Acknowledging Blackout, Politicians Ditch SOPA

[Akimoto]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/18/chris-dodd-sopa-blackout-is-an-abuse-of-power/

They seem to think that the blackout is an abuse of power... kind-of like forcing a competitor's ad off of Youtube and (allegedly) lying about it in court.

I call big baby.

He's from MPAA, I guess it's not surprising he's crying about it. And I'm uncomfortable on the 'foreigner' focus. Is he a right-wing or something?

 

[Double A]

An ex-politician complaining about the abuse of power? Now I've seen everything.

 

[Belbe]

Lol going to comment just because of the Firefly idea. DO IT BRING FIREFLY BACK!!

And yay down with SOPA/PIPA.

 

[Phopojijo]

I hate to break this to you, but if it's not in the Bill, it's bullshit.

Making vague comparisons between SOPA and other bills is irrelevant as SOPA is a bill on it's own, which is vastly different to any other.

File sharing is also a brilliant way to get something for free. Which people do resulting in the entertainment industry losing billions. The loss may be lower, but it is still a loss.

"break the internet"? It won't break the internet. That is an absurd phrase with no backing.

That link is interesting and highlights the real rage-induging fact about SOPA:

"We would also need to implement a system to automatically censor the domain from any future posts or comments. This places a measurable burden upon the site's technical infrastructure. "

In other words, sites don't want to have to spend money to make sure their sites don't promote piracy in any way. The fact that this wouldn't be too hard goes to show how lazy sites are. This also makes the point about it hurting start ups as being utter crap.

Could it be abused? Yes, but so can almost every law in the US and people are still getting on just fine. Want evidence? Just look at Haliburton.

Well first of all, I've smacked you around quite a bit in the other thread ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.338364-U-S-Congress-Shelves-SOPA?page=9 ) over this... so I don't know what you are hoping to prove.

Also -- on top of all the other things pending from the other thread, such as there not being any proof of harm from piracy and all the technical reasons why it's bad -- it is impossible to make sure a site doesn't promote piracy in any way.

Want to know why?

Because if it was so easy to block bad content... why do we still have problems with spam and malware?

You really do have an attitude problem as you are inexcusably aggressive.
You had a point until it fell through with the fact that an exception rule could almost certainly be written into DNSSEC as the government spoofing will be to a static, known address.
With the way you talk/write I really do not know what you are trying to prove. To say there is no proof of loss from piracy is just ridiculous. It is just illogical to say that 10's millions of films, songs, albums and games pirated have not resulted in at least one lost sale. To make such a claim is just absurd and pro-pirate propaganda.

Since when did a Bill have to be 100% effective for it to be passed? Many laws are not 100% effective but are still used.

No, you are still wrong about DNSSEC. You are not better than the best security researchers in the world. It is not a solution as obvious as that.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/18081517371/comcast-owner-nbc-universal-admits-that-dns-redirects-are-incompatible-with-dnssec.shtml

Think about it this way: If Comcast and other ISPs are shutting down their nxdomain redirect service because it is incompatible with DNSSEC -- which makes them search ad money -- because they cannot make an exception... ... do you think it might be a bigger issue?

I didn't respond, true -- but not because you were right. You weren't. I figured I past the point of diminshing returns with you and could move on to discussing a different point. Nope, I still need to prove you wrong.

-----

With the way you talk/write I really do not know what you are trying to prove. To say there is no proof of loss from piracy is just ridiculous.

What am I trying to prove? What is right. There is no proof of loss from piracy because people just pull intuitive sounding figures out of their butts and not investigate even the slightest bit further. "Lost sales?" What about gained sales? The point is we don't know, no-one knows. That's the one thing we can definitively prove -- that no-one knows.

Piracy is not an entity that you can control, it is a value that you can measure. When you attempt to alter the environment to reduce piracy, everything else be damned, you fundamentally misunderstand what piracy figures are: quantifiable feedback. Intuition would like to correlate piracy against revenue; but when you sacrifice your market, your discoverability, and your revenue to achieve a decrease in piracy -- what can you hope to gain?

Do you think that closer and honest investigation is required before we go through the process of screwing with everything? Just maybe?

Or if it is ridiculous -- prove a loss from piracy. Pointing to piracy figures is insufficient, as seen two paragraphs above: it tells you nothing about revenue or sales.

 

[Phopojijo]

No, you are still wrong about DNSSEC. You are not better than the best security researchers in the world. It is not a solution as obvious as that.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/18081517371/comcast-owner-nbc-universal-admits-that-dns-redirects-are-incompatible-with-dnssec.shtml

Think about it this way: If Comcast and other ISPs are shutting down their nxdomain redirect service because it is incompatible with DNSSEC -- which makes them search ad money -- because they cannot make an exception... ... do you think it might be a bigger issue?

I didn't respond, true -- but not because you were right. You weren't. I figured I past the point of diminshing returns with you and could move on to discussing a different point. Nope, I still need to prove you wrong.

-----

With the way you talk/write I really do not know what you are trying to prove. To say there is no proof of loss from piracy is just ridiculous.

What am I trying to prove? What is right. There is no proof of loss from piracy because people just pull intuitive sounding figures out of their butts and not investigate even the slightest bit further. "Lost sales?" What about gained sales? The point is we don't know, no-one knows. That's the one thing we can definitively prove -- that no-one knows.

