology, the whole thing was completely ridiculous. It was based on just asking a bunch of companies how much they thought they must have lost to Chinese infringement. Not only is that a horribly unreliable and biased way to try to determine what's actually going on, it's difficult to see how companies would even know that information in the first place.

Outside of piracy, we've also noted that the stats used to support "cybercrime" and "cybersecurity" efforts are often just as bogus. And here we have a story that brings the two subjects together.

SongLifter points us to a NY Post article about Chinese cyberhacking which builds off of the Mandiant report that got so much attention. The article is bizarre in that it claims that the US isn't fighting back against Chinese hackers and somehow that we're sitting on our hands while a great "cyberwar" is being waged against us. Apparently, the author, Ralph Peters, is wholly unaware that some of the only confirmed "attacks" via a computer system were by the US. All this "woe is us" hand-wringing is just bizarre. But then Rogers tosses out these bogus and debunked numbers as if they're proof that we must attack China online:

According to the US International Trade Commission, Chinese intellectual property theft cost the United States $48 billion in 2009, as well as taking away 2 million jobs. Since then, the amount of theft has worsened, so the total loss is likely around $300 billion. But US companies, afraid that making their losses public will shake consumer confidence, won’t go public with their outrage.

Except, there's no way those numbers are even close to accurate. Again, they're based on self-reporting, and any estimate of "value" is guaranteed to be grossly overweighted. Then, take those numbers and, for reasons that make no sense at all, you don't just "grow" the $48 billion, but expand it more than six times to claim it must be up to $300 billion by now? Really? And we're using that totally bogus and made up number as the basis of an argument for why we need to kick off a "cyberattack" on China? As if that won't escalate things even further? Incredible.

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 numbers, china, cispa, copyright, cybersecurity, itc, job losses, losses

88 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:45am

If we follow copyright math by 2015 the US alone will have lost twice the planetary GDP and 3 billion jobs. The sad part is that these numbers will be parroted without any scrutiny and new broad and unconstitutional laws will be passed to tackle the problem.

Mr Quixote must be astonished, never before the giants were so giant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:22am
  
  Re:
  I was just about to say this. Someone needs to add up the 'numbers' from various pro-copyright studies and see how much money and jobs the economy has lost.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:35am

Bogus stats
As I read this I couldn't help but think that all these stats that industries come up with that get repeated are likely the beneficiaries of lazy journalism repeating the same Google results over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: Bogus stats
  The more they're repeated, the higher their google rank.
  
  Rinse. Repeat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:04am

would someone like to put out ANY accurate figures that come from the US govt or a representative body? like it says here, the figures are bogus. i'd go as far as to say that not only are the bullshit, they are total lies! the US is one of the worst for throwing around accusations but is usually either the instigator or at least doing exactly the same as those it accuses. all this misinformation does is create stories like the one from Rogers which bear no resemblance to reality at all! they do, however, give credence to the crap that politicians come out with when trying to get contracts for companies that are providing funding for said politicians!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:06am

Pirate Mike Masnick just loves to pretend that piracy causes no economic harm whatsoever.

Normally I'd say such a person is ignorant and clueless, but he's simply just intellectually dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nigel (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:13am
  
  Re:
  "Pirate Mike Masnick just loves to pretend that piracy causes no economic harm whatsoever."
  
  yeah that would be because it doesn't.
  
  Well, actually, the rubes in suits freak out and waste millions on lobbyists and suing customers. So, in that sense you are correct.
  
  Nigel
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:36am
  
  Re:
  I'd at least expect Mike Masnick not to report a yearly gain, then immediately decide to report an all-time number in the next line without any explanation.
  
  Seriously, if he ever said that "File sharing increased the music market by 100 billion dollars worldwide in 2005(source: piratebay). It has surely increased since then, making the gains likely around 1 Trillion dollars and 50 Billion jobs..." No one here would believe him. However, it's cool if the maximalists use that same 'math' and 'reporting.'
  
  This is actually a neat literary trick. It's technically 'reasonable' (pretending that the original number was correct), but it took me three readings to realize what it was actually saying. Of course, I've ruined the analogy because I couldn't think of a source approximately as reliable as that ITC report.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    no 5 yr old around caught stealing cookies from the cookie jar?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  "Normally I'd say such a person is ignorant and clueless, but he's simply just intellectually dishonest."
  
