Misleading Data Undermines Counterfeiting Claims 91
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.'"
Re:Michael Liberal Geist (Score:5, Funny)
Yawn.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Elsewhere the word liberal usually refers to people with particular social and idealogical leanings. Here we are referring to a particular group of corrupt dirtbags.
I have no idea of Mr. Geist's political affiliations, and it doesn't matter to me. He's done a lot of g
Wikipedia? (Score:5, Funny)
So... what are the chances they just browsed Wikipedia for it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if the last edit was a few seconds ago !
MediaDefender (Score:1, Interesting)
They also made sure to tell their guys when they wanted stats on some album that "we're not protecting this one, so the higher the better" (paraphrased).
Hell, they also admitted to trying to sanitize their own Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] (click the discussion tab), so if they did get bad numbers from Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if MediaDefender or someone like them put them the
I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fake rolexes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they are counting lost sales based on any fake would have been a real sale. Just considering my daughters 30 gig Zen would lead to that conclusion. The Zen has 2,200 files on it (I know from making a backup). With the back-up copy also being a pirated copy, that at a dollar per song is about 5K dollars worth of pirated stuff. That counts just my daughters Zen, not my son's iPod. In the last year using those figures, they have collected together over 15% of my income for the year. I think this is the figures they are running with.
What they are failing to figure, is if all that music was paid for for each copy, is they could pocket that money. This is simply wrong. That money isn't there. At full retail with piracy eliminated the reality would be that neither kid would have any use for an iPod or Zen and they would be exposed to less music and would have bought far fewer CD's than they actualy did. With the portable music players and a large exposuere, they have become avid fans of some bands and buy CD's and go to concerts. Without the exposure, this would not have happend.
I grew up in the 1970s. Through those years, I didn't go to any concerts. The local AM station played country. In high school the next town over got a couple FM stations, one was rock. Piracy was mostly non-existant, but so was my involvement with any music industry product.
When I went into the Navy and spent time in the barracs, I was exposed to lots of neat music. I invested heavily in a very good stereo system including a linear tracking turntable and 2 cassette decks. I pirated a bunch of stuff and also bought a bunch of stuff. That was my peak music buying years. If Piracy didn't exist, I would have had little reason to get into stereo and invest in quality duplication decks in a big way. This is seldom figured in any anti-piracy study. For the new generation, the cassette decks has been replaced by PC hard drives and portable music players. The cost of duplication has gone down, the quality of copies has gone up and the media compainies still have way overpriced products.
The biggest roadblock to stopping piracy at the moment is simply overpriced product. This has not changed since I was in the Navy. I would have bought a lot more of my favorite music if it didn't cost so stinking much. I'm glad to see Nine Inch Nails make an issue of that. They are dead right.
Re:I hope not. Re:Wikipedia? (Score:4, Informative)
$1000 is not really plausible, especially since this includes a large part of the population (small children and the elderly etc.) who do not purchase any or very little media and who do not have the capability to "pirate".
Re: (Score:1)
--
Fake food? Pizza, Twinkies, Mc*** ?
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly once genetic code can be copyrighted, trademarked or otherwise "protected" (as it often is in the form of plant seed), you can have consumers buying fake wheat, corn, oats even copyright infringing bananas.
just in case... (Score:5, Interesting)
besides the one most slashdot readers are familiar with, another is possibly equally interesting to slashdot readers:
click here [wikipedia.org] for an alternative definition.
cheers.
Mod parent up. (Score:1)
I agree with parent. Given the legal context, it's very likely that this is what the RCMP actually meant.
Re: (Score:1)
You see, that's why we should instead use a name that is completely unambiguous: free software. This way no one will ever be confused.
Oh, come on.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just Canada. It's the USA, all the countries in Europe, Asia..
Any peoples with a government body lie.
Re:Oh, come on.... (Score:4, Funny)
"Frankly Ottawa would be safer without Quebecer and OPP cars on the road..."
Hey, I resemble that remark, tabernac!
The reason Quebec drivers suck at it so much is because we're used to driving all over the road to avoid all the potholes of doom.