Piracy is not an entity that you can control, it is a value that you can measure. When you attempt to alter the environment to reduce piracy, everything else be damned, you fundamentally misunderstand what piracy figures are: quantifiable feedback. Intuition would like to correlate piracy against revenue; but when you sacrifice your market, your discoverability, and your revenue to achieve a decrease in piracy -- what can you hope to gain?

Do you think that closer and honest investigation is required before we go through the process of screwing with everything? Just maybe?

Or if it is ridiculous -- prove a loss from piracy. Pointing to piracy figures is insufficient, as seen two paragraphs above: it tells you nothing about revenue or sales.

Huh. I hadn't heard about DNSSEC until you mentioned it and I thought it was already an integrated, widely used security system used by ISPs...It's not. Therefore what's the problem?
Yes it is a good idea but it's not wide spread so it's not a problem stopping it before it is. Is it a pain? Sure but it's not a problem, and that's the key point[

You still have an attitude problem and if you know programming you should know that workarounds are always possible - it just depends how much time & money people are willing to spend, which is actually the main issue with SOPA, but that doesn't sound as good as the moral complaints.

You keep crowing and yet you just admit to not knowing anything about DNSSEC or the problems beyond what I tell you... and yet you somehow know more than myself or the other people, many of which well respected individuals in the security industry, who discuss it?

And I've been pretty quiet about the attitude comment the last week, but honestly: pot-kettle. I have the bite to back up my bark however.

You only assert things that you admit to having no clue about -- and justify your assertions with your ignorance until your assertion is proven invalid then you hop on some other ignorant comment. How about you do research on your comments and not wait for me to prove them wrong as I have done about a half-dozen times?

And I do program. You know what programming teaches you? To think outside the box and iterate based on real empirical data.

No one may know an exact figure on piracy, but you would only be arguing for the sake of arguing if you think piracy is a benefit to the entertainment industry. Between my friends, they have pirated hundreds of hours of films and TV shows alone. If the option to pirate wasn't there, most would have rented the films or watched the shows on TV. That is a direct loss for the entertainment industry and I hardly think that example is a rare one.

You are certainly airing on the ridiculously optimistic side of piracy if you think reducing piracy and the measures that could be taken would result in a loss. Even if only 50% of all pirated PC games were potential sales in 2011, that would still be a loss of over $500 million. When you consider that is for one year and one gaming platform alone, the loss from fighting piracy would need to be 10's of billions of dollars, and that is working with pirates being particularly charitable, for it not to be in the entertainment industry's favor to fight piracy.

Actually I'm not airing on the side of ridiculous optimism of piracy -- I'm saying you're a brash and hasty debater who thus far has not put any concrete and statistically valid evidence down claiming the effects of piracy.

Because you see? This is why you don't understand statistics: Your justification pointed to measurements of piracy (how many of your friends pirated content), and said that if those factors were to go away, they would have made purchases. Baloney! You cannot vary a dependent variable! A Junior High School math student (I have a degree in Education and a degree in Physics btw) that *really* understand statistics can tell you that when you vary your dependent variable, your statistics becomes INSTANTLY meaningless. Not weak... MEANINGLESS. Sure you may FLUKE it right... but it would be 100% a fluke and have NOTHING to do with the statistics.

Now if you would have said: "When Napster went down they purchased more music than ever" and had some sort of numbers to back that up, that would be a valid (albeit with a very small sample space and with a very small time-duration that is subject to transient effects -- but valid none-the-less) statistic. Why is that? Because you controlled a controllable factor, and measured its effect on the system. What YOU have said, however, only proves one thing: You don't understand statistics *at all*!

Just because something MAKES SENSE to you, doesn't mean it is true. We need to *closely investigate the problem* with *valid empirical data* over *many demographics and time periods* to find out for sure. And thus far, *that has not occured*. So *why are we pushing for solutions to potential problems we don't understand yet!?!*

So in summary, piracy would have to be generating a massive amount (billions of dollars a year) of income to make it worthwhile for the entertainment industries not to fight it. To make such a claim I think we can agree would be quite absurd and playing ignorant to the human quality of greed.

Firstly, no. Secondly, can you prove that it is not? Thirdly, pretending that it was -- and pretending is something you've been doing plenty of thus far -- is it worth the collateral?

Prove, with valid statistics, your argument -- as I have done plenty of proof with mine.

Go.

 

[Phopojijo]

You keep crowing and yet you just admit to not knowing anything about DNSSEC or the problems beyond what I tell you... and yet you somehow know more than myself or the other people, many of which well respected individuals in the security industry, who discuss it?

And I've been pretty quiet about the attitude comment the last week, but honestly: pot-kettle. I have the bite to back up my bark however.

You only assert things that you admit to having no clue about -- and justify your assertions with your ignorance until your assertion is proven invalid then you hop on some other ignorant comment. How about you do research on your comments and not wait for me to prove them wrong as I have done about a half-dozen times?

And I do program. You know what programming teaches you? To think outside the box and iterate based on real empirical data.

No one may know an exact figure on piracy, but you would only be arguing for the sake of arguing if you think piracy is a benefit to the entertainment industry. Between my friends, they have pirated hundreds of hours of films and TV shows alone. If the option to pirate wasn't there, most would have rented the films or watched the shows on TV. That is a direct loss for the entertainment industry and I hardly think that example is a rare one.

