Acknowledging Blackout, Politicians Ditch SOPA

[Phopojijo]

Well we don't have access to alternative universes to study so what on earth will satisfy your unnecessarily pedantic pallet for statistics?

As was the case for the cases I shown which suggested piracy increased sales, small situations that are statistically well formulated can be used to better understand larger situations if carefully applied either through further larger-scale testing or analogy. With the latter, especially, you need to be careful of caveats in your model. Such is real statistics.

You are simply placing unreasonable doubt on statistics suggesting that surveys are all instantly void because they are not 100% accurate.

No, they are instantly void if they violate fundamentals of statistics.

Guess what; they don't have to be completely accurate but someone's word is generally, note that word, good enough to go on unless you have reason to doubt and in this case, you don't.

Improper use of ~Grade 8 (depending on curriculum of your area) statistics is reasonable doubt.

Also that article you linked is crap.
It's criticisms are biased

You quoted an MPAA paper, dude. I quoted the GAO.

and certainly do not disprove the papers in their entirety as the only criticism of the MPAA paper is the error in the demographic of pirates which ultimately doesn't effect revenue lost.

Their improper use of statistics are pretty damning too.

And let's take a look at the following sentence of the carefully selected selection from that paper:

"Nonetheless, research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable..."

Already covered that in my post.

Considering that the paper also admits that substituting pirated goods for bought goods does dramatically effect the outcome, something both papers do whilst using surveys to do so, why is this a problem? You do realise you don't need something to be 100% accurate for it to still be relevant? And unless you can throw substantial doubt onto the findings, the results from the papers stand and your criticism is nothing but unfounded scepticism. I am now doubting if you ever attended a university because you rejections of papers simply is not acceptable; personal scepticism counts for nothing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/Phopojijo/degrees.jpg

The one on the left is the Physics degree : )

Seriously though, we should back off on the trolling of each other... it's useful to try to get each other flustered but it's escalated beyond unprofessional for both of us. Truce, and stick to good honest debating?

It's not a matter of shaky or conditional statistics... again, it's a matter of fundamentally malformed statistics.

As for Ubisoft, if piracy wasn't an option, do you think their games would sell more or less? This shit is simple and you are just being stubborn for no rational reason.

Doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, it matters what happens. All I've been saying is we fundamentally do not know and need to take honest care in finding out because this issue now has collateral damage so great we simply cannot rely on what feels right.

 

[Phopojijo]

You are demanding unobtainable statistics as it is impossible to have the reverse situation - where piracy is removed from customer choice. The survey is more then acceptable as long as it is undertaken in a non-biased manner. I suggest you read psychological papers as they are vastly different, and have to be, from math orientated papers, due to realistic limitations that are imposed.

Actually it is obtainable, and has happened.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/20/business/fi-12478

Napster Inc. has been losing fans by the millions.

The slide began after a devastating March 5 federal injunction directing the file-swapping service to block users from sharing copyrighted songs. From a high of 16.9 million users in February, the service has dropped to 10.9 million users last month, according to research firm Jupiter Media Metrix.

So with Napster in retreat, music fans must be buying more albums in stores, right? Wrong. Retailers say their record sales are down 5% to 10% this year compared with the same period a year ago.

But hey, it might just be other factors. We must be careful in our application of the evidence.

Still, some retailers say Napster may not affect music sales at all. Slumping sales have more to do with a comparatively weak release schedule, a stumbling national economy and the popularity of video games and other competing forms of entertainment.

Or maybe it's not other factors.

The story with CDs is even more intriguing. According to SoundScan, CD sales from January through March 4 were up 5.6% from the period a year earlier. But for the period from March 5--just after Napster began removing copyrighted material from its service--through June 12, CD sales were behind last year's numbers by 0.9%.

But yeah, I was asking the question, but I knew an answer the entire time. Now there could be conflicting evidence... have any?

 

[Phopojijo]

You are demanding unobtainable statistics as it is impossible to have the reverse situation - where piracy is removed from customer choice. The survey is more then acceptable as long as it is undertaken in a non-biased manner. I suggest you read psychological papers as they are vastly different, and have to be, from math orientated papers, due to realistic limitations that are imposed.