  Instead of just dishonest, like you, boy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:06pm
  
  Re:
  AC just loves to pretend that piracy causes massive economic harm.
  
  Normally I'd say such a person is ignorant and clueless, so I'll run with that...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:11am

Well, any figure for LOSSES due to piracy
MUST be more accurate than your notion that piracy promotes and increases their income!

However, kudos for at least a clear position.

YET, I'm going to quibble with your word choice in "The article is bizarre" -- doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, just unusual. If "wrong-headed cyber-war-mongering" is too strong for you, "mistaken" is far better than "bizarre".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Well, any figure for LOSSES due to piracy
  Yes, you're right.
  
  Which is why home taping killed the music industry and the VCR strangled women in Boston. Oh, wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:14am

Except, there's no way those numbers are even close to accurate. Again, they're based on self-reporting, and any estimate of "value" is guaranteed to be grossly overweighted.

Perhaps you can produce more accurate figures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:23am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps you can produce more accurate figures?
  
  So you can't debunk a methodology without coming up with a different one? I don't think so...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    That seems to be the piracy apologist theme. Attack every study, but make no effort to provide more reliable information. Attack every attempt to enforce IP rights and laws, but offer no viable alternative. It's like a page from the Karl Rove playbook.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, at least we have evidence on our side, not wild guesses.
      
      What evidence do you have?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have evidence on your side? I'd really love to see it. All I've seen are obviously bogus numbers, which does not count as evidence of anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That seems to be the piracy apologist theme. Attack every study, but make no effort to provide more reliable information.
      
      Uh, that whole sentence presupposes that there is more reasonable data, or that the data is meaningful.
      
      Attack every attempt to enforce IP rights and laws, but offer no viable alternative.
      
      We present viable alternatives ALL THE TIME: it's called *adapting* to the modern world. Change your business model and get with the times.
      
      After all, the rest of the world is doing exactly that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Selling what you create is a perfectly valid business model. You'll notice it's done every second of every day in every country of the world.
        
        If you truly had the idea for a better business model then you wouldn't be so afraid of intellectual property laws being enforced. Your model would usurp all others on merit alone.
        
        But you don't
        
        You realize you aren't fooling anyone with your bullshit, right Masnick?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's quite the oversimplification of a business model.
        
        You know there's more to it than that.
        
        Who's being dishonest?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        viable alternatives ≠ better business models
        
        You're also assuming the "better business models" talked about on Techdirt work for everyone, which is not necessarily true considering that even Mike has said some of them do not work for everyone.
        
        So, you realize you aren't fooling anyone with your asinine perception on things, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        rohan, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        viable alternatives ≠ better business models
        
        You're also assuming the "better business models" talked about on Techdirt work for everyone, which is not necessarily true considering that even Mike has said some of them do not work for everyone.
        
        The current system doesn't work for everyone either, just a select few making all the big bucks through exploitation of creative minds, so all anyone has to do to suggest a viable option is one that works just a little bit better for more people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "just a select few making all the big bucks through exploitation of creative minds"
        
        Pure bullshit.
        
        And provably so, as if it were true, no one would sign with record labels or make movies with studios. Duh.
        
        No one rips off creative minds more than pirates. No One. And these are the people Mike Masnick champions and sides with on this blog.
        
        You'll have a hard time finding anyone on the internet more anti-artist than Mike Masnick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 4:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And provably so, as if it were true, no one would sign with record labels or make movies with studios. Duh.
        
        Of course they would, when the only alternative is obscurity. But they're doing so less and less as time goes by and the internet is making it possible to break out of the effective monopoly on distribution.
        
        Which is exactly what is making the MPAA and RIAA members go insane.
        
        No one rips off creative minds more than pirates. No One. And these are the people Mike Masnick champions and sides with on this blog.
        
        Now, that's pure bullshit. And provably so. All you have to do is read what he writes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course they would, when the only alternative is obscurity.
        
        uh no. The internet changed that years ago. Even Masnick says that.
        
        Despite the internet, labels and studios remain the go-to for the artists. For a myriad of reasons that you have no clue about, because you're not an artist and have no fucking idea what you're babbling about.
        