Actually, I agree with you ... between the speeding, cutting in and out of traffic, not signalling, (or signalling one way, and going another, or leaving the blinker on for the next 5 exits), the potholes, the craters, the detours, the badly planned road system (okay, it was never planned), the lack of street signs at a lot of intersections ...
Re:Oh, come on.... (Score:4, Funny)
But it takes a quebecer to tailgate you 3 ft behind your car while doing 60 in a 60 (or 80 in an 80) for an entire 10 minute drive down carling
I so love driving the speed limit in the "fast lane." The looks on peoples faces are priceless. When they say "fast lane" they mean for going faster than the slow-pokes in the right hand lane who aren't doing the speed limit. They didn't mean for those wanting to speed.
Re: (Score:2)
"But it takes a quebecer to tailgate you 3 ft behind your car while doing 60 in a 60 (or 80 in an 80) for an entire 10 minute drive down carling "
Didn't you get the memo - you're supposed to jam on the brakes and raise your middle finger. I'm usually in the right lane - if I get someone who's crowding my tush, I either take my foot off the gas or, if they're really aggresive (flashing their headlights at me) down-shift. Of course, since there's no brake light when you downshift, they "wake up" when they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree 100% ... and they tried that. Unfortunately, "2 wrongs don't make a right" ... unless you're the cops.
Also, you ARE potentially obstructing some legitimate traffic - emergency vehicles have the right of way, as do regular people, in an emergency (same as funeral processions can go through red lights). Its like anything else in the world ... if they want to nail you, they will.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably doesn't help that I wave to people too
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you can "safely" drive 20 over the limit, it's not legal. therefore there is no reason traffic should be going that fast and you can't be obstructing it. That's like arguing that I'm obstructing traffic because I'd be in the way of someone wanting to go the wrong way down the highway. Just like
Re: (Score:1)
I've heard this argument before. Unfortunately, it's not law. It's unlawful for a civilian to drive faster than the posted speed limit under ALL circumstances [including emergencies], at least in Ontario.
Even if you can "safely" drive 20 over the limit, it's not legal. therefore there is no reason traffic should be going that fast and you can't be obstructing it. That's like arguing that I'm obstructing traffic because I'd be in the way of someone wanting to go the wrong way down the highway. Just like you're not supposed to speed, you're also not allowed driving more than [iirc] 150 meters the wrong way down a road.
And finally, if you rear-end a car just because they're going slower than you [even under the speed limit], than *you* don't know how to drive. What if, suppose, their engine failed, or they're trying to slow down because the brakes failed, or any number of reasons. It's YOUR responsibility to pay attention to the road around you, and yes, that includes the possibility of you not doing the speed you want.
It's people like you why I take so much pleasure in driving PROPERLY.
Tom
I've never rear ended anyone, because I know how to drive. It has much less to do with how fast you are going, than how close you are following for current road conditions. It's the last part that seems to confuse the hell out of people who think everything is fine because they are following the RULES. There is less visibility at night. Snow and ice can make safe speeds much lower than the posted limit and different vehicles can handle them with different ability (and you can see lots of 4 wheel driv
Re: (Score:2)
When it's slushy/icy/snowy [y!] out i drive slower. Last year when a snow
Re: (Score:1)
Where did I say I drive faster than the conditions? My point was when it's clear and fine out, I drive the speed limit in the "fast lane" to remind people that speeding is not ok. If for only a second, it reminds people that they're speeding and gives them the chance to correct it. Most people just pass me speeding along, occasionally they get nabbed by the popo, but sometimes people also slow down and follow me at the speed limit.
Why is it so difficult to understand that just like driving conditions can make the safe speed lower than the posted limit, it could also make the safe speed faster than the posted limit? It is not the maximum safe speed. My point is that your whole safety claim is nonsense. You ignore the rules of the road involving which lane to drive in, they are ignoring the speed limit. As frustrated drivers pass you on the right, you create danger. Some of them are following, hoping you'll take the hint and ge
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing that I'm the danger for not speeding is just loopy. Sure 20 over may be safe, but it's not the fucking limit, and frankly, I seriously question the majority of people in being to safely determine that. Often, there are other issues to consider. Sure you could bomb down a residential road at 80km/hr. But why don't you? Under your assumptions
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
[forgot to reply to this]
No, it means I'm a safe driver. When I drive the limit in the fast lane on clear roads, the people behind me should be well in control of their cars. So pissed off they may be, there is no reason for them to hit me. Chances of people actually hitting my car is low to nill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Great news for the U.S. (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm no it doesn't cost Canadians anything, they're getting all that counterfeit stuff for free, that's kinda the whole point of piracy. It might be more accurate to say that $30 billion per year worth of wealth is more evenly distributed in Canada, thanks to counterfeiting. (I'm only being partially sarcastic)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 severe
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
There will never be accurate data on any of this. (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's the ideal case (people are never neutral, especially on a topic such as this).
