I thought this was quite interesting:
"A confidential briefing for the Attorney-General's Department, prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology, criticizes the music and software sectors. The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian shows that copyright owners "failed to explain" how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases...
The study, which says some of the statistics used by copyright owners are "absurd", will be redrafted after senior researchers disagreed with its conclusions... Researcher Alex Malik, working for the AIC under a commission from the Attorney-General's Department and IP Australia, was particularly critical of the use of statistics in court... "Of greatest concern is the potentially unqualified use of these statistics in courts of law," the draft reads.
The report, intended as a confidential government briefing, casts doubt on the methodology of some industry piracy studies. It says the manager of the recording industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, did not know how piracy estimates were calculated, as that work was done by the International Federation of Phonographic Industries in London. Copyright owners often use street-value estimates to calculate losses, but this assumes that every person who bought pirated goods would otherwise have paid for a legitimate item, the report notes...
Many copyright holders claimed links between piracy and organised crime, but AIC researcher had found nothing to support that view. "Either there is no evidence of any links between piracy and organised crime or it is simply beyond the capacity of rights holders to identify these links," he wrote, adding that he was concerned about the way piracy figures were being used.
"It is inappropriate for courts and policy makers to accept at face value currently unsubstantiated statistics.
"Either these statistics must be withdrawn or the purveyors of these statistics must supply valid and transparent substantiation."
Piracy stats don't add up
Have the statistical 'analyses' of the RPAA been placed under serious scrutiny by statisticians? This article makes me wonder how they are calculating their figures. As pointed out in the text, it's probably not reasonable to assume that every person who bought (or downloaded) pirated goods would otherwise have paid for the 'legitimate' item. I also wonder if there has been any attempt to estimate the gains in revenue produced by downloads of music (via the effect of increasing a recording artist's popularity, for example, leading to increased sales in music or concerts).
"A confidential briefing for the Attorney-General's Department, prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology, criticizes the music and software sectors. The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian shows that copyright owners "failed to explain" how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases...
The study, which says some of the statistics used by copyright owners are "absurd", will be redrafted after senior researchers disagreed with its conclusions... Researcher Alex Malik, working for the AIC under a commission from the Attorney-General's Department and IP Australia, was particularly critical of the use of statistics in court... "Of greatest concern is the potentially unqualified use of these statistics in courts of law," the draft reads.
The report, intended as a confidential government briefing, casts doubt on the methodology of some industry piracy studies. It says the manager of the recording industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, did not know how piracy estimates were calculated, as that work was done by the International Federation of Phonographic Industries in London. Copyright owners often use street-value estimates to calculate losses, but this assumes that every person who bought pirated goods would otherwise have paid for a legitimate item, the report notes...
Many copyright holders claimed links between piracy and organised crime, but AIC researcher had found nothing to support that view. "Either there is no evidence of any links between piracy and organised crime or it is simply beyond the capacity of rights holders to identify these links," he wrote, adding that he was concerned about the way piracy figures were being used.
"It is inappropriate for courts and policy makers to accept at face value currently unsubstantiated statistics.
"Either these statistics must be withdrawn or the purveyors of these statistics must supply valid and transparent substantiation."
Piracy stats don't add up
Have the statistical 'analyses' of the RPAA been placed under serious scrutiny by statisticians? This article makes me wonder how they are calculating their figures. As pointed out in the text, it's probably not reasonable to assume that every person who bought (or downloaded) pirated goods would otherwise have paid for the 'legitimate' item. I also wonder if there has been any attempt to estimate the gains in revenue produced by downloads of music (via the effect of increasing a recording artist's popularity, for example, leading to increased sales in music or concerts).
The rest of that album is spectacularly crappy, IMO anyway.
Facebook
Twitter