        You fail again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So where are all the sleeping giant artist friends hurricane head has promised us since Lowery lost his shit? They can't ALL be licking his shoes and sucking him off now can they?
        
        You claim the artists are hurt; care to provide any data or statements that aren't pulled out of your ass?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Selling what you create is a perfectly valid business model. You'll notice it's done every second of every day in every country of the world."
        
        No one ever said not to. It's just that locking things up, pissing off your customers (Hello, customer is always right?), and only allowing customers to use your product the way you want them to isn't the best way to sell things. It makes your customers upset, creates a demand for competition and invites someone into the market to do a better job than you are.
        
        Someone explain to me how DMCA takedowns of people showing off and supporting your work is selling what you create? If you can, then move on to DMCA takedowns on reviews/critics. If you need more, try validating all the business practices just in the articles from last week that involve using copyright...
        
        If you can do all that, you might be crooked enough to be a lawyer or politician. If you do it with a straight face, MAFIAA lobbyist positions are that way ->
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        99% of DMCA takedowns are legitimate and for infringing content.
        
        Pretending otherwise is just the usual intellectual dishonesty we see from piracy apologists on Techdirt.
        
        Snore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So where was that admission by Google you've been throwing around that the number was 97% - never mind that the number was merely for correctly filed requests, not actually appropriate ones? Or are you only for Google when it makes you look like less of a jackass?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Selling what you create is a perfectly valid business model. You'll notice it's done every second of every day in every country of the world.
        
        Yes indeed. But trying to force those sales on people by limiting their rights, taking away their ability to share, breaking their products, etc...
        
        That's the part that's obsolete. Relying on that aspect of the business model is the problem we're talking about.
        
        If you truly had the idea for a better business model then you wouldn't be so afraid of intellectual property laws being enforced. Your model would usurp all others on merit alone.
        
        The problem is when those laws GET IN THE WAY of effective business models.
        
        You realize you aren't fooling anyone with your bullshit, right Masnick?
        
        Not trying to "fool" anyone, and judging by the number of people who contact me about this stuff, it appears that indeed, I'm not "fooling" anyone, but an awful lot of people seem interested in learning more about these business models.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        is as simple as have a great product and givethe custoemr what they want, when they want i, and at a price that is ok for THE CUSTOMER and he will buy, failing to do that will cause piracy and less sales
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you truly had the idea for a better business model then you wouldn't be so afraid of intellectual property laws being enforced.
        
        That's a complete nonsequitor. The problem I have with the enforcement of current copyright laws has nothing to do with business models or which is better. It has to do with these laws causing collateral damage to people who are not otherwise involved with the situation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My point was that you simply decry every vehicle to enforce acknowledged IP rights and laws- telling people to change their business model rather than enforce their legal (and according to the UN) human rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can quote any document you want but no matter how you look at it owning, selling, or making money off an idea isn't a human right. Money isn't a human right!
        
        Depriving people of their right to do something (copyright enforcement) isn't a human right cause you're actually infringing on another's rights via a monopolisitic right granted by a government body (still not a human right).
        
        Now the ability to have, express, or share an idea is a different story and I'll back any of those (even if I don't back the idea).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The UN has recognized a creator's exclusive right to profit from his creation in many declarations of human rights. Sorry you disagree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your right to infringe has never been similarly recognized.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why the fuck should I care about what the u.n. says? If I said crapping on your lawn was my human right would it suddenly gain legitimacy if the united nations agreed?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My point was that you simply decry every vehicle to enforce acknowledged IP rights and laws- telling people to change their business model rather than enforce their legal (and according to the UN) human rights.
        
        1. If "every vehicle to enforce acknowledged IP" laws is both NOT effective and likely to make the problem WORSE, then why not decry them? I mean, this isn't rocket science.
        
        2. You're lying. As discussed here, the UN makes it clear that copyright is not what they're talking about. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/12333120767/no-copyright-is-not-human-right.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who's lying? I'd say the guy that cites his own bullshit conclusions in his own article as authority:
        
        The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948
        
        Article 27 (2): Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
        
        You seem to think the provisions related to the public somehow trump creators rights. It doesn't. Most of the world's creative output is readily available- but not for free. The UN simultaneous recognizes both rights; and both are attainable but no one has a human right to free content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who's lying? I'd say the guy that cites his own bullshit conclusions in his own article as authority:
        
        Not my conclusions, nor my article. So, yeah.
        