You are certainly airing on the ridiculously optimistic side of piracy if you think reducing piracy and the measures that could be taken would result in a loss. Even if only 50% of all pirated PC games were potential sales in 2011, that would still be a loss of over $500 million. When you consider that is for one year and one gaming platform alone, the loss from fighting piracy would need to be 10's of billions of dollars, and that is working with pirates being particularly charitable, for it not to be in the entertainment industry's favor to fight piracy.

Actually I'm not airing on the side of ridiculous optimism of piracy -- I'm saying you're a brash and hasty debater who thus far has not put any concrete and statistically valid evidence down claiming the effects of piracy.

Because you see? This is why you don't understand statistics: Your justification pointed to measurements of piracy (how many of your friends pirated content), and said that if those factors were to go away, they would have made purchases. Baloney! You cannot vary a dependent variable! A Junior High School math student (I have a degree in Education and a degree in Physics btw) that *really* understand statistics can tell you that when you vary your dependent variable, your statistics becomes INSTANTLY meaningless. Not weak... MEANINGLESS. Sure you may FLUKE it right... but it would be 100% a fluke and have NOTHING to do with the statistics.

Now if you would have said: "When Napster went down they purchased more music than ever" and had some sort of numbers to back that up, that would be a valid (albeit with a very small sample space and with a very small time-duration that is subject to transient effects -- but valid none-the-less) statistic. Why is that? Because you controlled a controllable factor, and measured its effect on the system. What YOU have said, however, only proves one thing: You don't understand statistics *at all*!

Just because something MAKES SENSE to you, doesn't mean it is true. We need to *closely investigate the problem* with *valid empirical data* over *many demographics and time periods* to find out for sure. And thus far, *that has not occured*. So *why are we pushing for solutions to potential problems we don't understand yet!?!*

So in summary, piracy would have to be generating a massive amount (billions of dollars a year) of income to make it worthwhile for the entertainment industries not to fight it. To make such a claim I think we can agree would be quite absurd and playing ignorant to the human quality of greed.

Firstly, no. Secondly, can you prove that it is not? Thirdly, pretending that it was -- and pretending is something you've been doing plenty of thus far -- is it worth the collateral?

Prove, with valid statistics, your argument -- as I have done plenty of proof with mine.

Go.

....
You didn't address a single point I made about DNSSEC not being widely implemented. This is where you and I differ in our attitude. If someone was to make a mistake, I point it out and correct them. You now are just saying "bah! You're wrong!" and leaving it at that...

Because I was drawing a line in the sand for your inevitable future ignorant comments. Now I'll slap down your comment. Just remember when you read it -- you're currently 0 for like 6... and you need to stop explaining ignorant solutions when you have no clue what you are talking about. There's only so many times a dog can poop on a carpet before you get the dog, point, and need to yell "Look what you did!"

DNSSEC is widely implemented in several senses -- albeit home ISPs are pretty slow. All Federal Government domains were mandated to support DNSSEC for over 2 years. It's an important-enough issue for Comcast to give up search-ad revenue on domain resolution failures for DNSSEC.

Also, DNS cache poisoning is already a proven BIGGGGG problem with implications such as: Directing potentially millions of people ( http://www.securelist.com/en/blog/208193214/Massive_DNS_poisoning_attacks_in_Brazil ) to malware sites, fraud, and monitoring political dissension.

So this is your last ignorant comment about DNSSEC. Learn about security. "Look what you did! Look what you did!"

Also I have to point out the irony that SOPA was criticized for potentially adding load to DNS Servers and yet DNSSEC has the same issue.

Oh look... another present on the rug.

Firstly -- this is what happens when DNS servers go down -- let us just get that out of the way first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03F-0-tzLIA

Secondly -- if malware-infected computers attack the DNS root servers... that's a bigger issue than constant load... and we're REALLY trying a LOT of things to reduce malware. DNSSEC is a *big* one.

Thirdly -- security is a proven issue with real consequences.

No it's not "baloney" as they admitted to renting about 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the films they download if the option to pirate wasn't there. I wasn't commenting on the speculation but actual admission.

You've finally at least stated a mostly validly formed statistic. It sounds made up but at least it is formed mostly properly.

To be a valid experiment, an event would have needed to have happened... like your ISP implemented DPI and they didn't know how to get around it... or when Napster was shut down.. etc. But I'll give you partial credit.

You are just playing ignorant to piracy. You are presuming that the revenue frompiracy is so great that it would have to make fighting piracy non-profitable. That is just naivety and a complete misunderstanding of human nature.

Actually I'm calling for further and honest inquiry into the problem. Why does that scare you?

I completely understand statistics

You haven't said a correct statistic until that backpedal two quotes above after I told you exactly how to formulate a correct statistic. You've shown you're good at plug-and-play thus far. Try again... perhaps with a bigger and more verifiable source with an actual event that occured and implications to sales measured and then we'll talk.

but you are just being willfully ignorant, thinking most people pirate to test a product or because they can. People are greedy and this is something you are ignoring in order to pedantically harp on about stats. The research you declare to do would be a waste of time - we do not all need to travel around the world to know it is round and we certainly do not need to do research to determine if piracy results in a loss of revenue greater then the gains from piracy.

