A Tale Of Two Studies: File Sharing Hurts Sales!

from the fun-with-data dept

Fri, Mar 22nd 2013 4:27am — Mike Masnick

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:

As you can see, the countries that had higher Megaupload penetration (Mexico, Belgium, France and Spain) all also showed distinctly more sales relative to the other countries, which had relatively lower Megaupload penetration. There's a similar chart for rental data as well, in which you see a similar pattern, though not nearly as strong a correlation.

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

125 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 4:42am

Economy
I didn't read the report but did it take into account the economy of each country pre- and post-Megaupload shutdown?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 4:44am

"So I'm breaking it into three separate posts."

It's the mother of all troll baits!

This is going to be a busy day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 4:55am

Re:
What can I say? It's Friday already!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:12am

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.

What's a dearth?

;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:16am

Re:
"What's a dearth?"

I think its Sith lord of sorts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:23am

File sharing, in and of itself, does not cause any harm to anyone.

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 thread ]
Pixelation, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:25am

"I actually think the basic research and methodology is fairly solid."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:28am

I'm curious: just how much money did the MPAA spend lobbying, campaigning, and otherwise arranging the Megaupload shutdown? Because if it was more than they claim to have profited by the shutdown, that'd be hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:34am

Missing piece
One thing missing in their study. How many people were forced to buy a second legal copy of a movie or movies they had stored on Megaupload servers that they could no longer access after the shutdown?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rodrigo, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:36am

Manipulated data
As a casual-megaupload-user y believe this data is manipulated somehow... I really don't think pirates went "holly cr... They closed megauploads I'm going to pretend pirate bay, isohunt etc etc don't exist and go immediately buy a movie instead of waiting 2 days for a megauploads replacement"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:39am

'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.'

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:40am

Re:
My sarcasm filter's broken (so sorry if I missed the joke!), but just in case you're serious despite the winky:

dearth /dərTH/
Noun
A scarcity or lack of something: "there is a dearth of evidence"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:40am

First question that comes to mind is who sponsored the studies? When someone asks for information, they are often willing to pay for a specific result, regardless of the overall picture.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:40am

Re:
These jokers need to read a real scientific paper sometime...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:42am

Re: Missing piece
I'd say relatively few were - especially in relation to the number of people who lost access to their own work. Most legal services allow re-downloads to a certain limit, so most would be able to re-download their purchases from iTunes or whatever.

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 thread ]
Ninja (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:43am

I have mixed feelings about this study. I don't think MU closure alone is responsible for sales boost. We have to take into account that when MU went down the cyberlocker market basically went down with it as other services started to severely limit their usage or simply closed down in fear. Regardless of MU case outcome they managed to simply destroy the market.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:48am

Re:
The term "piracy" is also a misnomer made up by the copyright industry to try to derail the discussion.

Where do you want to go with this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:50am

Re: Re:
Piracy is what happens off the coast of Africa.

Or in Johnny Depp movies :-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:51am

Re:
dearth Pronunciation (d�rth)
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 thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:52am

Frankly, you can completely discount any study funded by MPAA or related group. They are known liars, cheats, and swindlers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:55am

Actually the study seems pretty reliable in terms of methods. They are close to being optimal with what they have to work with! However, I really lack data on seasonal variation of sales as a baseline. A comparison of 3 week before and after measurement is a bit too weak to establish a sufficient baseline (that is what they did). Afterwards they tested their hypothesis against sale-data for a longer period. It shows that according to their data, there is an increase in sales. Again, the period is from september to may which is a bit to the low side in terms of data.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 5:58am

Re:
I don't know, I'll bet Masnick would claim the work he's done for Google was unbiased. Why would this be any less trustworthy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:03am

Re:
What's a dearth?

