A Tale Of Two Studies: File Sharing Hurts Sales!
from the fun-with-data dept
Over the last couple of weeks, we've seen a bunch of folks on all sides of the debates about file sharing point us to two studies that have come out, one of which supporters of greater copyright enforcement insist prove their point, and another which seems to show (yet again) that file sharing has little impact on buying habits. I wanted to take the time to look through both studies before writing about them, and since they came out so close together, we might as well do one post looking at both. As I started to write up a single post about it all, it got really, really long. So I'm breaking it into three separate posts. One about the first study, which argues that file sharing hurts sales, one that looks at the second study, which argues that file sharing does not hurt sales (and may actually increase sales), and then a third post, which tries to reconcile the findings of the two studies, while also responding to some of the criticism.The first study is called Gone in 60 Seconds: The Impact of the Megaupload Shutdown on Movie Sales and is by Brett Danaher and Michael Smith. Smith, especially, has a long history of producing reports that copyright maximalists love. For example, both he and Danaher were responsible for a study last year claiming that the Hadopi 3 strikes program had increased iTunes sales. Unfortunately, a quick review of that report raised serious questions about the basis for those claims, as an alternative hypothesis (related to the sale of new iPhones) showed much more compelling data. I see his name on a lot of research sent around by the maximalists. It's worth noting, as well, that the study was effectively funded by the MPAA, since it was a project of a program run by Smith and funded by the MPAA. Oddly, the paper fails to disclose this tidbit.
This new study seeks to answer a question we've been asking over and over again: do any of these enforcement efforts actually increase sales? There has been evidence that greater enforcement has a small, but temporary, impact on decreasing infringement, but there was not that much data concerning actual sales. In fact, we've pointed to data (contradicting Smith's other report) that suggested Hadopi had done little, if anything, to increase sales. However, the data here has been limited, in part because there are so many other variables at play, so it's difficult to separate out the actual impact. Smith and Danaher try to use data from various studios to look at the impact on movie sales following the Megaupload shutdown.
To try to determine the impact of the shutdown of Megaupload, Danaher and Smith basically compare movie sales before and after the shutdown date in a few different countries that had very different Megaupload usage. For example, they (using Google Adwords data) suggest that Megaupload had 2% penetration in the US, but 17% in Spain. Then they look at what the impact was in terms of digital movie sales and rentals compared across the different countries, and whether or not there were more sales in countries that had more Megaupload usage. They use this to argue that the key difference is Megaupload usage. The end result is that countries that had more Megaupload penetration saw a greater increase in digital movie sales and rentals following the shutdown than the countries that had lower Megaupload penetration. As they note:
This difference is both statistically and economically significant. Our findings indicate that digital movie revenues for two studios were 6-10% higher over the 18 weeks following the shutdown (across 12 countries) than they would have been if not for the shutdown.This chart highlights the basics:
While I've seen some criticism online of these findings, I actually think the basic research and methodology is fairly solid. Those who have jumped up and said "correlation is not causation" are ignoring the various methods that the researchers used to isolate the shutdown. However, I'm not sure that the conclusions are quite as meaningful as some have suggested. First off, we've seen very similar data when it came to decreases in file sharing after enforcement increases -- but the impact has always been shown to be temporary, until people settle in on a new method for infringement. It would make sense that some users of such a service, who don't want to go hunting for a new free option, will switch to an authorized service if it's available. But if they become aware of other services, they might also switch back. The amount of time the impact lasts will be a key thing to watch.
Of course, the other key thing that is left out of the picture in this study is the role of authorized services in all of this. Part of the reason for the growth of infringement on Megaupload in the first place was the dearth of compelling, simple, non-annoying, authorized services. The industry has, finally, been trying to increase those, and so it could be that people who couldn't find any legit services before looked around again after the shutdown and found newer, better services. While the authors of the report say the findings suggest that Megaupload usage decreases sales, a possible alternative explanation would be that the slow pace with which the industry rolled out authorized services was equally, if not more, responsible. Either way, this report is a useful contribution in understanding the impact.
In our next post, we'll explore the second study that came out even more recently, which appears to come to a very different conclusion.
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: brett danaher, copyright enforcement, file sharing, michael smith, sales, studies
Companies: megaupload
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Economy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economy
This study is just a single data point - to show this actually had the effect claimed, Smith would need to show that the figures for each country for at least a year (preferably 18 months - to establish a yearly cycle.) The fact that they don't do that tells me that there may be some cherry-picking involved here.
