The Open University Relevant Knowledge programme is here.

B2fxxx

By Ray Corrigan
 


RSS Feed

Atom Site Feed




Arabic German Portuguese Chinese Italian Russian Japanese Spanish French Korean (About)


Aaron Swartz
Abusable tech ATAC
Academic Copyright
AdviceNow UK Advice service
A copyfighter's musings
Alex Salkever's Security Net
American Prospect
Andrew McLaughlin
Ariadne
Atlantic Monthly
Ananova
ARCH
ALA Info-Commons blog
Bag and baggage
BALII
Balkanization
Battle Searchblog
BBC
Berkeley IP Blawg
Berkman Center
beSpacific
Bhopal Justice Campaign
Bitlaw
Blawg Republic
Blogbook
Blogs at Harvard
Blogscript
Blogzilla Ian Brown
BNA net news
BNA Web Watch
Boingboing
Censorware Project
CDT
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
Chronicle of Higher Education
CIA Factbook
City of Sound
Cluebot
CNN
CNet News
Consensus at Lawerpoint
Copyfight
Copyfutures
Copyright Colloquium
Copyright Readings blog
Cornell's LII
Corner House
Creative Commons
Criminal waste of space
Crypto-gram
Current bytes in brief
CyberRights UK
Cyberspace law
Daily Whirl
Dan Gillmor
Darknet J.D. Lasica
David Isenberg
disLEXia
Doc Searls
Don't link to us
Drew Clark
Economics of Privacy
Economist
Ed Techie
EDDix top 50 blawgs
E-evidence
EFF
EFF Deeplinks
EFF Minilinks
Elizabeth Rader
EPIC
Ernie the Attorney
Electronic Telegraph
Equal vote blog
Ethical Spectacle
EU Law Web Log
EUpolitix
Euractiv news
EUR Lex index
http://Euro-Copyrights.org/
Europa
EU Commission Pressroom
Europemedia
Evoting-experts.com/
Feedmelegal
footnotes
Fravia web searchlore
Freedom to Tinker
First Monday
Financial Times
Findlaw
FIPR
Froomkin
Froomkin blog
Furdlog - Frank Field
Gigalaw
GILC
Global Voices
GovNet newsfeed
Greplaw
Groklaw
Harvard Jolt
How Appealing
Ian Clarke's blog
ICANN Watch
Ideal e-government
ID theft protection blog
Importance of
INDICARE on drm
INDUCE Act blog
Infolaw
Inforlaw What's New blog
Infosoctech Alan Cunningham
Instapundit
International Herald Tribune
Internet censorship explorer
Internet Legal Resource Grp
Internet Scambusters
IP Central weblog
IPKat
IP Matters
IPRsonline portal
IP Watch
ITN
James Boyle
Jennifer Granick
Jessica Litman
JILT
Jurist
Jurist Paper Chase
Justice Talking
Kim Cameron's Identity blog
Kuro5hin
Law.com
Lawmeme at Yale
Law Society Gazette
Legal Affairs
Legal Theory (Solum) Blog
Lessig weblog
Lex Ferenda
Lex in the city iNews
Librarians' Internet Index
LibraryLaw blog
Linux Journal
Madisonian Theory
Martin W
Mercury News
Memex
Mindjack
MIT Technology Review
MSNBC
Napsterization
Newsforge
No2ID
Nolo Law Center
The Ndiyo Project
New York Times
NTK
Ofcomwatch
OneWorld
Online Journalism Review
On Lisa's Radar
Once upon a time...
On the Commons - Bollier
On the Identity Trail
Open Access News
Open Rights Group
O'Reilly
OUseful
Overlawyered UK
Pangloss Lilian Edwards
P2P policy course Berkeley
Policy Power Tools
Politech
PLoS
Posner & Becker Blog
Privacy & economics
Privacy Journal
Privacy Policy
Walt Mossberg
Phil Agre
Public Knowledge
Quicklinks
Reason
Red Herring
Reporting Civil Rights
RIP archive at FIPR
Roger Clarke
Ross Anderson
Rufus Pollock
Salon
Samuelson's cyberlinks
SANS Computer Security
Sarah Carter's lawlinks
ScadPlus Activities of the EU
SCOTUS blog
Scripting News
Shifted Librarian
Shirky
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Siva Vaidhyanathan Googlization
TalkLeft
Village Voice
Volokh Conspiracy
SciDev Network
Security Focus
Seltzer blog
Seth Finkelstein
Shifted Librarian
Silicon Valley
Slashdot
Slate
Snopes Urban legends
Spyblog
Stephen Fry
STLR
Susan Crawford
American Prospect Weblog
Tech Law Journal
The CATO Institute
The Blog of Doom
The Corner House
The Green Bag
The Guardian
The Industry Standard
The Nando Times
The New Republic TNR
The Register
The Times
The RISKS Digest
The Trademark Blog
Tony H
Townhall
UCLA Cyberspace Law
UEA law blog
UK Court Service
UK Criminal Justice blog
UK FOI blog
UK Human Rights Archive
UNESCO copyright site
Urban Legends
USACM blog
VUNet
Weatherall's law
Wikipedia
WIPO
WIPO CLEA
WJIN
xkcd
ZDNet