Merriam-Webster Online: Dearth

Definition of DEARTH
1: scarcity that makes dear; specifically: famine
2: an inadequate supply: lack <a dearth of evidence>

Example usage: �There was an evident dearth of google-fu.�
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:03am

But this is the wrong question anyway.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:03am

First things first, this is my favorite line from the study:
...we also indirectly provide the first evidence we are aware of showing that Internet film piracy displaces digital movie sales and rentals
That's right, the author's of this study confirm that if you were positive there was proof that internet film piracy displaced sales before now you were delusional.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:04am

It's an interesting study and needs to be read, whatever it's weaknesses or strengths it does have one bright note to it.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:05am

Re:
Conversely if they're lying and cheating here it shouldn't be too hard to confirm that so why not do so rather than appear biased by refusing to even look into the details?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:08am

Re:
Its easily more.

I can't wait till they finally die like they keep claiming!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:09am

Re:
It's true, removing a spike around christmas does not an accurate accounting of seasonal trends in the data make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:10am

Re: Re:
You understand that google's main role is to be a search engine right? It has no horse in the race as to whether the stuff it helps you find is copyright infringing or not, so it doesn't have a bias to piracy.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:10am

Re:
There's also the very hopeful points in the article about how comparing digital copyright violators to physical sales is stupid because these people are obviously after digital products.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:10am

Re: Re:
*article should be study, the authors of the study point this out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:10am

Re: Re:
You are failing here.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:11am

Re:
This is the problem - and why these studies are so dangerous if taken literally. With each pro-industry study, there are factors other than piracy "enforcement" that will have an impact - the quality and popularity of titles released in that period, the opening of new services, retailer sales and promotions, even promotions in unrelated industries (e.g. car ads leading to increased sales of the artist featured). It could even be just lag from a previous quarter's successes (e.g. an extremely popular film becoming available on DVD where no similar hit was released the previous quarter).

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:13am

Re: Re:
A little defensive aren't we?

Leave us alone and get back to sucking chris dodd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:14am

Re: Economy
Yes - and what about trending over time? How do we know this isn't just part of a larger trend and that Megaupload had nothing to do with it?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:16am

Re: Re:
Doesn't Masnick disclose when a study is funded by google?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:18am

Re:
Everything backs up whatever point you want to make doesn't it? How convenient.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:19am

Re:
No, not whether it "causes harm to anyone" exactly. The only harm that is the correct concern of copyright is harm to the public overall through insufficient production and access.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:21am

Re: Re: Re:
You have no idea how much you're barking up the wrong tree here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:28am

REAL SUBTLE: Get your SLANT IN RIGHT UP FRONT, MIKE.
"Brett Danaher and Michael Smith. Smith, especially, has a long history of producing reports that copyright maximalists love." -- As the rest is clearly not going to even pretend to be objective, why should anyone bother reading it?

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:29am

Re:
Dearth has the same meaning as paucity.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:31am

Re: Re: Re:
And it seems the next Assassins Creed is full of em too..

Ubisoft it seems is full of Dirty stinking pirates!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:33am

Re: REAL SUBTLE: Get your SLANT IN RIGHT UP FRONT, MIKE.
Please explain how that is not an objective observation of the facts? Does Michael Smith not have a long history of producing reports copyright maximalists love?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:35am

Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearth

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:36am

Re: REAL SUBTLE: Get your SLANT IN RIGHT UP FRONT, MIKE.
As the rest is clearly not going to even pretend to be objective, why should anyone bother reading it?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:46am

Assuming all those conclusions are true and assuming the highest decrease in sales(i.e. 10%), that "harm" doesn't come close to the 50% slash in revenues caused by the "educational campaign" they did.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:48am

Re:
This study is flawed in that:
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy goes much in the software industry goes much farther back.

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 thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:58am

Progress
I was half expecting the study to consist of:

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:04am

Re: Re:
"Awwow me to pweshet my appwetwice, Dearth Maawl."

"Lord?"

"Sowwy, I juss got bawk fwom the detwist, and isth vewy haud to tauk."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:08am

Re: Re: Re:
(Incidentally, that's why he has such lousy teeth in later movies, it's hard to sound imposing with a numb-mouth)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I remember that. I think the version my friend had was a pirated copy. Aaaargh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:14am

Mike,

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:15am

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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:19am

Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:26am

Re:
And you well reasoned counter-analysis is...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:30am

Easy form of addition control?
One of the controls they could have also instituted was look at some of the major movies that came out before and after the shutdown and see what the sales of those specific movies were like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:32am

Re:
"...but the study didn't even supply the data it used. I guess it was "secret" data."