They should also take a look at the number and availability of titles that were released - more (and popular titles) released in a windowed manner could also result in the chart shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the mother of all troll baits!
This is going to be a busy day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's a dearth?
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think its Sith lord of sorts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Lord?"
"Sowwy, I juss got bawk fwom the detwist, and isth vewy haud to tauk."
[ 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:
dearth /dərTH/
Noun
A scarcity or lack of something: "there is a dearth of evidence"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
noun.
1. A scarce supply; a lack: "the dearth of uncensored, firsthand information about the war" (Richard Zoglin).
2. Shortage of food; famine.
At least that's according to this site:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dearth
And since it isn't dealing about food, I think that definition #1 applies here.
There was (and still is, in some territories) a remarkable lack of compelling, simple, non-annoying, authorized services.
Most services that I have access to, only offer me (not-quite-HD) streaming solutions, but then I'd have to watch the stuff on my laptop (which has just 1 speaker), instead of on a home cinema set.
If I go to the pirate sites, I could get an HD version that I can play just about anywhere of the same content. Hmm, I wonder which of the two would be more compelling, simpler and less annoying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Merriam-Webster Online: Dearth
Example usage: “There was an evident dearth of google-fu.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ie: There is a definite dearth of intelligence shown by Techdirt Trolls, though their paucity is becoming less and less each day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pro tip: If you use Firefox, you just highlight the word you want to search and right click on it and choose "search for (word here)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is in dispute is whether the sharing of material under the control of copyright causes harm to anyone.
The term "file sharing" is a misnomer and is frequently abused by those who would lay claim to copyright privileges to which they are not entitled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where do you want to go with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or in Johnny Depp movies :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ubisoft it seems is full of Dirty stinking pirates!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I remember correctly, I believe there used to be a game called "Pirates!" back in the times of DOS. And it was about...Pirates!
/gasp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is precisely because file sharing in itself does indeed not harm anyone -- there are no grounds to restrict copying of public goods to protect individuals from being harmed becasue they cannot be so harmed. Hence the only possible concern is the overall economic effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see what you did there, pirate Mike. You're just messing with the trolls. You don't mean it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't wait till they finally die like they keep claiming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing piece
That of course discounts services that are no longer in business, MP3s gleaned from blogs and other legal services that are now hard to find, etc. but I think that most people wouldn't have needed to repurchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manipulated data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really? i am gobsmacked!!
but how can anyone trust a 'study' that has been funded by the very people that want that study to show the worst scenario possible, to back up the claims they keep making to convince the idiot politicians and law enforcement that there has to be more restrictions and harsher punishments, rather than more alternative services to draw people to and away from illegitimate services? if there were any real interest in curbing illegal file sharing, there would be a myriad of legitimate services in place. there would then not only be a true picture but would also highlight the true reasons if legal alternatives were still bypassed. the main ones obviously being price, format and speed of release
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Secondly with google selling books, music, movies and tv shows it's a content seller, so if being in the position of competing with copyright infringing material gives one a bias which way do you think a company that sells copyrighted material would be expected to lean in terms of that bias.
So, are you saying that due to Mike Masnick's previous work that is linked whether directly or indirectly to google he is biased in favour of copyright maximalist positions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point is there is still a lack of legal services in most parts of the world.
To be honest I have netflix and lovefilm now and download a whole lot less. There is still TV I download but they are unavailable on my TV or netflix so fuck the studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These studies get the magnifying glass under full sunlight and whatever evidence is left still gets appropriate scrutiny.
Believing that their credibility is skewed, and that the Megaupload case was known and supported by media groups before it broke news, it might be nice to examine the sales records exactly and look for gross inventory transfer anomalies, sales discounting specials and new outlets opening during that time. There was no mention of revenue or margin profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this instance, it relates to two UN-NAMED studios. Did they have any major releases (in any of the markets) in the study period? Did they start offering new services in the markets included in the studies? We don't know, because they are UN-NAMED! That is a huge red flag to me. I am supposed to take your word for it that you properly accounted for all the variables, and constants to perform the study?
Why only two studios? Why not five or ten or all? Did that not yield the result you wanted? Since they did bother to studied markets, why not name the studios?
