Misleading Data Undermines Counterfeiting Claims

An anonymous reader writes "Canada has been the home to a growing debate on counterfeiting with politicians, law enforcement, and copyright lobby groups all pushing for stronger copyright and anti-counterfeiting laws. Writing in the Toronto Star, Michael Geist reports that the claims are based on fatally flawed data. The RCMP, Canada's national police force, has been claiming that counterfeiting costs Canadians $30 billion per year. When pressed on the issue, last week they admitted that the estimate was not based on any original research but rather on 'open source documents found on the Internet.'"

Oh, come on....

[Creepy Crawler]

Is it that big a surprise that government and reporting agencies bloat numbers .... or even just lie to get their agenda covered?

It's not just Canada. It's the USA, all the countries in Europe, Asia..

Any peoples with a government body lie.

I hope not. Re:Wikipedia?

[Erris]

So... what are the chances they just browsed Wikipedia for it?

If they are browsing Wikipedia, it's to insert their own BS into it. They pulled "articles" from "news" sites and ignored their own GAO estimates based on random sampling of real markets. In other words, they pulled it out of some industry (International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition) press release and an "estimate" by the Chief Economist for the Canadian Manufacturing and Exporters.

These estimate "pirate" product as %20 of the entire Canadian economy and that's insane. When you consider real estate, cars, domestic food product, gasoline and non branded commodities that dominate any economy, you would be lucky if %20 of goods were branded at all much less "pirated". How many fake Rolexes do these people think can be sold in a given year? Does anyone really believe that one in five dollars spent goes to something "fake"?

I wouldn't frame this as a "debate", exactly ...

[ScrewMaster]

Canada has been the home to a growing debate ...

From dictionary.com:

Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

There's plenty of opposing viewpoints, but really there's no "discussion" here ... the individuals and organizations in favor of these shenanigans have no interest whatsoever in debating anything with anyone. They simply want their way, and they'll do pretty much whatever it takes to get it. Nobody else's perspective but their own is of any consequence to them.

A couple of more appropriate words might be "rubberstamp", or perhaps "steamroller". But not debate.

Re:Obviously

[p0tat03]

You're assuming that each pirated copy would never have been a sale. Consider, though, that much of piracy (both in terms of counterfeit branded goods and software) involves unwitting consumers (the man who gets suckered into a Rolex deal that's too good to be true, for example). These are a lot grayer, and it could very well be that the consumer who bought the counterfeit goods would have bought the legit item if given the opportunity and the knowledge.

So yes, while I agree that piracy numbers are severely inflated but benefiting parties, it is not a victimless crime. There is a substantial dollar loss tied to it.

Re:Piracy is not the problem

[pokerdad]

I would wager that moves like "Evan Almighty" cost the industry more then piracy.

I know you were joking, but I thought that its worth pointing out, there is no longer such a thing as a bomb in Hollywood. Between the globalization of the film market(by which I mean that Hollywood is now king almost everywhere), DVD sales, PPV, broadcast rights, and merchandizing it is virtually impossible for a Hollywood film to lose money anymore. "Evan Almighty" made back $100 mil of its $175 mil budget just in domestic box office, and given that Hollywood films now generally make more money abroad than at home, its sure to show a profit before its done with theatres.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413099/business [imdb.com]

Counterfeiting is more than cd's

[m0nkyman]

There is a growing problem with counterfeits outside of IP crap. There are the brand name knock-offs of stuff like designer goods, but there is more and more counterfeiting of things like tires and automobile parts. That genuine GM part might be a sub-par knock off out of a chinese factory.

It's cool to pretend stuff like this doesn't matter, but it does.

Re:Obviously

[TubeSteak]

Consider, though, that much of piracy (both in terms of counterfeit branded goods and software) involves unwitting consumers (the man who gets suckered into a Rolex deal that's too good to be true, for example).

Ummm... I'm going to have to disagree with you there, at least about the Rolex.

People in the market for a 10~100 dollar (fake) Rolex are not the same people who are in the market for a 5,000~10,000 dollar Rolex.

Re:Well that is nothing...

[warrigal]

This being slashdot everybody thinks in terms of warez or music. How would you feel about being treated by a counterfeit doctor (it's happened in OZ recently) with counterfeit drugs? Dollar costs are hard to calculate in these circumstances.

Re:Obviously

[pla]

People in the market for a 10~100 dollar (fake) Rolex are not the same people who are in the market for a 5,000~10,000 dollar Rolex

Bingo. I think only you, in this entire discussion so far, even read the FP, much less TFA.

Counterfeiting != Piracy, people.

The RIAA has a pretty good argument (even if they use massively inflated numbers) when they say that the average person who pirated popular-song-X might have bought it instead. That doesn't scale up to tens of thousands of songs, but as a one-off, they have a valid point.

When the IACC [iacc.org] tries to make the same argument, it falls completely flat. These jokers make the RIAA look reasonable by comparison. The average person simply will not ever buy a $1500 handbag or a $5000 watch. This organization doesn't protect the average Joe (they even admit the counterfeit goods usually have comparable quality to the real thing, making them harder to spot); They don't protect the manufacturers (since counterfeiting results in no lost sales); They don't help anyone but the mega-rich.

They make sure Paris Hilton doesn't need to run home and change because her cellmate wore the same (if $10k cheaper) shoes to the press conference.

Re:Michael Liberal Geist

[djmurdoch]

I wouldn't call him a Liberal: he helped a Liberal (Sarmite Bulte) to lose the last election [boingboing.net].

Re:Michael Liberal Geist

[billcopc]

What's so bad about liberals anyway ?

Last century it was communists, now liberals ?

Politics would make a lot more sense if people actually put a little thought into their choices, rather than spinning a wheel to choose who they hate this week.

Re:Oh, come on....

[DerangedAlchemist]

Well my argument would be you can't pass someone doing the speed limit (hint: you're not supposed to speed to pass someone). In which case, you can't be obstructing legitimate traffic by speed limit.

You don't know how to drive. The safe speed can be faster or slower than the posted limit, depending on conditions. I've know lots of drivers who go the speed limit who are MUCH more dangerous than speeders. There's something to be said for being capable of judging safe speeds and driving habits for yourself (and yes there are speeders who don't have this capability either.)

If you are not passing someone, you are not legitimate traffic in the passing lane (pot meets kettle). Learn what the lanes are for.

(hmmm. I think some frustration is showing through. I blame cops only ticketing speeding, rather than all bad/dangerous driving.)