Seriously?

Page four. Footnote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chris Dodd is sucking you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
This just reinforces the importance of good oral hygiene for any aspiring evil overlord.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:38am

Re: Re:
He'll have it soon, I'm sure. He just has to wait for that laxative to work first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:40am

Re: Re:
Tell me this, when has copyright ever been about maximizing the some function?

"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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:40am

Re: Re:
Well, it certainly doesn't look like it was trying to maximise content controllers income, especially well past what was normal human lifespan in those days.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:41am

Re: Re:
"optimised"

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:47am

Re: Re:
Seriously?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:48am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:49am

Re: Re:
Don't expect anything well-reasoned from AJ. Ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:52am

Re: Re: Re:
LMAO! Right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:55am

Re: Re: Re:
Don't expect anything well-reasoned from AJ. Ever.

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 thread ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 7:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Awesome game...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:02am

Re: Re:
And you well reasoned counter-analysis is...?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:14am

Re: Re:
And last but not least:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we shouldn't maximize the progress of science?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:23am

Re: Re: Re:
. . . so he could copy them. I've noticed over the years that Mike usually just repeats what others say.

So Pirate Mike pirates? And this took you years to notice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:25am

Re: Re: Re:
OK, so then you can furnish us with examples of where he's copied, or even provide links to where those debunking arguments have been refuted. It shouldn't be so hard, right?

"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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:08am

Re: Re:
Counterevidence is frequently provided here.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:24am

Re: 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.

It's not like your own lack of expertise has caused you to withhold any of your mindless blathering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like it or not, there is a trend whereby industry funded studies get the results the industry wants

Nice indictment of your master's work for Google et al. No head-pat for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice lie. I wonder if you're really this stupid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you should refute my points instead of providing lies and insults, then. I've always said that my "expertise" in most of these discussions come from being a lifelong purchaser of media who recognises the problems that get between me and the content I wish to legally obtain. Unless you're lying about something within my technological or other realms of direct expertise, that's my position and always has been.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we shouldn't maximize the progress of science?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Pirate Mike pirates? And this took you years to notice?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that certainly doesn't stop you commenting on those articles, especially where he discusses the economics of business models.

Wake me up when you post about something that you actually know something about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 9:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
He doesn't want to discuss anything with you. Just you.

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 thread ]
Zeissmann (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:13am

Fuck logic
You only quote one sentence from the report and already it's logically flawed, which makes me wonder what sort of language is used throughout this document. 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LMAO. Feel better? Mike doesn't engage in debates on the merits because he knows he comes out looking bad. It's not difficult to understand. Nor is it surprising. I can't think of any extremist zealot who likes to be challenged. Thanks for the advice, but I'll decline to take it. I know for a fact that Mike is a fake. He's proved that thousands of times. He cares not about truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, just keep trolling then. It is 100% pointless to engage with you.

We all see through it AJ, but whatever makes you feel better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know sometimes it's hard to tell which snowflakes are which but I've got a pretty distinctive one in this thread, maybe check the other comments?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:36am

Re: Re:
"he can't back it up"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not honestly going to suggest that maximizing sales revenue for the selected film studios fits either of the stated goals are you? Just because it's difficult to define exactly what 'the progress of science' or 'the useful arts' are exactly doesn't mean "it could mean anything, even profits!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, just keep trolling then. It is 100% pointless to engage with you.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:41am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know I honestly don't get your shtick. We know you two have debated in the comments before. We know how it turned out, we were there. Yet here you are pretending it turned out differently and that you were somehow vindicated. Are you hoping we forgot since the last time or something? You're like a child that's literally eating out of the cookie jar right in front of his parents and keeps insisting he's not like they can't see him doing it or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People have engaged you on the merits over and over and it never goes anywhere because no matter how badly you're beaten you just run off and start up this 'no one debates me they must be afraid' shtick in a new thread.