Sorry, I do not trust this one study, when there are a ton of other studies that are much more open with their methodology that go against this one study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So all of a sudden shitloads of tech-newbies found themselves without the easier sources and temporarily some of them may have resorted to legal alternatives. Which have been slowly increasing. So that leads us to the second point: in the countries analyzed, has any easy and available alternative been put into place? It's largely known by now that Netflix and the likes managed to slash movie piracy much like spotify and the likes did to music.
And after dealing with those two major factors you MUST take into account natural growth. How is the crisis affecting the researched countries? How would sales fare naturally with no intervention? Much like the iphone interfered with the other study this may be the case here. When that study on HADOPI came out I took the time to do some lousy projection (I assumed the growth of usage would be the same of the previous years) and it was clear the growth was natural and not a result of HADOPI.
I believe MU debacle had a small impact yes but more than temporary it's not nearly as much as it's being advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's impossible to isolate one factor, and the reality is that most or all of the factors will be involved in some way. But these studies pretend that piracy and only piracy was involved. That only works if you play into the fiction that downloads are lost sales and that people will hand over money for everything if only you remove the free route. That's so unrealistic as to be laughable, but it's the cornerstone of these arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Leave us alone and get back to sucking chris dodd.
[ 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:
The main problem is that the effect of piracy on sales, either for or against, is very slight. When an effect is slight, you always end up with lots of studies "proving" the hypothesis and lots of studies "disproving" the hypothesis.
When you see this happening, the real answer is very likely to be that the answer is lost in the noise. In other words, the effect is slight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generally it is a well done study and the conclusion seems correct, but the size of the effect can rightly be called into question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) It compares short periods before and after the shut-down, rather than the same periods from previous years. The adjustment for Christmas sales is a red herring to lend credibility to the study. Comparing similar period from different years means seasonal adjustment is not necessary.
2) Unknown studios, therefore film release history and popularity not known, and this is a significant factor in sales.
3) Because of the above, not able to allow for different popularity in different countries. Films do not do equally well in all countries.
This study is open to the accusation that it selected its data to to gain the result it wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The sponsors of the study *selected* the date that the event happened, so it would be easy to choose a date when their sales forecasts would produce the results they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The purpose of copyright is not to prevent sales from being reduced. The purpose of copyright is to support *production* so *overall access* to goods is optimised. Simply: it is to ensure people have plenty of good stuff to enjoy/use. If plenty of stuff is made and people have plenty of access to it, it does not matter what happens to sales.
The MPAA etc., however, like such studies *because* they subtly divert away from the real question. They work by promoting an implicit message: infringement is 'damaging', 'harmful' to producers, and that is bad and wrong -- because copyright is there to help certain business make money. Of course, the purpose of copyright is *not* to pay companies as much as possible, but the MPAA etc. want everyone to unconciously accept that it is. Such implicit messages work well with academic studies, because the authors do not have to actually say anything logically or evidentially incorrect, yet the backers can still get their cause wrapped in a veneer of academic authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's what Mike claims to, but, of course, he can't back it up and he never explains exactly what is to be maximized or how we would measure it.
Tell me this, when has copyright ever been about maximizing the some function? Since copyright law is one-size-fits-all, that completely debunks the notion that Congress is trying to maximize some secret economic function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"To promote the progress of science and the useful arts..."
The purpose of copyright is to encourage learning and the creation of new works. If it does that, great. If it instead discourages the creation of new works, we have a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The purpose of copyright is to encourage learning and the creation of new works. If it does that, great. If it instead discourages the creation of new works, we have a problem.
Promote does not mean maximize. Besides, what is the exact function that is to be maximized? No one ever says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'd first have to figure out what that even means. The fact is that Congress doesn't maximize secretive economic functions, nor have they ever. If copyright is only about maximizing functions, then why hasn't Congress ever maximized functions? It makes no sense. The problem is that there would never be a consensus about what exactly is to be maximized or how we'd measure it. It sounds good when you say "maximize progress," but the devil is in the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
Essentially, copyright has spent 200 years expanding past all the original limits of what it encompassed and how long it lasted - and now it's finally met a 'force' strong enough to push back, hard - and it's whining like crazy about losing its monopoly rents. And I have as much sympathy for them as I would have for wartime price gougers complaining because prices are normalising after a war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"he never explains exactly what is to be maximized "
Well, apart from the fact that most articles on the subject of the industry do just that - only you're too busy shouting and attacking that you never notice - your reading comprehension is still crappy. Notice that there's 2 different words there with 2 different meanings, yet you attack him for the one he didn't use.
