Misleading With Statistics On Copy Protection
from the let's-try-that-again... dept
This one is just bizarre. In a recent study, about copy protection, a research firm is claiming that “consumers are not overwhelmingly antagonistic” towards copy protection. Even if this was true, it wouldn’t prove that copy protection is good for business. Consumers may simply be ignorant about copy protection and what it means for them and for future offerings. However, the real issue is that the actual stats don’t seem to support the conclusion at all. The study compared how many people would buy a “copy once” CD at a lower price, and found that 33% of those who don’t rip CDs would buy the cheaper copy protected CD. That means 67% of those who don’t copy CDs wouldn’t buy a copy protected CD even if it were noticeably cheaper. That is, even though it provides no direct benefit to them (they don’t rip, so why should they care), they still won’t buy it. That certainly makes it sound like users are quite antagonistic to copy protection. Even those who it won’t directly impact don’t want it at a cheaper price. How can anyone claim this means users aren’t antagonistic to the idea with a straight face when the data clearly shows the opposite?