If it is a waste of time, prove it. Again, there's many examples of piracy leading to spikes in sales...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189585/20110730/paulo-coelho-piracy-books-authors-the-alchemist.htm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101021/10481211524/comic-book-pirated-on-4chan-author-joins-discussion-watches-sales-soar.shtml
http://boingboing.net/2009/01/23/monty-pythons-free-w.html

And firstly yes, piracy would have to be generating a massive income to make it not worthwhile to fight and if we apply Occam's Razor, y'know, logic, it is obvious that piracy will reduce in a loss of revenue that sure as hell won't negate any gains. If you want to play ignorant and pretend human kind are generous folk who all buy something they can get for free, go ahead, but there is no motivation to do so other then being highly pedantic.

"The simplest solution is usually most plausible until evidence is presented to prove otherwise". Evidence has been presented. Present counter evidence to compliment your "my friends would have rented 2/3rds to 4/5ths of what the pirated had it not been available" evidence. (Again, you still need an experiment... but you know).

So even your use of Occam's Razor is wrong ; I'm going to assume that you're in over your head is the most plausible outcome with you... until you provide evidence to prove otherwise. You know, Occam's Razor.

 

[iRevanchist]

An ex-politician complaining about the abuse of power? Now I've seen everything.

I hate Sen. Dodd for leading the MPAA. ex-politicians shouldn't be allowed to own groups and then use their old contacts to help said groups. it's just... disgusting.

OT: what other good news the OP forgot to mention was that loads of previously 'undecided' congressmen came out against it after wednesday's black-out.

 

[Phopojijo]

No it's not "baloney" as they admitted to renting about 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the films they download if the option to pirate wasn't there. I wasn't commenting on the speculation but actual admission.

Sounds made up why? Because it doesn't suit your argument?

No because people don't talk like that, and those (awkward) figures came out of nowhere on your second attempt.

And I don't know about your friends (by the way you speak I imagine you have few) but mine are honest.

So you want to take back your attitude comments? I mean you were hypocritical about it before several times, but that's just too egregious to not point out.

You are just being ridiculously pedantic and frankly absurd by claiming piracy is more beneficial then harmful to the industry. Your bizarre pedantic obsession with "needing statistics" and ignorance to piracy makes me wonder how in touch with the real world you are. Do your research; it's not 'scary', but will be a waste of money, hence why it won't be done. Also your argument falls down when you consider the people who back SOPA; businesses. If piracy was profitable, they would obviously look into it as all companies like revenue. However the answer is so obvious such research has never, and will never be done.

People have done it... as you acknowledge (conditionally) below.

As interesting as those links are, they all share one trait; advertising unknown work. If you have ever visited a torrent or tv link site, you should know that the first 10+ pages are of well known music, TV, films and games, not unknown work.

I wouldn't consider Monty Python to be unknown, and Paulo Coelho sold 100,000,000 (one-hundred-million) units of his books attributing much of his success to piracy.

As I've been saying -- just because you *feel* or *intuit* something's not popular, or damaging, or a rip-off... doesn't mean it is. You need to check your feelings against real data in order to really know what is going on.

Where's your statistically valid source that suggests harm caused from piracy based on an experiment with revenue measured as a result? I've given several to suggest the opposite at least under certain situations.

So look at what you have written and stop thinking DNSSEC is a)set in stone (because it is not) and b) that removing it will destroy the internet as we know it.

Of course it won't destroy the internet, we've lived with the attacks in the past. However, that is not the downplay how seriously bad security used to be and how it is not possible to just conditionally break security. Every condition you add has consequences: certification by third parties leaves you open to attacks on those third parties, passwords leave you open to password theft or brute force attacks, and leaving exceptions in any DNSSEC competitor will have problems.

Also, again, DNSSEC is not in its infancy -- it's been discussed, drafted, and implemented on a rolling basis since 1995. It's spotty for consumer-based ISPs... but that doesn't mean it is feasible to just roll over and redo to (potentially) help out the MPAA/RIAA. And again, reiterating, that is just the practical aspect... the new implementation whenever it would come would then be less secure as stated in the paragraph above.

I'm hardly in over my head,

You admitted you were

but I have a feeling your head is geared towards aggression and a bizarre "have to be right" attitude. It's obvious you came here not to debate but to puff your chest and try and be "the big man". The fact you feel the need to do that on a forum of all places, over IT, says it all.

Actually I'm working on publishing an editorial on this topic (after a product review and a few news posts -- not for The Escapist, I don't work for *them*, but for a different company), so I'm technically getting paid for this

 

[punipunipyo]

wait... one quick question... does SOPA effect Deviant Arts?

Possibly. If you're the creator of OCs or the poster of fanfics, you might find yourself in hot water even if you start/end your fics or comment your own works with the usual "I didn't make this for profit, please don't sue me" spiel.

It's quite possible that some moron megacorp executive would look at DeviantART and see some sort of infringement Mecca. I'm not saying it'll happen - in fact, the chances are pretty slim - but it's a definitive possibility.

OMG! I wish SOPA people get a meteor drop on them, I wish kingdom come RIGHT ABOVE THEM! Taste the wrath of angry Jesus!~

 

[IamLEAM1983]

wait... one quick question... does SOPA effect Deviant Arts?

