Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing

from the there-goes-another-one dept

Over the years, we've found that every single industry "figure" or "study" on the harm done by unauthorized file sharing wasn't supported by anything factual once you started to dig into the details. So, when we saw yet another report claiming huge "costs" associated with file sharing in the UK we dismissed it pretty quickly noting it made many of the same mistakes as previous studies had. Apparently, it's even worse than that. Ben Goldacre, known for his excellent Bad Science blog has now taken the time to pick through the details of that awfully bad UK report, and found it laughable.

The big numbers being quoted, such as the £10 billion in losses? Not from any actual study. It's from an IP lawyer's press release, with nothing backing it up, other than "Rights owners have estimated" and that number includes both counterfeiting and "piracy" which are related, but different.

The other big figure quoted in the media? £120 billion worth of downloaded materials per year? Yeah, turns out that's based on (a) using a ridiculously high price of £25 per downloaded item and (b) totally and completely made up. You see, the number was already questionable, but the actual number in the report was not £120 billion, but £12 billion. Yet, the group blasting the report out to the press put the wrong numbers (just an order of magnitude off) in the press release, and only quietly changed it after one reporter caught the error. Goldacre asked the group what it was doing to alert the many, many reporters who went with the bogus number, and the group suddenly told him the interview was off the record.

Filed Under: bad science, ben goldacre, file sharing, harm, studies

Radio Station Uses Copyright Claim To Try To Silence Bad Science Critic; Guess What Happens?

from the streisand-is-calling dept

A whole bunch of folks are sending this one in, so let's get it covered. Ben Goldacre writes the excellent BadScience blog where he exposes those promoting (you guessed it) "bad science." It's been a great resource in the past. Earlier this week, he took on a radio program in the UK, hosted by Jeni Barnett. Apparently, Barnett went on at length bringing up numerous highly questionable points siding with the rising tide of anti-immunization parents (who refuse to have their children immunized from things such as measles, mumps and rubella). Goldacre posted a 44-minute clip of the show to let his readers understand the extent of what Barnett had said, making sure that nothing he was talking about was taken out of context.

Of course, rather than respond to this, perhaps by at least trying to back up what Barnett had said, LBC just sent a takedown notice using the typical threatening legal talk, demanding that it be removed immediately, that the lawyers be informed -- and making it clear that they still might sue him anyway. So, what's been the response? Well, a ton of sites have picked up on the story, giving a lot more attention to both Barnett's "bad science" and LBC's unwillingness to be open to any criticism. Hello, Streisand Effect.

This is, quite clearly, another example of copyright being used, not to "protect" the creator's rights, but to prevent free speech and try (and fail, miserably) to quiet public dissent. We've seen this thing backfire so many times, it makes you wonder why big companies and their expensive lawyers somehow still think it works.

Filed Under: anti-immunization, bad science, ben goldacre, copyright, jeni barnett, takedown
Companies: lbc