"Tell me this, when has copyright ever been about maximizing the some function?"
Since it was written, as declared in its initial form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The language of the constitution backs it up and explains exactly what it is to be maximized. It's not a secret economic function it's an openly stated economic function. Just search for 'copyright clause' and you'll find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? Please tell me exactly what it means to promote the progress of science, and please tell me the exact function that is used to measure it.
[ 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:
"I understand that in some dream world Congress would get it exactly perfect for each and every author, but in the real world that will never happen. And it's mostly because it's simply not possible."
What are you even talking about here? Has anyone said it should be different for different people? Not that I can see. No, working at the aggregate level is sufficient, indeed it's the only thing it makes sense to do at a congressional level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I understand. Congress doesn't look to maximize profits for copyright holders.
What are you even talking about here? Has anyone said it should be different for different people? Not that I can see. No, working at the aggregate level is sufficient, indeed it's the only thing it makes sense to do at a congressional level.
If maximizing the progress were the goal, it would make sense to have different copyright rights for different types of works. What's best for books is not what's best for paintings. Such a system is not that unworkable, yet Congress doesn't do it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moving on the first question I'm left with is why only two studios? How much of the market for music and film does the study actually look at if it's just two studios? As near as I can tell this is a continuation of a recurring them to select a small sub-set from incumbent content owners and address them as if they're the music and/or film industry while ignoring all the other sources of music and film. If the results aren't uniform but there's a net reduction in sales does that mean Megaupload shouldn't have been shutdown? Or is the suggestion that because any studio's revenue was reduced it should have been regardless of if it was a net positive for the industry or not?
I'd also observe that 18 weeks isn't exactly a long time. The short term trend might very well be to digital sales and rentals but it might be just that, a short term trend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone has at last finally taken on board the idea that for anti-piracy efforts to have any point at all it has to lead to an increase in sales. That in itself is a step forward and to be welcomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REAL SUBTLE: Get your SLANT IN RIGHT UP FRONT, MIKE.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
02:27:23[c-730-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: REAL SUBTLE: Get your SLANT IN RIGHT UP FRONT, MIKE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: REAL SUBTLE: Get your SLANT IN RIGHT UP FRONT, MIKE.
You should have kept reading:
"While I've seen some criticism online of these findings, I actually think the basic research and methodology is fairly solid."
"Those who have jumped up and said "correlation is not causation" are ignoring the various methods that the researchers used to isolate the shutdown."
"Either way, this report is a useful contribution in understanding the impact."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From 30 ish billion dollars they gone down to 15 ish billion dollars in just a couple of years.
So really chose, piracy or enforcement, just don't complain that sales don't go up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progress
1. Calling up movie studio reps.
2. Asking them, off the top of their head, how much they think their revenue has increased due to the Megaupload shutdown.
3. Totaling them up (and then doubling it, just for good measure).
They are actually using statistical methods now?? Progress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any reason you don't examine the methodology of studies that you like the results of, like this one: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/10452719493/29-billion-spent-dealing-with-patent-trolls-us -alone-last-year.shtml
That one "found" that "patent trolls" cost the system $29 Billion per year. You repeated it like it was gospel, but the study didn't even supply the data it used. I guess it was "secret" data.
Why aren't you skeptical of studies like that? Other than because you like the results, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously?
Page four. Footnote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Page four. Footnote.
Yes, it says the "survey was conducted by RPX, a firm that helps companies manage risk from exposure to patent litigation." In other words, a party with an extreme bias. The study is done by people who directly benefit from FUD about the dangers of patent trolls. Does Mike mention that? No, of course not. He likes the result, so it's a "good" study.
The authors of that study conducted a survey of their own customers, and the questions that were asked are not provided. It's a secret survey. It's come out since then that the people surveyed were told their answers would be used to lobby for changes to the patent system. Hello self-selection bias. Not only did they not release the survey questions, they didn't release the survey answers. Again, all very secret. This is not the stuff of a reliable survey. But, of course, and as always, Mike repeats it like it came from Moses. It's ridiculous.