The reason they need this number most is they want the government to put a law that artificially "restores the balance" by splitting the loss on blank media and players, taxing those.
The flaws of this approach are visible from a mile away, even if you had the perfect data in your hands.
So bottom line: we can't obtain proper data, but we shouldn't need it in the first place.
Re:There will never be accurate data on any of thi (Score:1)
I wouldn't frame this as a "debate", exactly ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
A couple of more appropriate words might be "rubberstamp", or perhaps "steamroller". But not debate.
Re:I wouldn't frame this as a "debate", exactly .. (Score:1)
Argument: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, an intellectual process.
Which brings us to the next word of the day.
Contradicting: Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Piracy is not the problem (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Piracy is not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we've been jaded by so many truly good movies that we've lost sight of what a 'bad' movie really is. I've a friend wh
Chilly, eh? (Score:2)
$900 per person? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
It's invlated and here's why (Score:3, Interesting)
But if I didn't have that opportunity, would I have spent that $900 on the same material? No. What would I have spent on it? $0.
This is because movies I really like I always buy the DVD copy of anyway to add to my collection. Movies that suck, well, I download because I have nothing else to do when I am bored. If the ability to pirate this stuff was taken away I would just find something else to do with my time (and would probably lose interest
Re: (Score:2)
So, does anyone really believe that piracy costs Canadians about $900 per person per year?
I do, in fact it is much more. Just that it is the total load government taxes that the pirates take from us. This is typical Canadian government misdirection. This sounds more like a ploy to make for an ever bigger government to fix a problem blown far out of proportion.
Think, 2 of 3 days each of us has to buy a CD for life, maybe full of DRM/trojans too.
Re:And... (Score:4, Informative)
Sadly, I am not making this up.
]{
Re: (Score:1)
Rick, I'm schocked, schocked... (Score:2)
Open source on Internet != untrustworthy (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, if anyone including the folks at 132.147.63.12 made an edit and quoted Greenspan, the quote checked out, and the edit itself was written well, I would consider it just as authoritative.
You should ALWAYS consider the sources - and the original sources if it's not one - when using other people's data.
Re: (Score:2)
RCMP... (Score:2)
I mean, they are still riding horses, did you really expect an elaborate financial analysis on the impact of piracy from them? Jeez...
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I did not know RCMP, and I did not grow up in LI (did Grad School there though) or even the US...
Re: (Score:2)
The horses do come in handy occasionally though.
Meanwhile, in other news ... (Score:3, Funny)
Shivering moose? (Score:2)
Reminds me of an old joke.
Two Americans - a man and his wife - become lost while driving around in Canada during their holidays. After wandering aimlessly for awhile, the man finally takes the advice of his wife and stop to ask for directions. They pull into a small gas station, and the man asks the burly attendant therein if he could tell them exactly
Who did the estimate for Google...? (Score:2)
Wasn't the RCMP, was it? [slashdot.org]
Well that is nothing... (Score:3)
In short, there is an old saying for this... You didnt loose what you never had...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I dont hear the medical industry saying, however, is what Google is trying to say... And that is them trying to calcuate the business that these fraudulent vendors are taking away from them. Meaning, if they never made the money, then it does not belong to them in the first pla
I wish (Score:1)
Australian government initiative to spend $84 million to develop a content filter.
Counterfeiting is more than cd's (Score:4, Insightful)
It's cool to pretend stuff like this doesn't matter, but it does.
Re:Counterfeiting is more than cd's (Score:4, Interesting)
And yeah, who couldn't see that coming.
Internet Big Brother (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:1)