The Bogus Piracy Math
It’s hard to write good blog posts about really excellent articles because you wind up not having a lot to say about them. So let me just quote Julian Sanchez’s lede:
If you pay any attention to the endless debates over intellectual property policy in the United States, you’ll hear two numbers invoked over and over again, like the stuttering chorus of some Philip Glass opera: 750,000 and $200 to $250 billion. The first is the number of U.S. jobs supposedly lost to intellectual property theft; the second is the annual dollar cost of IP infringement to the U.S. economy. These statistics are brandished like a talisman each time Congress is asked to step up enforcement to protect the ever-beleaguered U.S. content industry. And both, as far as an extended investigation by Ars Technica has been able to determine, are utterly bogus.
The story of where these numbers come from, and how bogus numbers are able to circulate endlessly is pretty fascinating. Check it out. And hopefully some day Big Content and its allies won’t be able to get away with recycling these talking points any more.
22 Responses to “The Bogus Piracy Math”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Studies have shown that, 92% of the time people quote statistics, they’re just talking out of their ass and have no basis for their assertion.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I agree with Glenn 110%.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
As a rabid watcher of Japanese anime, I’m used to a system where ‘copyright infringement’ is part of the picture. In Japan, fan-made comics are bought and sold pretty regularly; outside that country, fan-made dubs of anime are hugely popular, and often are used as measures of popularity by Western licensees to see what might be popular as a legal release. It’s a completely different model, and it’s interesting to see how it works.
On the other hand, anecdotal and some concrete evidence seems to show that piracy is flat-out killing the Hong Kong movie industry. What’s enforced and how (if) it’s enforced seem to be big factors.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
What does Julian Sanchez have against Philip Glass?
October 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
somewhat related;
Did you notice how often the 700,000 number was thrown around in last nights debate? relating to jobs, debt, troops, bailout..etc
October 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre you sure about those numbers?
October 8th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Yar there matey. I been fooled by these “Pieces o’ Seven” afore.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I really like this Big Noun nomenclature.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Not sure where the balance between public domain and intellectual property should be, but it seems to me to heavily weighted in favor of corporations. I worked for a company that was able to trademark the tagline “So everyone can breathe a little easier.” Clearly, that phrase has been in the popular vernacular for decades, so why was this allowed? Every time someone uses this phrase, they are violating intellectual property laws. That nonsense, plus the recent trend of copyrighting human genes, is really alarming. On the other hand, I do understand why people need to protect their investments and their creative products.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
won’t be able to get away with recycling these talking points any more.
Oh, sure they will. No matter what the evidence is to the contrary, they’ll keep lying until they lose billions of dollars in court cases where judge and jury agree that they’re lying, played to a large MSM audience.
Just like the tobacco companies. Otherwise, there’s no incentive to stop.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
In the meantime, I hope that my copying of a sample of Matt’s text falls far enough into “fair use” territory that I don’t get a DMCA violation notice in the mail.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I wish Matt would just grow up, erase the illegally acquired files on his HD or at least stop agonizing and projecting. Then, maybe, we could have a discussion that gives equal weight to both sides. Failing that, he should encourage everybody to steal his book.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Matt’s book is a textbook case (hah! Pun!) of why downloading should be allowed.
Because once you read it, you’d never buy it with real money.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
First Joseph Romm, now Ars Technica? Awesome!
October 8th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Used to be 20 years before things became public domain. I’m looking forward to the study showing the economic costs of copyrights being continued ad nauseum (keeping prices artificially inflated) and the costs to the public of protecting corporate profits from copyright infringements. The FBI doesn’t have better things to do?
March 1st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
cialis
Great site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 20th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Z0lVJS pwrivenjxxhu, [url=http://qoegvezsgqut.com/]qoegvezsgqut[/url], [link=http://fsjijlalxqhe.com/]fsjijlalxqhe[/link], http://npjhrkaaxmuv.com/