See this paper in response to that paper for more info: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117421
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was, and he explained to you exactly why your criticism was wrong and he accepted their results.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150703/00001531533/venture-capital-trade-association-hir es-patent-troll-lawyers-fights-against-patent-reform-even-as-most-vcs-want-patent-reform.shtml#c273
T he fact that you're still bringing this up - without event mentioning that Mike replied to it - shows that you are nothing more than a troll and/or a shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation: I wanted to wait until other people pointed out problems with the study so I could just copy their FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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:
Here's me just yesterday responding to Mike at length: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/12104822407/isohunt-still-guilty-contributory-infringement .shtml#c271
Of course, Mike ran away and didn't want to discuss the merits. Shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you post one well-reasoned comment, you immediately follow it up with 10 comments griping about how Mike won't debate you, how he won't discuss things on the merits, how he runs away, how he is a piracy apologist, how he is a dishonest person for not discussing his personal beliefs with you, etc, etc, etc. That's just a handful of your typical talking (trolling) points.
You're a belligerent troll. You're not a sockpuppet like OOTB or bob, but you're a troll nevertheless AJ. Your whole purpose for being here is to try to derail every discussion to ensure the current environment of a broken copyright monopoly remains in place. You do this because you have a financial incentive to ensure that it remains in place. Everyone who frequents this blog knows this to be true and we have countless comments made by you to back this up.
How many people back up your assertions here? What percentage of your comments don't end up reported and collapsed by the community because of the way in which you communicate?
Here's some free advice: "Think twice, type once." You'll find that if you, you, start posting your thoughts in a civil manner, you might, just might, find the community willing to engage with you. Nobody is expecting you to just magically start posting that you believe that copyright is broken. No one here believes that you believe that. But, nobody here is going to let you just ride rough shod through the comments on a daily basis spewing venon at everyone (and Mike especially) without calling you out on it.
No one here respects you or your opinion and you have no one to blame but yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We all see through it AJ, but whatever makes you feel better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We all see through it AJ, but whatever makes you feel better.
Wake me up when you're actually trying to engage me on the merits. The only one trolling is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you think it is that even when you're not signed in everyone still knows it's you? It's because you've played out this tired nonsense so many times we can recite it by heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's impossible for me to address what you're referring to when you don't link to what you're referring to. You're just trying to get under my skin, and you're just trolling. It won't work. If you have a link to a specific post that you think shows me running away, please produce it. I doubt you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods-own-pirat es-must-inform-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're sitting here calling me names and saying I run away and the like. You claim I run away frequently yet can't produce any evidence to back it up. That's trolling. I'm happy to discuss the merits of copyright with you, but this personal stuff is boring. I chose to attack Mike because I think he's a fundamentally dishonest fake who won't stand behind what he writes. I think he's an extremist zealot who can't stand to be challenged. If you ran a blog where you were the loudest, biggest ass on the anti-copyright side of the debate, I'd want to discuss the merits with you too. The fact is, I say what I say about Mike because he's dishonest. If he were open, awesome, and human, I wouldn't feel the need to remind people of what an ass he is. I will continue to talk shit about Mike and I will continue to remind people of what a fake he is. If he wants to prove me wrong, I'm right here, ready to engage. I don't care what you think, honestly. I know you don't like it. I don't care. I will not change one single thing I do because of what you say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a disgusting hypocrite you are AJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your idea of debate and to engage on the merits is where you state whatever the heck is on your mind, regardless of how it is communicated or its basis in reality, and we're all to just nod our heads in collective agreement and say, "Yes, AJ, you are absolutely positively correct."
That is your shtick, as the other AC put it. They are correct to. We've all seen this exact behavior from you countless times. One needs search no further than your comments on this blog to know just exactly what you are and why you're here. The other AC is further correct in that you are so predictable that it is pretty freaking easy to pick our your comments despite you not signing in.
It is TOTALLY POINTLESS to engage with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then don't engage with me. Works for me. I'm here to discuss copyright law and theory on the merits. I think Mike pumps out lie after lie, intentionally bending the truth and manipulating his reader, and I enjoy pointing it out in the comments. I know that he runs away from debate because he can't back up what he says. You obviously disagree. Nothing I can do about that. The fact remains that I am ready, willing, and able to discuss copyright law and theory on the merits. I don't run away from substantive debate. Mike does. Of course he doesn't want to debate me. He hates to be proven wrong. He can't stand it. He just wants to pump out the lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The community here feels it is totally pointless to engage with you. It's not just me. It's been said by many commenters in various ways.