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Sitemeter count:

One click on a button helps feed the hungry



      Thursday, October 09, 2008

 
Timothy B. Lee has been explaining at Freedom to Tinker why journalistic skepticism is important when considering piracy statistics. It's worth reading in full:

" If you've paid attention to copyright debates in recent years, you've probably seen advocates for more restrictive copyright laws claim that "counterfeiting and piracy" cost the US economy as much as $250 billion. When pressed, those who make these kinds of claims are inevitably vague about exactly where these figures come from. For example, I contacted Thomas Sydnor, the author of the paper I linked above, and he was able to point me to a 2002 press release from the FBI, which claims that "losses to counterfeiting are estimated at $200-250 billion a year in U.S. business losses."

There are a couple of things that are notable about this. In the first place, notice that the press release says counterfeiting, which is an entirely different issue from copyright infringement. Passing stronger copyright legislation in order to stop counterfeiting is a non-sequitur.

But the more serious issue is that the FBI can't actually explain how it arrived at these figures. And indeed, it appears that nobody knows who came up with these figures and how they were computed. Julian Sanchez has done some sleuthing and found that these figures have literally been floating around inside the beltway for decades. Julian contacted the FBI, which wasn't able to point to any specific source. Further investigation led him to a 1993 Forbes article:

Ars eagerly hunted down that issue and found a short article on counterfeiting, in which the reader is informed that "counterfeit merchandise" is "a $200 billion enterprise worldwide and growing faster than many of the industries it's preying on." No further source is given.

Quite possibly, the authors of the article called up an industry group like the IACC and got a ballpark guess. At any rate, there is nothing to indicate that Forbes itself had produced the estimate, Mr. Conyers' assertion notwithstanding. What is very clear, however, is that even assuming the figure is accurate, it is not an estimate of the cost to the U.S. economy of IP piracy. It's an estimate of the size of the entire global market in counterfeit goods. Despite the efforts of several witnesses to equate them, it is plainly not on par with the earlier calculation by the ITC that many had also cited.

It's not surprising that no one is able to cite a credible source because the figure is plainly absurd. For example, the Institute for Policy Innovation, a group that pushes for more restrictive copyright law, has claimed that copyright infringement costs the economy $58.0 billion. As I've written before, these estimates vastly overstate losses because IPI used a dubious methodology that double- and triple-counts each lost sale. The actual figure—even accepting some of the dubious assumptions in the IPI estimate, is almost certainly less than $20 billion. But whether it's $10, $20, or $58 billion, it's certainly not $250 billion.

There are a couple of important lessons here. One concerns the importance of careful scholarship. Before citing any statistic, you should have a clear understanding of what that figure is measuring, who calculated it, and how. The fact that this figure has gotten repeated so many times inside the beltway suggests that the people using the figure have not been doing their homework. It's not surprising that lobbyists cite the largest figures they can find, but public servants have a duty to be more skeptical.

The more important lesson is for the journalistic profession. Far too many reporters at reputable media outlets credulously repeat these figures in news stories without paying enough attention to where they come from. If a statistic is provided by a party with a vested interest in the subject of a story—if, say, a content industry group provides a statistic on the costs of piracy—reporters should double-check that figure against more reputable sources. And, sadly, a government agency isn't always a reliable source. Agencies like the BLS and BEA who are in the business of collecting official statistics are generally reliable. But it's not safe to assume that other agencies have done their homework. The FBI, for example, has made little effort to correct the record on the $250 billion figure, despite the fact that it is regularly cited as the source of the figure and despite the fact that it has admitted that it can't explain where the figure comes from.

Julian gives all the gory details on the origins of the $250 billion figure. He also digs into the oft-repeated claim that piracy costs 750,000 jobs, which dates back even further (to 1986) and is no more credible. And he offers some interesting theoretical reasons to think that the costs of copyright infringement are much, much less than $250 billion."