Actually it is obtainable, and has happened.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/20/business/fi-12478

Napster Inc. has been losing fans by the millions.

The slide began after a devastating March 5 federal injunction directing the file-swapping service to block users from sharing copyrighted songs. From a high of 16.9 million users in February, the service has dropped to 10.9 million users last month, according to research firm Jupiter Media Metrix.

So with Napster in retreat, music fans must be buying more albums in stores, right? Wrong. Retailers say their record sales are down 5% to 10% this year compared with the same period a year ago.

But hey, it might just be other factors. We must be careful in our application of the evidence.

Still, some retailers say Napster may not affect music sales at all. Slumping sales have more to do with a comparatively weak release schedule, a stumbling national economy and the popularity of video games and other competing forms of entertainment.

Or maybe it's not other factors.

The story with CDs is even more intriguing. According to SoundScan, CD sales from January through March 4 were up 5.6% from the period a year earlier. But for the period from March 5--just after Napster began removing copyrighted material from its service--through June 12, CD sales were behind last year's numbers by 0.9%.

But yeah, I was asking the question, but I knew an answer the entire time. Now there could be conflicting evidence... have any?

But those conditions are absurd!
Ultimately, as long as the stats from the surveys are statistically viable, as well as done over an appropriate demographic etc, the results from the surveys are acceptable.

As statistically valid as a survey can be... especially when you have (lots of) experimental data that directly flies in its face.

Example: http://deals.woot.com/questions/details/1dc45e79-62c6-46d8-a288-b459f36ef5bc/do-commercials-work-on-you

Do commercials work on you?

They have an opposite effect on me. If I am annoyed by the commercial, I won't get that product.

I don't think this is what they were going for, but some commercials that stress how bad the competition is, make me remember the other name first.

Sort of. It's usually less "Wow, that commercial really makes X look good." and more "Huh, I've never even heard of X before, that sounds interesting."

I've never bought an item because a commercial made it look like the product was needed.
I have, however, bought products because I felt the item was adequate and I recognized it's brand in store. For instance, when I want chocolate, I always get Hershey Kisses because it's a brand that I'm used to seeing.

No, and I have trained my kids since a very young age to be able to see through the hype of advertising.
Advertisements do make me aware of a product's existence, which I can then go and research if I have a need for the thing.

I'm annoyed by commercials that assume the public are all mostly mongoloids sitting on couches shoveling food into mouths with both hands.
People dancing around your product doens't make me want it more. Women don't dicuss their periods in great detail, no matter how much those commercials want us to think they do. DQ is clearly ripping off the Old Spice guy. Yelling at me about furniture doens't make me run anywhere to buy it. Food flying through the air doens't mean it's fresh...

yeah definitely, like that one time when I got that not so fresh feeling. I tried everything to feel summer fresh but nothing worked, until my mom suggested Massengill, and ...

Commercials don't work on me because I rarely buy anything without a lot of research.
But I also don't see a lot of commercials: Adblock Plus works wonders on The Intertubez and Netflix works for (almost all) my TV viewing experiences.

vs.

I'm sure all commercials affect me on some level. Magazine ads and billboards too.
If a commercial is clever and original, I definitely remember it although I don't necessarily buy the product... i.e. Old Spice, Jack In The Box (when Jack was introduced), Dos Equis.

if it's informational or interesting, or if it's funny.
Oh, and if it's sexy. half naked women dancing around your product makes me want it. Naked women would probably work even better..... damned FCC.

-------------------------

How often do commercials actually work on people?

The problem with surveying people about their habits with/without piracy is that it completely ignores the crux of the problem that the survey is attempting to quantify: What effect the piracy has on their habits to promote or deter them to consume content legitimately.

Not to mention, again, that there is real experimental data to fly in its face.

 

[Phopojijo]

snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

As long as the survey is done without bias, and the results are statistically significant, you cannot deem the results of any survey to have no use.

You didn't read a dang thing I wrote, did you?

 

[Phopojijo]

I did but it doesn't really seem relevant as you choose what to pirate and therefore can assign a general number to what you would have rented.

