New Research Shows No Link Between Violent Video Games And School Shootings

from the sorry,-jack-thompson dept

Some new research has found that, despite media hype, there is no relationship between violent video games and school shootings. The report criticizes earlier reports linking violent video games to aggression, noting that their methodology was flawed -- and also points to the unfortunate trend of politicians and the mainstream media to team up to create moral panics around such things despite not having any evidence of a causal link. This is the latest in a long line of recent research that has noted similar findings. Maybe we can finally get past blaming video games for youth violence...

Filed Under: research, video games, violence

Respected Dutch Researchers Note That Piracy Has A Positive Impact On The Economy

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

Stanley de Vries wrote in to let us know that TNO, a respected Dutch research firm has come out with a large, 142-page, report about piracy, commissioned by the government, where it noted that piracy appeared to be net beneficial for the economy -- as opposed to some other studies you may have heard about from the entertainment industry. You can download the full report as a PDF, but it's in Dutch. Some translated news stories cover the high points. The report notes that there's little evidence that downloading is the cause of CD sales falling -- noting indications that downloaders actually buy more music on average, and that a much more likely reason for CD sales declining was that people had finished "re-buying" all the CDs they had owned on cassette before that format was killed off. Stanley was also kind enough to translate a few excerpts from the first 5 pages (meaning there's still plenty more to go through):

"The economic effects of file sharing short- and long term are strongly positive" [Interesting approach here: They give the well-being of people also economic value...]
"With regards to the music business we can say that downloaded recordings are not necessarily a lost sale"
"Lot's of people download for free to learn about new music and eventually buy when they like it"
"The calculations of the industry [about the losses caused by illegal downloads] are not necessarily correct because they are based on a lot of assumptions and contain a lot of uncertainties because underlying data is not known with any accuracy"
(So far we were still only on page 3)
"Downloading goes hand in hand with buying"
"Among downloaders of music and movies, the percentage of buyers is as high as among non-downloaders and with games the percentage of buyers is even higher"
"People that download music visit concerts more often and buy more merchandise"
"The practice of file sharing implicates that the producers [their definition is a bit vague here] need to change their business model"
"That is why innovation of the business model is now of the utmost urgency"

Filed Under: economic impact, piracy, research
Companies: tno

Researchers Become Spammers To See How Successful Spam Is

from the it's-a-hard-day's-work dept

There have been plenty of stories over the years about the people who buy from spam, with various studies showing surprisingly high percentage of people admitting to buying from spam. Of course, that's just seeing how many people have ever bought from spam, rather than how many people respond to a single spam campaign. I've seen estimates before (usually in the range of a quarter of a percent), but very little actual data, until now. The latest research on the topic comes from some computer scientists at the University of California (both Berkeley and San Diego), who actually took over a zombie network to send out bogus spam and watched the fake orders roll in.

Except that they didn't actually get that many orders. They sent out 350 million spam messages, and received a grand total of 28 orders. The fake pharma website they set up just returned an error message when someone tried to place an order, so the actual numbers could be even lower. If any of the credit cards were fake or stolen, then you could imagine that a real spammer would bring in even fewer orders. Though, the real spammer would also likely send out many more messages as well. But, even accepting the researchers' numbers, they found that the full zombie network they used could probably bring in about $7k per day, or about $2 million per year.

That actually seems fairly low for a massive spam operation, and suggests that spam might not be as profitable as it once was (assuming that earlier reports on spam earnings were accurate). It would make sense that spam is becoming less and less profitable, as users become more sophisticated, and less prone to ordering from spam messages. There are still plenty of suckers out there, but once someone is educated not to buy from spam (or has a bad experience buying from spam), the pool of suckers declines rapidly. Of course, we all know the real profit in spam these days isn't in selling fake drugs, but in pump and dump stock scams anyway...

Filed Under: money, research, spam

Latest Study On Violent Video Games Shows More Aggressive Behavior

from the but-how-much? dept

We've seen plenty of studies on the impacts of violent video games, whose results were later blown out of proportion in the media. When you looked at the actual details of the studies that were often purported to show a link between violent video games and real world violence, the so-called link almost always disappeared. Instead, what you found was that playing violent video games did make kids more emotional, which is what you would expect. While playing an exciting game, who wouldn't get caught up in the action? That doesn't mean they'd go out and hurt people, though. Some studies showed immediate aggressive behavior immediately after playing, but, again, that's rather reasonable as they probably have increased adrenalin flowing. But that's hardly a sign that they're going to go hurt people, and the effect doesn't last very long. Other studies have shown that kids who play such games get desensitized to images of violence -- which again makes sense, but still doesn't mean that they think violence is acceptable. It just means they're not shocked when they see it.

