Now It's The UK's Turn For Some Bogus Piracy Stats

from the fun-with-numbers dept

There are plenty of instances of misleading and otherwise bad stats being used by anti-piracy groups, like the recent BSA numbers from Canada that were basically made up. Now, a group from the UK is saying that piracy costs that country's economy tens of billions of pounds. It makes the same mistake as plenty of other studies before it: counting every instance of piracy, or perhaps even just the availability of copyrighted material on file-sharing networks, as a lost sale. It's fallacious to assume that every single person that downloads a piece of content, or simply has access to it for free, would pay for it if the free version wasn't available. Furthermore, any study like this that says an entire economy is being harmed by X amount of money because of piracy is pretty much bogus. This money that's supposedly being lost because of piracy isn't being lost by the economy, as undoubtedly it's being spent elsewhere. It's not being flushed down the toilet or turned into ether, it's just not ending up in content companies' bank accounts.

Filed Under: piracy, stats, uk

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    cram, 1 Jun 2009 @ 10:34am

    Hi DanC

    "Because the point Techdirt has consistently made is that piracy is nowhere near as big a problem as content providers want the public to believe..."

    What is the evidence? How does Techdirt know it is "nowhere as big a problem"? Everyone seems unanimous that the industry's stats are bogus but no one seems to have any stats of their own? And who defines the "bigness" of the problem? If we assume 80% of the industry stats are bogus, then they are still right in claiming losses of a couple of billion pounds. Is that not big enough?

    "As the previous commentator stated, you are arguing against something Techdirt hasn't stated."

    No, by leaving out that part, Techdirt doesn't give the full picture.

    "And when called on it, you change tactics to imply that the site is somehow trying to trick people because they didn't state that some sales were lost."

    I never changed my tactics. And this is not the first time I have raised this point. Techdirt writers are well-known for very cleverly leaving out vital information in their posts. I was merely calling on them.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.