E.g. "I've pirated ~100 films. Would have rented only ~60 of them"

Unlike adverts, people choose to partake in piracy; I've yet to meet the person who chooses to watch TV for the adverts.

What you need to let go of is the need for absolutely specific and accurate figures:

E.g. "I've pirated 103 films. Would have rented only 64 of them"

You can still find trends in the data from such surveys as done by the MPAA. There will always be outliers but as long as trends exist, you can then make a good estimate on money gained and lost.

The problem with surveying people about their habits with/without piracy is that it completely ignores the crux of the problem that the survey is attempting to quantify: What effect the piracy has on their habits to promote or deter them to consume content legitimately.

Not to mention, again, that there is real experimental data to fly in its face.

Also:

What you need to let go of is the need for absolutely specific and accurate figures:

What you need to let go of is the single shred of evidence that permits you to ignore other viewpoints.

The survey is nice and all, but it is the only evidence you have... and it is limited in scope and relies on someone's ability to self-reflect (just like the commercial survey).

And, again, where exactly does it state how much content they would have consumed, paid or unpaid, had piracy not been an option -- and how much of it would be new content -- etc. etc. etc. (again, just like the commercial survey)?

 

[Tomwa]

Edit: What the fluff is firefly?

You trollin? It's a sci-fi series directed(?) by Joss Whedon. And it was awesome, but it got cancelled D:

Such a shame :/

Ah, not much of a sci-fi person (or a tv/movie person for that matter) though really only good series die to tell you the truth (Only the good die young right?) the others get horribly and crappy never ending sequels.

 

[Phopojijo]

I did but it doesn't really seem relevant as you choose what to pirate and therefore can assign a general number to what you would have rented.

E.g. "I've pirated ~100 films. Would have rented only ~60 of them"

Unlike adverts, people choose to partake in piracy; I've yet to meet the person who chooses to watch TV for the adverts.

What you need to let go of is the need for absolutely specific and accurate figures:

E.g. "I've pirated 103 films. Would have rented only 64 of them"

You can still find trends in the data from such surveys as done by the MPAA. There will always be outliers but as long as trends exist, you can then make a good estimate on money gained and lost.

The problem with surveying people about their habits with/without piracy is that it completely ignores the crux of the problem that the survey is attempting to quantify: What effect the piracy has on their habits to promote or deter them to consume content legitimately.

Not to mention, again, that there is real experimental data to fly in its face.

Also:

What you need to let go of is the need for absolutely specific and accurate figures:

What you need to let go of is the single shred of evidence that permits you to ignore other viewpoints.

The survey is nice and all, but it is the only evidence you have... and it is limited in scope and relies on someone's ability to self-reflect (just like the commercial survey).

And, again, where exactly does it state how much content they would have consumed, paid or unpaid, had piracy not been an option -- and how much of it would be new content -- etc. etc. etc. (again, just like the commercial survey)?

But trying to quantify it is not a problem...academic papers have been using surveys for years...why is it now a problem? As I've said it's not perfect but certainly provides useful information. You jump to the bizarre conclusion that any answer given in the survey must be so far from the truth that it is irrelevant. That's simply not right if the answers are statistically significant whilst the survey is of sufficient quality.

It doesn't permit me to ignore other evidence. The evidence you have provided is not wholly relevant. Pirating promotes lesser know work; fantastic, but been to a torrent site recently? Almost all the content there are well known albums, songs, shows and films.

The phenomenon you mentioned is not new:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8007472.stm
Any time unknown work gets some sort of publicity, its sales dramatically increase.

As for the survey, I've covered this; the issue is we are just seeing the keynotes, not the raw data, but there is no reason to suspect it's fabricated. The resulting loss from piracy is derived from what they would have bought/rented if piracy was not an option.

Because they use them better than you do.

Surveys are highly subject to human error both in production as well as interpretation, explicit events are much less susceptible to error in the former.

Thus -- great, have you survey... but when you start hearing things like this -- which have nothing to do with lesser-known work (though there's plenty of evidence for works that are, too):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/05/PK220163.DTL

At this point last year, with Napster in full swing, record sales were up 8 percent from the previous year. This year, sales of new albums -- not including established catalog titles -- are down 8 percent. That's quite a pendulum swing.