The only liar here is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The community here feels it is totally pointless to engage with you. It's not just me. It's been said by many commenters in various ways.
The only liar here is you.
I'm well aware that the community here doesn't like to be challenged, and they hate it when Mike is challenged. How am I a liar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're plainly the kind of person that is making some very poor choices, not the least of which is defending an obvious sociopath like Mike Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you've yet to prove that even once. If you had, you might get a shred of respect around here, but you have never once proven Mike to by lying about anything. And no sorry, saying something you don't agree with is not lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where did I intimate that I had "well reasoned counter-analysis"? I didn't. I merely pointed out that I think Mike waited so long because he was waiting for others to provide the "debunking" arguments so he could copy them. I've noticed over the years that Mike usually just repeats what others say. Most of the time he appears to care not about the soundness of what he's repeating. He's more interested in finding the "right" result, not in finding the actual result. My area of expertise is the law, not economics. I've never pretended otherwise. But that doesn't mean I don't understand basic economic concepts. I've actually spent quite a bit of time over the past several months studying economics so I would have a better understanding of it. I readily admit that I'm not the one to debunk a study's methodology. From what I can tell, neither is Mike. Hence my point about the $29B study that he grabbed onto uncritically. He liked the result, so it was a "good" study. I think here he's just spreading FUD about the study being the "MPAA study." It doesn't surprise me that the MPAA funded it just like the CCIA funded Mike's study. Tell me why it's wrong specifically. Don't just spread FUD about the authors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So Pirate Mike pirates? And this took you years to notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you're just being a smart ass, but I didn't say it took years to notice. I said I've noticed over the years. Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"My area of expertise is the law, not economics."
Well, that certainly doesn't stop you commenting on those articles, especially where he discusses the economics of business models.
"I think here he's just spreading FUD about the study being the "MPAA study.""
No, he's noticed - using actual facts - that the study was conducted by an institute set up with MPAA money. That is a provable fact. FUD = facts? If this isn't a problem, why is it not disclosed in the study? It's further discussed why this might not be a problem, but there's other reasons why this study seems less than concrete proof of what some people want it to say.
Like it or not, there is a trend whereby industry funded studies get the results the industry wants, and independent studies tend to either conclude no correlation between piracy and sales - or conclude that there's a possible positive effect. It's not FUD to conclude that it's at least suspicious that a study getting the results the MPAA want was funded by the MPAA. Unless you're saying you'd take any study funded by Kim Dotcom at face value as well, all methodology being equal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that certainly doesn't stop you commenting on those articles, especially where he discusses the economics of business models.
It's not like your own lack of expertise has caused you to withhold any of your mindless blathering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Outside of that, I'm willing to defer to anyone who can disprove my assertions of what would make things better and how to stop people I know from pirating - but I require evidence, not distortions and accusation. You provide nothing of the sort, yet you'll always pretend you know better. Here, for example, you're providing nothing to refute Mike's conclusions or what he's actually written - just strawmen, attacks and distortions of the points he has made.
Start acting like you're interesting in real discussion, and you might have one. So far you've providing nothing other than "I don't like what I think he's saying so I'll attack his working method". With no evidence of what that is, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice indictment of your master's work for Google et al. No head-pat for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wake me up when you post about something that you actually know something about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy form of addition control?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck logic
I link to the whole thing. You can read it.
It says the sales were higher than "they would have been if not for the shutdown". But that's complete bullshit because no one knows what would happen if Megaupload wasn't busted. The only thing they can say is the sales were higher than they were BEFORE the shutdown, which makes a subtle, yet significant difference.
That's actually NOT what the report says, which is why it would help to actually read it. In fact, it shows that sales themselves were lower after the fact, which isn't a huge surprise, since "before" was holiday season. What they do is compare *different countries* -- some that had very little usage of Megaupload, and some that had a lot.
In that way, they can look at the countries that had less usage of Megaupload, and see a performance behavior, and then compare it across those that had high usage of Megaupload.
It's not perfect, but it's not the way you described it.
If you want to pick apart the study, go ahead, but you should at least understand it before making claims that are obviously incorrect. It hurts your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]