        In the meantime, can you actually refute what's been said?
        
        The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948
        
        Article 27 (2): Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
        
        And... from that same document:
        
        Article 27 (1): Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
        
        On top of that, from the discussion on that document:
        
        "Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author... does not necessarily coincide with what is referred to as intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.
        
        It is therefore important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized..."
        
        In other words, I stand by my words. You lied. Or, possibly were ignorant. Somehow, I doubt the latter, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Who's lying? I'd say the guy that cites his own bullshit conclusions in his own article as authority:"
        
        Not my conclusions, nor my article. So, yeah.
        
        Sorry, I didn't read the byline. Who wrote it? Jerry Mahoney or Charlie McCarthy?
        
        In the meantime, can you actually refute what's been said?
        
        The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948
        
        Article 27 (2): Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
        
        And... from that same document:
        
        Article 27 (1): Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
        
        I think "freely" relates to have access to. Not doesn't have to pay, as I'm sure you wish. In any event, there is nothing in that passage that conflicts with creators exclusive rights.
        
        On top of that, from the discussion on that document:
        
        "Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author... does not necessarily coincide with what is referred to as intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.
        
        Wait, where is the discussion from? I didn't see that in the body of the document. Can you shed some light on where to find this and in what context this discussion took place? Also, you completely ignore "not necessarily". That door is wide open.
        
        "It is therefore important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized..."
        
        This from the same discussion? Not knowing context, it's hard to assess relevance. I am certain this wasn't something adopted by the UN itself.
        
        In other words, I stand by my words. You lied. Or, possibly were ignorant. Somehow, I doubt the latter, though.
        
        Sorry, is this 'Journalist Mike' saying this or 'NOT a Journalist Mike' talking?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        gnudist, 28 Feb 2013 @ 2:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh for fucks sake, Mike has explained that he considers a journalist to be someone who does it as a profession and by that definition he isn't a jouirnalist.
        
        Stop being a moron and kjust accept that is concept of a journalist is different than yours.
        
        I swear you're just looking for things to bitch about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When every vehicle to enforce IP rights and laws involves having a large percentage of suing the wrong people and demanding more laws (despite, mind, you having absolutely no problems with bringing down Kim Dotcom without SOPA or other additional laws), it's clear you don't deserve those rights.
        
        For all the whining that pirates have abused their Internet privileges, rightsholders haven't been playing fair either. Insisting that the whole industry has been dying since "Home Taping is Killing Music" isn't fooling anybody.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Show me the item on a corporate balance sheet that shows "losses due to piracy".
      
      Enough said.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Show me the item on a corporate balance sheet that shows "losses due to piracy".
      
      Enough said.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      like what you are doing now? oh, the irony.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  Keep in mind this isn't an area where you can get truly accurate figures.
  
  The most 'accurate' that you could get would be estimates taking into account historical sales, and a whole slew of other things, and the sheer number of variables, both those considered and those that are missed, would make the 'estimates' as about as accurate as a guess anyway.
  
  Add to that the self-interest of the companies in making their 'loses' look as big as they can, in an attempt to sway any rulings or laws their way, and a wild guess or numbers picked out of the air would probably be more accurate than the figures they keep throwing out.
  
  As an example, consider the 'figures/estimates' that the music and movie industries keep throwing out, about the billions of dollars, and millions of jobs that they 'lose' every year. If their estimates/claims were even close to accurate, they'd have gone out of business decades ago(instead of continued to make record sales on an almost yearly basis, but that's another topic for another time).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    This is an area where you cannot get figures, period. There is no such thing as "losses due to piracy" on any Consolidated Financial Statement anywhere. At best, any "loss due to piracy" represents a lost opportunity of making a sale.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps you can?
  
  The first challenge to produce good statistics is that cyber attacks happen all the time. Except that the great majority produces little to no harm (ie: if you consider DDoS a form of attack you'll see that most ISPs use defensive measures by default and bw resellers offer protection tools for an additional cost). On the other hand those that produce really bad harm tend to be hidden by the authorities either to avoid impacts to the markets, to avoid rising awareness to the sensitive contents or simply because they think they should keep those a secret.
  