Possibly. If you're the creator of OCs or the poster of fanfics, you might find yourself in hot water even if you start/end your fics or comment your own works with the usual "I didn't make this for profit, please don't sue me" spiel.

It's quite possible that some moron megacorp executive would look at DeviantART and see some sort of infringement Mecca. I'm not saying it'll happen - in fact, the chances are pretty slim - but it's a definitive possibility.

OMG! I wish SOPA people get a meteor drop on them, I wish kingdom come RIGHT ABOVE THEM! Taste the wrath of angry Jesus!~

I wouldn't worry too much. Unless we're talking about Chris Chandler-level OCs (such as the infamous Sonichu), I guess there wouldn't be too much of a backlash.

 

[Phopojijo]

No it's not "baloney" as they admitted to renting about 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the films they download if the option to pirate wasn't there. I wasn't commenting on the speculation but actual admission.

Sounds made up why? Because it doesn't suit your argument?

No because people don't talk like that, and those (awkward) figures came out of nowhere on your second attempt.

And I don't know about your friends (by the way you speak I imagine you have few) but mine are honest.

So you want to take back your attitude comments? I mean you were hypocritical about it before several times, but that's just too egregious to not point out.

You are just being ridiculously pedantic and frankly absurd by claiming piracy is more beneficial then harmful to the industry. Your bizarre pedantic obsession with "needing statistics" and ignorance to piracy makes me wonder how in touch with the real world you are. Do your research; it's not 'scary', but will be a waste of money, hence why it won't be done. Also your argument falls down when you consider the people who back SOPA; businesses. If piracy was profitable, they would obviously look into it as all companies like revenue. However the answer is so obvious such research has never, and will never be done.

People have done it... as you acknowledge (conditionally) below.

As interesting as those links are, they all share one trait; advertising unknown work. If you have ever visited a torrent or tv link site, you should know that the first 10+ pages are of well known music, TV, films and games, not unknown work.

I wouldn't consider Monty Python to be unknown, and Paulo Coelho sold 100,000,000 (one-hundred-million) units of his books attributing much of his success to piracy.

As I've been saying -- just because you *feel* or *intuit* something's not popular, or damaging, or a rip-off... doesn't mean it is. You need to check your feelings against real data in order to really know what is going on.

Where's your statistically valid source that suggests harm caused from piracy based on an experiment with revenue measured as a result? I've given several to suggest the opposite at least under certain situations.

So look at what you have written and stop thinking DNSSEC is a)set in stone (because it is not) and b) that removing it will destroy the internet as we know it.

Of course it won't destroy the internet, we've lived with the attacks in the past. However, that is not the downplay how seriously bad security used to be and how it is not possible to just conditionally break security. Every condition you add has consequences: certification by third parties leaves you open to attacks on those third parties, passwords leave you open to password theft or brute force attacks, and leaving exceptions in any DNSSEC competitor will have problems.

Also, again, DNSSEC is not in its infancy -- it's been discussed, drafted, and implemented on a rolling basis since 1995. It's spotty for consumer-based ISPs... but that doesn't mean it is feasible to just roll over and redo to (potentially) help out the MPAA/RIAA. And again, reiterating, that is just the practical aspect... the new implementation whenever it would come would then be less secure as stated in the paragraph above.

I'm hardly in over my head,

You admitted you were

but I have a feeling your head is geared towards aggression and a bizarre "have to be right" attitude. It's obvious you came here not to debate but to puff your chest and try and be "the big man". The fact you feel the need to do that on a forum of all places, over IT, says it all.

Actually I'm working on publishing an editorial on this topic (after a product review and a few news posts -- not for The Escapist, I don't work for *them*, but for a different company), so I'm technically getting paid for this

So people don't say "Yeah I'd rent 80% of what I've downloaded if I couldn't download it". Considering your attitude and the way you talk, I wouldn't consider you a good judge of how people should speak.
And no I'm being honest about your attitude. Being aggressive is one thing, but being pedantic as well? When I've met people in real life like that, they are usually highly disliked narcissists.
The below is not "research". Look at academic papers if you want to see what research is. And Monty Python is not well known due to it's age. For older generations it is, but for the younger they have no reason to know it. Plus you don't comment on the fact that those links are to do with unknown works and the fact that many pirate links are to do with Hollywood films, AAA games and so on.
Well I bothered to look around and it turns out the research was done a few years ago and guess what, I was right:

http://nbcuni.tv/About_NBC_Universal/Intellectual_Property/pdf/Motion_Picture_Piracy.pdf

Consumer ISPs are a large section, if not the majority, of internet users. Yes it would be a pain to have to remove DNSSEC but it is most likely not beyond 'repair' and a lot of what you mention is either not feasible (brute forcing passwords is not feasable unless you have a stupid password) or the solution is to have standard PC security software.
I'm not in over my head, in fact your stubbornness will only lead to a hideously biased article which will probably be the kind of article that has resulted in why so many people are horribly misinformed about SOPA.

What specifically in there do you want me to look at? Please quote specific portions. Be careful to quote how they came up with those figures.

 

[Phopojijo]

No it's not "baloney" as they admitted to renting about 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the films they download if the option to pirate wasn't there. I wasn't commenting on the speculation but actual admission.

Sounds made up why? Because it doesn't suit your argument?