You need to start questioning how good people are at self-reflection when compared to physical measurements of what they actually do.

 

[Phopojijo]

-snip for space-

No the papers use surveys in the exact same way.

Unless you have evidence to show where the survey is flawed, you simply have unfounded scepticism which is of no value.

That article has a lot of open ended questions though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"You need to start questioning how good people are at self-reflection when compared to physical measurements of what they actually do."

Until the survey results are shown to be grossly wrong, and there is no reason to believe that, then I'm fine with their answers. When someone asks a person a question, they don't tend to bullshit, and if they do the scale of the survey should show up those bull answers. As I said, you have a lot of scepticism, but no founding for it.

I shown where the survey is flawed: It is attempting to ask people how their purchasing (technically renting) habits would be without piracy which ignores the effect piracy has upon their decision.

Again...

The survey is attempting to determine how much someone would consume without piracy -- by ignoring how much people consume due to piracy by nature of directly asking them.

That is akin to asking someone how much they would purchase without commercials.

-----

And of course correlation does not imply causation... but many correlations in many circumstances... from many organizations... are much more relevant information than a survey and -- guess what?

Demands further study!!!!!!!!!

So, as I have been saying alllllllll along: We need to understand the (potential) problem better before trying to ram a solution. Let alone one as terrible as has been suggested thus far.

You are foolish if you ignore all experimental data, accept the outcome of a single survey, and claim no further study is necessary.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

snip

Ah, not much of a sci-fi person (or a tv/movie person for that matter) though really only good series die to tell you the truth (Only the good die young right?) the others get horribly and crappy never ending sequels.

Well it isn't a very usual sci-fi. There aren't any aliens or robot armies or anything. There isn't even a whole lot of hugely advanced technology. The show follows a few people trying to survive in a beaten up old spaceship, often by taking on criminal jobs to do so. It really follows more of the conventions of a western or something, with a kind of cattlepunk vibe to it. Lots of smuggling, bar brawls and the like, but in space.
It's also probably one of the most well-written series ever, but that's more subjective so I'll keep my opinions on the writing to myself.

 

[Phopojijo]

I think I'm going to call it quits here and just say that if you think piracy truly generates more money then it devours, then you must be living in some Truman Show come Stepford Wives area, and for that I am jealous.

No one I know has offset their piracy through legitimate purchases influenced by piracy and I think if that was the case, human greed wouldn't exist. But it does. And many people will keep something that cost nothing over buying it if buying it offers nothing extra. Why? Because that makes perfect sense. It's actually irrational to buy something you have pirated when the retail item is identical, and people tend not to spend money so needlessly.

All the data so far has shown that piracy can act as advertising for lesser known work, which is hardly a new revelation as it is a form of advertising and has been seen before on the internet.

Sorry, was really busy the last few days. Guess it's time for my closing argument then.

Don't just assume that what makes sense is what will happen -- if you see evidence to the contrary, you need to investigate closer.

And I think I'll leave you with this statement from Universal Music:

http://www.zdnetasia.com/blogs/dont-blame-the-pirates-when-they-have-no-access-to-legal-content-62303627.htm

Universal Music's head of global digital business Rob Wells himself underscored the importance of ensuring accessibility to content as a key solution to piracy: "[Offering] licensed legitimate services is the biggest way we can fight piracy... But, the ship isn't turning fast enough so we need laws passed and other protective measures put in place by governments." Which probably explains why Universal Music is a supporter of SOPA.

If your problem is the way you run your business... don't mess with my business by making laws that mess with my careers and my freedoms.

Especially when those laws probably will not even help you any.

I mean, you don't know if piracy help sales...
even then -- you don't know that piracy hurts sales...
even then -- it's strongly suggested that piracy is related to bad business decisions and is not just its own problem...
even then -- it's strongly suggested that SOPA/PIPA/similar will not help you...
EVEN THEN -- it's pretty obvious that SOPA/PIPA/similar will hurt a whole lot of other people.

Start at the top and work your way down... because federal legislation is too important to throw around willy-nilly.