  So there's no real reliable way to gather the most basic data for starters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  I think the point is that it is practically impossible to produce accurate figures.
  
  Most of it is going to end up being guesswork, and we should not be making decisions (read: laws) based on wild guesses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  Why is it the job of the people who say there isn't a problem to prove one doesn't exist? What the hell has copyright really given the maximalists other than some kind of bullshit entitlement to whatever they say goes?
  
  As has been said MANY times before... prove a problem exists before we fix it.
  
  This was attempted, and has clearly been debunked as not much more than a random number generator. This article (and it's not the only one) are simply pointing out major flaws in the logic of the argument to prove a problem exists. Thus, the conclusion is that the proof still isn't there and that maximalists need to do a better job of proving the problem exists before we're on board with any concept of fixing the problem.
  
  This all brought to you without 1 ounce of an arguement about copyright being too far already. We'll leave that for another day....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hans Moleman, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:19am

Could you provide legitimate citations for your claims? Otherwise it's just shoddy journalism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:22am
  
  Re:
  Could you provide legitimate citations for your claims? Otherwise it's just shoddy journalism...
  
  Not a journalist, but we went through the ITC report in this story which is *LINKED* in the post above. Figured there was no need to repeat it, since most people know how to click.
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/16301314325/us-itc-uses-ridiculous-methodology-t o-claim-piracy-china-costs-us-firms-48-billion-2009.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not a journalist, but we went through the ITC report in this story which is *LINKED* in the post above
    
    Not a journalist..... this time. You certainly have characterized yourself as such when it suits you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Not a journalist..... this time. You certainly have characterized yourself as such when it suits you."
      
      Or you interpreted him as such...when it suited you, boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, it's the "boy" guy!! Where've you been? We've missed your pithy insights and towering wit. I hope you brought along your bulb nose, slap shoes and little tin horn again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey now, don't detract from the subject.
        
        And by "subject" I mean your hilarious attempt at insulting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and where did he claim to be one?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He admits it below.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No he doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not a journalist..... this time. You certainly have characterized yourself as such when it suits you.
      
      Indeed. I think that everyone can *do journalism* but it doesn't mean that you are a journalist. Not sure how that's an issue. There are times when I do journalism. There are times when lots of people do journalism. But that doesn't make them a journalist all the time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like I said; you can turn on and off your claims of journalism as the mood strikes you. I think I'll go eat a couple of Eggos in your honor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think I'll go eat a couple of Eggos in your honor."
        
        Good, as long as we can stop hearing you talk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        gnudist, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And where does he claim to be a journalist? As a longtime reader I only ever see him claim he's not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He admits it in post #37.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He admits it in post #37.
        
        Actually, I do the opposite. I note that I am NOT a journalist, but that doesn't mean that I don't sometimes do *journalism*. Not sure why your brain has trouble understanding such a basic concept.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 1:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, I do the opposite. I note that I am NOT a journalist, but that doesn't mean that I don't sometimes do *journalism*. Not sure why your brain has trouble understanding such a basic concept.
        
        This is just so dumb, Mike. If a journalist is someone who does journalism, and you sometimes do journalism, then you are, at least sometimes, a journalist. Let me ask you this. How are we supposed to know when you're being a journalist (or at least doing journalism, as you admit you do at times) and when you're not? Why are we ever supposed to take you seriously if we can't tell the difference? Seriously. I'd love a response that addresses this question directly. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is just so dumb, Mike. If a journalist is someone who does journalism, and you sometimes do journalism, then you are, at least sometimes, a journalist.
        
        Sometimes I cook dinner. That does not make me a chef.
        Sometimes I drive people place. That does not make me a chauffeur.
        Sometimes I work in my yard. That does not make me a landscape architect.
        
        One is an action, one is a profession. I am not, by profession, a journalist. Though, sometimes, in the course of my work, I do journalism.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But, Mike, if you don't stay in a well-defined box, how will the trolls be able to know what insult to use?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice weasel words. You loudly proclaim that you are not a journalist. But preserve your right to claim journalistic license when it suits your purposes. But when your bias and integrity in a writing are called out, you can claim "I'm NOT a journalist"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:22am
  
  Re:
  Could you provide legitimate citations for your claims? Otherwise it's just shoddy journalism...
  