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 thread ]
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:54am

Re: Re:
"there is a dearth of evidence" Isn't that what the 6-strikes plan is about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, just because it's difficult to define exactly what 'the progress of science' or 'the useful arts' are exactly doesn't mean "it could mean anything, even maximizing profits!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Huh? I don't run away. I stick around and defend my position more than probably any other person on TD. I LOVE discussing the merits at length. Please link to even one time where I ran away if you can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you're just an angry troll who is (unsuccessfully) get under my skin. If you want to engage me on the merits, I'm here for ya. I don't think you care about discussing the merits of anything, though. You just want to get personal in a failed attempt to "take me down a notch." Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact is that Congress gets to decide what it means to "promote the progress," and Congress doesn't maximize secret economic functions. Copyright is one-size-fits-all. Maximizing some function is not possible since what achieves the maximum for person A differs with what works for person B. 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:13am

Re: Fuck logic
You only quote one sentence from the report and already it's logically flawed, which makes me wonder what sort of language is used throughout this document.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that Congress gets to decide what it means doesn't mean "it could mean anything, even maximizing profits!" either...

"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 thread ]
special-interesting (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:18am

Re:
Funded by the MPAA. Just knowing that, except for normal critical review, why would anyone even listen to an association that is now famous for its abuse of Hollywood accounting practices (which is arguably abuse in the first place) for lobbying fodder.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If moving the goal posts and ignoring reality and the visible post history is what you mean by 'I stick around and defend my position' then sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm trying to make this personal? Do I really have to remind you what the post this was a response to said? I mean it's right there, you attacking someone personally. If you don't like dealing on those terms then don't deal on those terms. For someone who wants to 'discuss the merits' and complains when things 'get personal' you have an odd way of eschewing the former for the latter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that Congress gets to decide what it means doesn't mean "it could mean anything, even maximizing profits!" either...

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If moving the goal posts and ignoring reality and the visible post history is what you mean by 'I stick around and defend my position' then sure.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm trying to make this personal? Do I really have to remind you what the post this was a response to said? I mean it's right there, you attacking someone personally. If you don't like dealing on those terms then don't deal on those terms. For someone who wants to 'discuss the merits' and complains when things 'get personal' you have an odd way of eschewing the former for the latter.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we're actually two people (among many others) who are telling you what your idea of debate is AJ, and why nobody (least of all Mike) wants to engage with you. No one is running away here.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 11:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is TOTALLY POINTLESS to engage with you.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just don't get it.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just don't get it.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Science, how does it work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 2:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Joe is anything but a liar.

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 thread ]
David Peterson Harvey, 22 Mar 2013 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re:
Actually, copyright laws protect the person who owns the property from theft by people who don't own the property, regardless of what it may or may not do to sales. It's enough under the law to say, "These people are stealing our copyrighted material and we want it stopped."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Peterson Harvey, 22 Mar 2013 @ 3:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
Of course, anyone is free to make their own movie, though they may not get the kind of budget or distribution these companies enjoy. I wish more people did that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2013 @ 6:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I can't stand my own tactics used against me so I'm going to post a long masturbatory rant about how somehow it's different when I do it because I'm me and Mike is Mike and that makes it ok."

What a disgusting hypocrite you are AJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't run away."

Really?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods-own-pirat es-must-inform-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 22 Mar 2013 @ 8:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I think Mike pumps out lie after lie..."

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 23 Mar 2013 @ 3:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're concerned about being confused with other cowards, grow a set and create a login. You don't even have to supply a real email address unless you wish to be informed when people reply to your inanity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2013 @ 4:33am

Re: Re:
I was thinking the exact same thing.. thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 25 Mar 2013 @ 10:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I understand. Congress doesn't look to maximize profits for copyright holders.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2015 @ 10:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course nobody links, because you don't log in. You're a waste of space.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe, 16 Feb 2015 @ 10:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I is using wifey laptop. I can smart good!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 8 Sep 2015 @ 9:27pm

Re:
Why aren't you skeptical of studies like that?

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 thread ]