The latest study may be the most interesting (and, perhaps, controversial), however. It actually tries to account for much of this and tries to measure aggressive behavior of violent video game players months later. The study found that kids who spent more time playing more violent games, did in fact get more aggressive over time, even accounting for how aggressive they were at the beginning of the study. There are some questionable aspects to the study, such as using self-reporting to determine "violent acts," but on the whole this study does appear to be at least marginally more convincing than earlier studies, and, at the very least suggests further areas that should be studied.

Of course, nowhere does it explain why, if the study's findings are true, youth violence has decreased significantly over the same period of time that violent video games have become much more popular. If violent video games really made people consistently more violent, you'd expect to see that increase. And, if that number is not increasing, then you have to wonder if any reported increase in youth violence is even at a level that matters. If there's a marginal increase in aggressive behavior that doesn't lead to any increase in illegal behavior, is that really an issue? Also, when compared with another recent study that shows it's the small percentage of kids who don't play video games who are more likely to actually get in trouble, it makes you wonder if there are some completely independent factors at work here, rather than any direct correlation between violent video games and real world violence.

Filed Under: research, violent video games

Is Web 2.0 About Exploitation Or Empowerment?

from the an-academic-look dept

Earlier this year, at the Mesh Conference in Toronto, I had the pleasure of meeting Nancy Baym, a professor of communications at the University of Kansas. She's been doing tremendous research into questions concerning online "fan" communities around musicians. She's just posted her latest paper, with Robert Burnett from Karlstad University in Sweden, examining the question of whether or not Web 2.0 "fan communities" are really about exploitation or empowerment. This is a question we've addressed before, given that web 2.0 critics, such as Nicholas Carr, like to ignore that there are non-monetary benefits in the economy, and thus assume that any activity done for reasons other than money are exploitation.

The paper takes a balanced look at the Swedish independent music scene, which relies heavily on fan communities to act as filters and promoters of the music. The record labels don't focus so much on "selling music" so much as building up attention that can then be monetized in many different ways. Thus, they encourage fans to share and promote their music for them. So, is this use of fans exploitation?

The paper shows that, contrary to the "exploitation" view, the fans often get plenty of value out of the whole process, if not directly in monetary terms. As the paper notes, the concept of "exploitation" suggests a cost to the participant, but if they get more out of participating than they give up, then it hardly seems like exploitation. Instead, it's a reasonable choice in a non-monetary market, where they get more value than they put in. Plus, the paper notes that some of the fan participants eventually do make some money out of their efforts as well. That shouldn't come as much of a surprise. There are plenty of folks who became highly involved in a hobby and are eventually able to turn that into a business.

But the bigger issue for many fans, is simply being able to build relationships with the musicians they love -- and with other fans. To them, that's worth a lot more than money, and it's hard to see how building strong relationships and friendships can be seen as exploitation.

On top of that, the paper notes that the fans also make use of certain strategies to make sure -- implicitly or explicitly -- that they're not being exploited. In other words, whether they realize it or not, they're aware at some level of the possibility of being exploited by the situation, and they make certain choices to protect against that possibility. Overall, a very interesting paper that's worth reading, and I look forward to more research on this topic.

Filed Under: communities, exploitation, music, nancy baym, research, sweden

Are Scientific Journals Recognizing The Value Of Open Access Publishing?

from the that-would-be-good-news dept

We've had numerous articles over the years concerning the rise of "open access" scientific journals, which focus on making the research they publish openly available (usually online) to anyone who wants it, rather than the more traditional method of going through ridiculously expensive journals. This movement has certainly gained plenty of steam in the past fast years, even as many of the traditional publishers have done everything possible to fight it.

However, as SteveD points out to us, last week one of the big traditional publishers, Springer Science+Business Media acquired one of the more successful open access journals, BioMed Central, which has shown that it's possible to be an open access journal and profitable at the same time (wonders never cease). The author of the article notes, correctly, that it would certainly be a good thing if the old-line journals are finally recognizing that open access journals are an important and profitable part of scientific discussion, rather than just fighting them at every turn.