  Not a journalist, but we went through the ITC report in this story which is *LINKED* in the post above. Figured there was no need to repeat it, since most people know how to click.
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/16301314325/us-itc-uses-ridiculous-methodology-t o-claim-piracy-china-costs-us-firms-48-billion-2009.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Figured there was no need to repeat it, since most people know how to click.
    
    If that double post was on purpose then hats off to you dear sir. Have a + funny vote ;D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    It seems like you guys would have figured out a way to fix double posts by now...maybe throwing out all the identical posts made within a minute or so of each other, or just adding a 10-15 second cooldown on posting would do it without bothering anyone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:19am

Of course...
...you are talking about a story in the NY Post - a rag that lives on the motto 'if it bleeds, it leads'. The author should actually be commended for not blathering about how these hack-attacks are blowing the eyeballs out of anybody unlucky enough to see one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Of course...
  "...a story in the NY Post - a rag that lives on the motto 'if it bleeds, it leads'."
  
  Better than the "fair and balanced" news on its Murdoch stablemate, FOX News Channel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:24am

"woe is us" should probably read as "woe is US"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:26am

Seems like we have a new equation
bogus numbers x bogus multiplier = (loss)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Seems like we have a new equation
  the 'i's have it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:43am

Newspapers have become part of the entertainment Industry, as the chance of accurate reporting is about the same as a politician telling the truth when they open their mouth. The truth is either boring, or insufficient grounds for justifying what the politicians wants to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:13am

What does cyberhacking have anything to do with intellectual property theft? If they're talking about patents or trademarks, those are available free of charge to anyone directly from the USPTO. If they're talking about copyrights, most of those are available from Amazon.com for a very small fee or torrent sites for free. No hacking needed (cyber or otherwise). It seems it would be far cheaper for China to simply webcrawl the USPTO and/or torrent a bunch then to hire a bunch of decent crackers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:18am

More "cybersecurity" BS
Next thing you know pirates, "Chinese" hackers and terrorists will all be lumped together and branded public enemy NO. 1. The whole thing is just an excuse to further lock down the internet. Its just that our government is too cowardly to admit that fact. I just pray that people are smart enough to realize that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 10:04am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_301_Report

probably the ITC wants to coerce China into changing their IP laws with those exaggerated numbers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 4:07pm

The term "cyberhacking" is the stupidest thing I've seen all year. How, exactly, would "cyberhacking" be different from regular hacking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re:
  It would be done on the Internet and would therefore become patentable, for one...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:05pm
  
  Re:
  it uses the word cyber which makes it 1000 times worse and makes people assume they can't figure it out.
  
  Many of the cyberhacking events put into real world terms would show stupidity is the problem.
  
  We left the house with the doors open and someone came in and redecorated.
  We totally protect your privacy, but we forgot to actually buy the safe we store your information in.
  Some neighborhood kids TP'ed the house, we lost trillions.
  
  Explanations are just as simple...
  Anonymous is superpowerful. We forgot to change the root password.
  It was CHINA! We have no idea who hacked us, but its best to blame them.
  We suffered no losses. We are going to run crying screaming how those evil kids nearly ruined our business in court.
  They penetrated our network. The CEO thought a firewall was to costly and got a new gold trash can instead.
  
  Cyber lets them claim some mystical force allowed this to happen, rather than the cost/benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to clean up instead of prevent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:46pm

Dollars
$48 billion dollars

"$" or "dollars", not both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Nnoyed (profile), 28 Feb 2013 @ 5:31am

Copyright parasites want you to pay something for nothing!
It appears that the copyright parasites, by promulgating these bogus figures, are trying to establish a foundation by claiming bogus losses, to establish a fee for all broadband subscribers to be paid to them. The RIAA successfully convinced lawmakers to mandate a fee to be added to the price of high fidelity cassettes and music CDR's to compensate the record labels for bogus losses caused by home copying, even if the media in question was never used to copy copyrighted material. So the copyright parasites are looking to be paid something for nothing JUST IN CASE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]