How 136 People Became 7 Million Illegal File-Sharers 313
Barence writes "The British government's official figures on the level of illegal file sharing in the UK come from questionable research commissioned by the music industry. The Radio 4 show named More or Less examined the government's claim that 7m people in Britain are engaged in illegal file sharing. The 7m figure actually came from a report written about music industry losses for Forrester subsidiary Jupiter Research. The report was privately commissioned by none other than the UK's music trade body, the BPI. The 7m figure had been rounded up from an actual figure of 6.7m, gleaned from a 2008 survey of 1,176 net-connected households, 11.6% of which admitted to having used file-sharing software — in other words, only 136 people. That 11.6% was adjusted upwards to 16.3% 'to reflect the assumption that fewer people admit to file sharing than actually do it.' The 6.7m figure was then calculated based on an estimated number of internet users that disagreed with the government's own estimate. The wholly unsubstantiated 7m figure was then released as an official statistic."
Story meaning? (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually had several feelings about this summery, because:
1) Usually pro-filesharers try to make it sound like filesharing is usual activity and try go for most or 70-90% user share
2) The summary tries to paint this study bad because it "downsides" the amount of filesharers
3) The rant about examining only 1,176 people for the study - in which case the same kind of tv viewer statistics and other studies are made in what case.
So could someone please explain *why* is it a questionable research. It is like every other study where you study small amount of people and make estimates based on it to reflect whole population. Usually this amount of people also gives somewhat correct results on the whole population. Theres some error margin, but its close enough.
So what is the point of this story? That statistics researches use only minor subset or people to do their research instead of asking from everyone? They always have.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, optimistically, 2.12 million, then? (Score:3, Interesting)
136 out of 1176 people in households with internet connections admitted to having used file-sharing software (source: the summary)
18.3 million households in the UK had internet access at time of polling in 2009 (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=8 [statistics.gov.uk] )
136/1176 * 18.3M ~= 2.12M
Not sure if "having used file-sharing software" means that they downloaded / distributed at least 1 item - say, a song - via said software and that they had no actual rights to do so (you know, as most people use file-sharing software to distribute Linux distros, or have simply 'used it' but didn't actually download or upload anything... *cough*)...
But let's presume it does.
Then let's take the low price in iTunes UK of GBP 0.79 per song, then the music industry 'lost' ('cos obviously people had no intention of buying that song that they didn't download / distribute because they were downloading a Linux distro instead *cough*) about GBP 1,671,897.96.
Well, that's peanuts, innit.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh I forgot to note this... anyway it addition to other potential flaws TFA says
emphasis mine. They admitted to using file sharing software not pirating goods via said software... The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement. Also from TFA:
Even if the study did get the sample size correct the conclusion would still be nearly 30% wrong owing to their false assumption of the number of people with net access. neglecting the distinction between filesharing and copyright infringement TFA estimates that the actual number is between ~30 and ~50% lower than the study claims.
Re:It's probably still accurate though. (Score:4, Interesting)
When you know the total population of the UK is roughly 30 million households, that's a fair chunk of the population. (total population is roughly 60 million people)
Out of the total population, only 18.7 million have broadband [statistics.gov.uk]. Guess roughly 40% of the population is a pirate then. We should make it legal, government being there for the populace and all that.
Re:the story title is kind of lame (Score:2, Interesting)
I would hope it's no.
There's actually a clever way to try to account for this kind of thing - you ask them something like "Do you file-share, or is your birthday in January" (or perhaps something even more obscure that the questioner/Government wouldn't know). The point is that people are more willing to admit to it, because people can't know for sure if they really do file-share, or if they answered yes because of the second question.
But when it comes to the population as a whole, because you can estimate the proportion who fall into the second category, you can factor that out, and work out the true value.
But it doesn't look like they did anything like that here.
Winston Churchill (Score:2, Interesting)
O "The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself."
Tick one.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:2, Interesting)
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did.
Agreed. I would say that for a better and more precise statistic one would have to take samples of say 15.000 people (or more) and to take several samples from varied parts of the UK. 1,176 people from a population of of about 61 million spread across varied geographical, economical, political, social, cultural and religious demographics seems far far far too small to make any sort of estimation one way or another.