Filed Under: copyright, journals, open access, research

US Government Admits: Data Mining For Terrorists Doesn't Work

from the oops dept

Over the last few years, you probably have noticed multiple attempts by state and federal government agencies to collect more data on people and to share that data more widely. This is troubling for a variety of reasons, often having to do with privacy and questions concerning the quality of data, but those concerns are almost always pushed aside by claims that this data is necessary for fighting terrorism. There's this myth out there that if we just had more data, somehow we'd be able to stop terrorists. The problem is that this is untrue. More data often makes it even harder to find the important data, and now a detailed government report has basically confirmed that data mining doesn't help in finding terrorists.

The report was put together by a bunch of well-respected academics, industry insiders and law enforcement officials on behalf of the National Research Council, and finds that the idea of plugging all this data into a machine and popping out terrorist identities is a myth. The report then lists out a variety of recommendations, concerning the use of any data mining systems, and how to make sure that individual privacy is protected. One key finding that will never be implemented: when using any such system, systematic reviews should be done to see if the systems are actually effective. If there's one thing we've seen with government programs over the years, such attempts to actually review something they've put in place to see if it actually worked are almost never done.

Filed Under: data mining, government, research, terrorism

Congress Not Shutting Down Open Access To NIH-Funded Research... Yet

from the but-keep-watching dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how some research journals so hated the legal requirement that NIH-funded research be published openly in PubMed one year after published in a journal, that they were putting ridiculous hurdles in the way of researchers. The whole thing is actually a bit sickening. The NIH funds nearly $30 billion in research every year, using taxpayer money to pay for basic research, and these journals get free labor (researchers don't get paid by the journal, peer reviewers don't get paid by the journal) and then get paid to take the copyright away from the researcher (yes, the researcher has to hand over the copyright and still pay the journal for the privilege of publishing the content). This is a complete appropriation of taxpayer funded basic research that could be used to derive important advances in medicine and science -- and it's locked up by journals who want to protect an old business model.

So it caught our eye when a bunch of readers started submitting an Ars Technica piece about a bill from John Conyers, called The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, which would forbid government agencies from making any research grants contingent on the work being published. As the writeup notes, this actually appears to have been more of a turf battle, where the House's subcommittee on IP was annoyed that the whole NIH thing didn't include them in the process. The complaints from publishers is fairly bogus. After all, they're receiving a ton of free benefits from federally funded research, and are whining that they can't come up with a business model and now need the gov't to protect their old business model (which actually stifles the dissemination of knowledge). Passing such a bill would be a horrible precedent, which is why so many folks are up in arms about it (without even getting into the bad unintended consequences).

However, for now, it looks like folks up in arms over this missed the fact that the bill is pretty much dead in the water this year. Right after the hearing last week, it was made clear that nothing is going to happen on it this year, and the bill's own sponsor, Rep. Conyers, seems a bit confused over his own support of the bill (he seems much more interested in the turf war over who has a say in the matter, than in what the bill actually means). That doesn't mean it's not worth paying attention to, as next year it could come back. But, for now, it's not going anywhere.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, nih, open access, research

Six Degrees Of Separation Already Cut To Three? Not Really...

from the read-the-fine-print dept

It was just a couple weeks ago that we pointed to some research coming out of Microsoft suggesting that the somewhat-discredited theory of "six degrees of separation" may be accurate, though those degrees may have changed over time, thanks to increasingly powerful communications technology. Of course, if it's true that communications tech is decreasing our degrees of separation, then it should continue to decrease at a decent pace. But could we have already made the jump down to just three degrees of separation? That's the headline that's going around following a study released by UK mobile operator O2. Except, when you read the fine print, it's not quite accurate. The three degrees of separation are only true within "shared interest networks." So, for example, among folks who are fans of a certain sport, or jazz aficionados or whatever. Basically, the researchers changed the details of the experiment a great deal, narrowing the overall population for each "connection" -- so it should be no surprise that the degrees of separation are a lot smaller.

Filed Under: im, research, six degrees of separation, stanley milgram

Judge Lets MIT Students Share Their Research On Boston Subway Vulnerabilities

from the first-amendment-wins-again dept

While it took about a week and a half, a judge has now lifted the gag order that had prevented some MIT students from sharing a presentation about vulnerabilities in the Boston subway system. The judge refused to ban the students from talking about it for a period of five months (which the MBTA insisted it needed to fix the system). This is definitely a win for free speech, though I'm sure the debate over how and when to disclose security vulnerabilities will continue for a long, long time.

Filed Under: boston, first amendment, free speech, gag order, research, subway, vulnerabilities
Companies: mbta