No because people don't talk like that, and those (awkward) figures came out of nowhere on your second attempt.

And I don't know about your friends (by the way you speak I imagine you have few) but mine are honest.

So you want to take back your attitude comments? I mean you were hypocritical about it before several times, but that's just too egregious to not point out.

You are just being ridiculously pedantic and frankly absurd by claiming piracy is more beneficial then harmful to the industry. Your bizarre pedantic obsession with "needing statistics" and ignorance to piracy makes me wonder how in touch with the real world you are. Do your research; it's not 'scary', but will be a waste of money, hence why it won't be done. Also your argument falls down when you consider the people who back SOPA; businesses. If piracy was profitable, they would obviously look into it as all companies like revenue. However the answer is so obvious such research has never, and will never be done.

People have done it... as you acknowledge (conditionally) below.

As interesting as those links are, they all share one trait; advertising unknown work. If you have ever visited a torrent or tv link site, you should know that the first 10+ pages are of well known music, TV, films and games, not unknown work.

I wouldn't consider Monty Python to be unknown, and Paulo Coelho sold 100,000,000 (one-hundred-million) units of his books attributing much of his success to piracy.

As I've been saying -- just because you *feel* or *intuit* something's not popular, or damaging, or a rip-off... doesn't mean it is. You need to check your feelings against real data in order to really know what is going on.

Where's your statistically valid source that suggests harm caused from piracy based on an experiment with revenue measured as a result? I've given several to suggest the opposite at least under certain situations.

So look at what you have written and stop thinking DNSSEC is a)set in stone (because it is not) and b) that removing it will destroy the internet as we know it.

Of course it won't destroy the internet, we've lived with the attacks in the past. However, that is not the downplay how seriously bad security used to be and how it is not possible to just conditionally break security. Every condition you add has consequences: certification by third parties leaves you open to attacks on those third parties, passwords leave you open to password theft or brute force attacks, and leaving exceptions in any DNSSEC competitor will have problems.

Also, again, DNSSEC is not in its infancy -- it's been discussed, drafted, and implemented on a rolling basis since 1995. It's spotty for consumer-based ISPs... but that doesn't mean it is feasible to just roll over and redo to (potentially) help out the MPAA/RIAA. And again, reiterating, that is just the practical aspect... the new implementation whenever it would come would then be less secure as stated in the paragraph above.

I'm hardly in over my head,

You admitted you were

but I have a feeling your head is geared towards aggression and a bizarre "have to be right" attitude. It's obvious you came here not to debate but to puff your chest and try and be "the big man". The fact you feel the need to do that on a forum of all places, over IT, says it all.

Actually I'm working on publishing an editorial on this topic (after a product review and a few news posts -- not for The Escapist, I don't work for *them*, but for a different company), so I'm technically getting paid for this

So people don't say "Yeah I'd rent 80% of what I've downloaded if I couldn't download it". Considering your attitude and the way you talk, I wouldn't consider you a good judge of how people should speak.
And no I'm being honest about your attitude. Being aggressive is one thing, but being pedantic as well? When I've met people in real life like that, they are usually highly disliked narcissists.
The below is not "research". Look at academic papers if you want to see what research is. And Monty Python is not well known due to it's age. For older generations it is, but for the younger they have no reason to know it. Plus you don't comment on the fact that those links are to do with unknown works and the fact that many pirate links are to do with Hollywood films, AAA games and so on.
Well I bothered to look around and it turns out the research was done a few years ago and guess what, I was right:

http://nbcuni.tv/About_NBC_Universal/Intellectual_Property/pdf/Motion_Picture_Piracy.pdf

Consumer ISPs are a large section, if not the majority, of internet users. Yes it would be a pain to have to remove DNSSEC but it is most likely not beyond 'repair' and a lot of what you mention is either not feasible (brute forcing passwords is not feasable unless you have a stupid password) or the solution is to have standard PC security software.
I'm not in over my head, in fact your stubbornness will only lead to a hideously biased article which will probably be the kind of article that has resulted in why so many people are horribly misinformed about SOPA.

What specifically in there do you want me to look at? Please quote specific portions. Be careful to quote how they came up with those figures.

Have a look at Appendix C. It's a survey of lost revenue from piracy based on what people would rent if piracy wasn't an option and it turns out the revenue lost is in the billions.

No seriously, point out specific points that claim a measured drop in revenue as a result of piracy.

Here's a tip, you can't I know all about that specific study (LEK) -- it's completely wrong, both in its use of statistics as well as -- even with their fundamentally invalid statistics (1 download = 1 lost sale, no experiment to validate that) -- they still fudged the numbers by a factor of 3 when it comes to University piracy numbers "accidentally" as they were pressuring universities to block file sharing protocols.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-23-4067426508_x.htm

I just wanted you to waste your time... "Be careful to quote how they came up with those figures."

And, again, it does NOTHING to prove against my point: "Prove a loss in revenue as a result of piracy" because there is no event that showed a factor that increased piracy decreased sales.

...

So we established you'll grab the first bit of data that even remotely makes you look like you're right weithout investigating further. Maybe you ARE from the RIAA/MPAA itself?

 

[Flight]

Of course they would. However, I don't expect it's anywhere near over. Let's hope they back off ACTA, too. (Yes, I know it's a treaty, but it's still terrifying, and it's rather similar to PIPA/SOPA.)

