Please Help Us Figure Out How Much The Public Has 'Lost' Due To Overprotective Anti-Copy Laws
from the using-their-methodology dept
It should be obvious why this is ridiculous. It's asking the most biased party, who would benefit the most from government protectionism in their favor, to give totally self-reported details of the "harm" that happens without increased government protectionism, with no attempt to reality-check those results.
One of our critics in the comments responded with a fallacy, suggesting that somehow we should not be allowed to criticize the clearly specious methodology here, without offering an alternative study and results of our own. Of course, to point out that a study's methodology is wrong does not mean that you need to supply your own numbers. And, of course, we regularly point to plenty of good studies on these kinds of subjects as well.
However, an anonymous commenter made the absolutely brilliant suggestion that we should create our own study, using their methodology to calculate how much the public loses each year due to overprotective anti-copy laws. And, so we are. Just as the ITC asked those who had most thought about their "losses" from infringement, I think it's fair to suggest that the readership here includes plenty of people who have thought deeply about the public's losses from overprotection. Thus, I'm hoping we can put together a similar corpus of data from which we can extrapolate a similar number about the public's losses. You can input your own estimate of your losses here:
Of course, to make this work, we really would like to get as much data as possible (and we really do want you to try to answer the question as honestly as you can -- i.e., don't just make up some crazy large number, but think about it). However, please also spread this post by letting other communities of folks who likely have thought about these issues know about it, so that we can really collect enough data to make this meaningful (in as much as you can make a totally ridiculous and bogus methodology meaningful).