 

[Phopojijo]

No it's not "baloney" as they admitted to renting about 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the films they download if the option to pirate wasn't there. I wasn't commenting on the speculation but actual admission.

Sounds made up why? Because it doesn't suit your argument?

No because people don't talk like that, and those (awkward) figures came out of nowhere on your second attempt.

And I don't know about your friends (by the way you speak I imagine you have few) but mine are honest.

So you want to take back your attitude comments? I mean you were hypocritical about it before several times, but that's just too egregious to not point out.

You are just being ridiculously pedantic and frankly absurd by claiming piracy is more beneficial then harmful to the industry. Your bizarre pedantic obsession with "needing statistics" and ignorance to piracy makes me wonder how in touch with the real world you are. Do your research; it's not 'scary', but will be a waste of money, hence why it won't be done. Also your argument falls down when you consider the people who back SOPA; businesses. If piracy was profitable, they would obviously look into it as all companies like revenue. However the answer is so obvious such research has never, and will never be done.

People have done it... as you acknowledge (conditionally) below.

As interesting as those links are, they all share one trait; advertising unknown work. If you have ever visited a torrent or tv link site, you should know that the first 10+ pages are of well known music, TV, films and games, not unknown work.

I wouldn't consider Monty Python to be unknown, and Paulo Coelho sold 100,000,000 (one-hundred-million) units of his books attributing much of his success to piracy.

As I've been saying -- just because you *feel* or *intuit* something's not popular, or damaging, or a rip-off... doesn't mean it is. You need to check your feelings against real data in order to really know what is going on.

Where's your statistically valid source that suggests harm caused from piracy based on an experiment with revenue measured as a result? I've given several to suggest the opposite at least under certain situations.

So look at what you have written and stop thinking DNSSEC is a)set in stone (because it is not) and b) that removing it will destroy the internet as we know it.

Of course it won't destroy the internet, we've lived with the attacks in the past. However, that is not the downplay how seriously bad security used to be and how it is not possible to just conditionally break security. Every condition you add has consequences: certification by third parties leaves you open to attacks on those third parties, passwords leave you open to password theft or brute force attacks, and leaving exceptions in any DNSSEC competitor will have problems.

Also, again, DNSSEC is not in its infancy -- it's been discussed, drafted, and implemented on a rolling basis since 1995. It's spotty for consumer-based ISPs... but that doesn't mean it is feasible to just roll over and redo to (potentially) help out the MPAA/RIAA. And again, reiterating, that is just the practical aspect... the new implementation whenever it would come would then be less secure as stated in the paragraph above.

I'm hardly in over my head,

You admitted you were

but I have a feeling your head is geared towards aggression and a bizarre "have to be right" attitude. It's obvious you came here not to debate but to puff your chest and try and be "the big man". The fact you feel the need to do that on a forum of all places, over IT, says it all.

Actually I'm working on publishing an editorial on this topic (after a product review and a few news posts -- not for The Escapist, I don't work for *them*, but for a different company), so I'm technically getting paid for this

So people don't say "Yeah I'd rent 80% of what I've downloaded if I couldn't download it". Considering your attitude and the way you talk, I wouldn't consider you a good judge of how people should speak.
And no I'm being honest about your attitude. Being aggressive is one thing, but being pedantic as well? When I've met people in real life like that, they are usually highly disliked narcissists.
The below is not "research". Look at academic papers if you want to see what research is. And Monty Python is not well known due to it's age. For older generations it is, but for the younger they have no reason to know it. Plus you don't comment on the fact that those links are to do with unknown works and the fact that many pirate links are to do with Hollywood films, AAA games and so on.
Well I bothered to look around and it turns out the research was done a few years ago and guess what, I was right:

http://nbcuni.tv/About_NBC_Universal/Intellectual_Property/pdf/Motion_Picture_Piracy.pdf

Consumer ISPs are a large section, if not the majority, of internet users. Yes it would be a pain to have to remove DNSSEC but it is most likely not beyond 'repair' and a lot of what you mention is either not feasible (brute forcing passwords is not feasable unless you have a stupid password) or the solution is to have standard PC security software.
I'm not in over my head, in fact your stubbornness will only lead to a hideously biased article which will probably be the kind of article that has resulted in why so many people are horribly misinformed about SOPA.

What specifically in there do you want me to look at? Please quote specific portions. Be careful to quote how they came up with those figures.

Have a look at Appendix C. It's a survey of lost revenue from piracy based on what people would rent if piracy wasn't an option and it turns out the revenue lost is in the billions.

No seriously, point out specific points that claim a measured drop in revenue as a result of piracy.

Here's a tip, you can't I know all about that specific study (LEK) -- it's completely wrong, both in its use of statistics as well as -- even with their fundamentally invalid statistics (1 download = 1 lost sale, no experiment to validate that) -- they still fudged the numbers by a factor of 3 when it comes to University piracy numbers "accidentally" as they were pressuring universities to block file sharing protocols.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-23-4067426508_x.htm

I just wanted you to waste your time... "Be careful to quote how they came up with those figures."

And, again, it does NOTHING to prove against my point: "Prove a loss in revenue as a result of piracy" because there is no event that showed a factor that increased piracy decreased sales.

...

So we established you'll grab the first bit of data that even remotely makes you look like you're right weithout investigating further. Maybe you ARE from the RIAA/MPAA itself?

if you want to talk about selective reading try this:

"MPAA said in a statement that no errors had been found in the study besides the percentage of revenue losses that could be attributed to college students, but that it would hire a third party to validate the numbers."

Only the percentage of the demographic was wrong, not the actual revenue lost.

Your hate of RIAA and MPAA are also flawed. Their explicit aim is not to just fight piracy, so they have nothing to gain by making figures up.

And here's another study to read:
http://www.ipi.org/IPI/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullTextPDF/51CC65A1D4779E408625733E00529174/$File/SoundRecordingPiracy.pdf?OpenElement
And note the substitution values on page 5.

You completely ignore the main point I've been trying to get you to all this time:

You are completely ignoring the interest in consuming, among other factors such as publicity, that is caused by the access to piracy!

You cannot ASK someone whether they would pay for something or not had they not been able to pirate it just as you cannot ASK someone whether that latest Wendy's ad will make them more likely to buy a burger.

You need to test this with REAL scenarios. You have YET to give AN EXAMPLE of an event that showed a factor that increased piracy decreased sales.

This is why I am such a stickler about statistics: because it is so easy to make fundamentally flawed and meaningless statistics look believeable based on someone's intuition.

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

But to directly address your source, rather than indirectly above, it is sources like the ones you provide that I was talking about for the last week:

People point to big piracy figures and try to equate it to lost sales. What about sales gained as a result of piracy exposure, hmm? What about them? Maybe the decline in revenue is bad business practices??? (Ubisoft and your 90% decline in PC sales http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/07/opinion-ubisoft-piracy-and-the-death-of-reason/ )

What am I trying to prove? What is right. There is no proof of loss from piracy because people just pull intuitive sounding figures out of their butts and not investigate even the slightest bit further. "Lost sales?" What about gained sales? The point is we don't know, no-one knows. That's the one thing we can definitively prove -- that no-one knows.

Piracy is not an entity that you can control, it is a value that you can measure. When you attempt to alter the environment to reduce piracy, everything else be damned, you fundamentally misunderstand what piracy figures are: quantifiable feedback. Intuition would like to correlate piracy against revenue; but when you sacrifice your market, your discoverability, and your revenue to achieve a decrease in piracy -- what can you hope to gain?

Do you think that closer and honest investigation is required before we go through the process of screwing with everything? Just maybe?

Or if it is ridiculous -- prove a loss from piracy. Pointing to piracy figures is insufficient, as seen two paragraphs above: it tells you nothing about revenue or sales.

As I've been saying -- just because you *feel* or *intuit* something's not popular, or damaging, or a rip-off... doesn't mean it is. You need to check your feelings against real data in order to really know what is going on.

Where's your statistically valid source that suggests harm caused from piracy based on an experiment with revenue measured as a result? I've given several to suggest the opposite at least under certain situations.

You need an actual measurement of how piracy affects revenue... not piracy figures or some percentage of piracy figures. Thus far all the ones I have seen have shown increased sales as a result of piracy. In order to be statistically valid, you need to MEASURE the effect on revenue as a result of a factor of piracy... not measure PIRACY and attempt to intuit how revenue would behave would the situation have been different.

Your homework is the same as it always has been... actually do it this time... not just return more sources that are invalid for reasons I've already clearly explained.

Because the ones you give are BOGUS!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

The Government (Government Accountability Office) even agrees that your sources are full of crap.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10423.pdf

Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies. Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of IP infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data. Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates. Each method has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts. Nonetheless, research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable, which is of particular concern as many U.S. industries are leaders in the creation of intellectual property.

Yes, they say "the problem is sizeable" -- of course there's a lot of piracy, looking at piracy figures can tell you that -- but the question is why is the problem sizeable? Would increasing enforcement in a certain way help or hinder sales? I know it is possible to hinder, as does Ubisoft (DRM = 1/10th sales -- http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/07/opinion-ubisoft-piracy-and-the-death-of-reason/ ). Is it possible to help? Would it help? The GAO also referenced that in their study (pg 15):

There are also certain instances when IP rights holders in some industries might experience potentially positive effects from the knowing consumption of pirated or counterfeit goods. For example, consumers may use pirated goods to ?sample? music, movies, software, or electronic games before purchasing legitimate copies, which may lead to increased sales of legitimate goods. In addition, industries with products that are characterized by large ?switching costs,? may also benefit from piracy due to lock-in effects. For example, some experts we spoke with and literature we reviewed discussed how consumers after being introduced to the pirated version might get locked into new legitimate software because of large switching costs, such as a steep learning curve, reluctance to switch to new products, and search costs incurred by consumers to identify a new product to use.

Show me examples to suggest that both I, as well as the Government Accountability Office are wrong... or that the effect is small in comparison.

Your sources, as I have said long before you even gave them, are unacceptable, frankly bogus. You need to show an example situation where piracy lead to a loss of revenue, not a measurement of piracy and "by intuition clearly the revenue lost should be this".

Are we clear? Have I said it enough in this post? You need to show an example situation where piracy lead to a loss of revenue, not a measurement of piracy and "by intuition clearly the revenue lost should be this".

 

[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.