Re:If it's bogus, it's probably too low. (Score:5, Interesting)
> Work backwards from the undisputed declining sales figures of the recording industry.
The main reason for declining sales is the fact that CD sales during the 90s were artificially boosted by people replacing records and tapes with CDs... then replacing them again when remastered CDs were released a few years later. It was a once-in-a-lifetime event for the recording industry that won't be repeated during our lifetimes.
People re-bought CDs they already owned in analog (or optimized-for-analog CDs) because they represented an epic improvement in quality by just about any meaningful standard over the analog media they replaced. Everything that's come out since CDs has only been cheaper, shittier-sounding, or intolerably-crippled by DRM.
Here's an idea for the music industry: ditch the DRM'ed formats, and roll out a music format on DVD media with 96KHz 32-bit stereo PCM. Make the discs gold-colored, call it something like "X-fi", and sell them for $24.95. You'll win on all counts -- genX'ers will go back into highschool mode and buy them to show off how rich they are and/or pretend they sound sufficiently better than 16-bit CDs to justify spending ~twice as much on them, and the fact that every disc will be ~4-8 gigabytes will serve as self-limiting DRM for the next decade or so. Just make sure they still have the MOST compelling consumer benefit intact (and reason why people who buy CDs still DO buy CDs): it's a flawless first-generation master to use for making all your "working" copies for everywhere else.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm currently doing a stats paper at the moment (still basic stuff). I never thought I would actually use anything from it in the real world but meh....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the calculations for sample size are only correct if it is actually a true SRS (Simple Random Sample) I couldn't find a link to the actual paper in the article but I think it would be safe to assume but the sample taken would not be a true SRS. It is more likely that this would resemble a self selecting sample, if that is the case, the calculations don't apply.
I'm not saying the data is incorrect, but without more detailed information (perhaps this information is in the actual paper) it is hard to make a conclusion. What is clear though is that the linked article is pretty much FUD.
Re:Scoundrel Statistics (Score:3, Interesting)
Your criticisms are largely valid, but I still think the sample size was too small. After all, they couldn't know before they did the study what percentage would answer what way ... not unless the study was rigged.
Of course, it also depends on what the purpose is. If it were for marketing, then this might be a quite acceptable procedure. In that case a large amount of error wouldn't cause significant problems to anyone. But if it's being used to lobby for laws, then it's just that it won't cause any problems for *them*. That the results have been adjusted to be something that can be released to massage public opinion. Etc. In such a case I have a much higher bar for study requirements, and it requires that either the population tested be standardized to eliminate bias (which is impossible if you don't know where bias is coming from already) or it needs to be a MUCH large random sample.
A good study in this area would first investigate the characteristics of a large population WRT standardizing their likelihood of file-sharing. This step in itself would involve many thousands of people in many different social, economic, and geographic strata. (You might want to steer clear of race or national origin. It's likely significant, but too touchy.) After you've done that, then you can standardize a random sample for study WRT characteristics associated with file-sharing. And at THAT point you might be able to establish reasonable guesses at error bars.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:1, Interesting)
>Why would the solution to something that is not easily enforceable be to make it legal? At the end of the day, the people that produced the content should be entitled to reap any benefits from it. If the market decides that it does not like the content, it will not pay for it.
So you're arguing that the people using p2p are paying? Or you're saying they're not paying, but in a way that's completely different from what you meant by not paying?
>> encourage the advancement of the arts.
>I don't see how this relates.
Because we're talking about p2p.
>>most of the anger is directed toward the music/movie industry's response to piracy- weaken/destroy fair use, demonize all p2p [possibly restricting its use in the future out of fear] suing people as a scare tactic, excessive/un-constitutional fines, DRMed media etc...
>As someone who makes a living creating copyrighted content, I don't see why these tactics are unreasonable.
As someone whoe makes a living creating copyrighted content, I do see why these tactics are unreasonable. I don't think you've *really* thought about this very hard. I didn't bother quoting the rest of your statement, as it operates under a mistaken assumption. Cheers.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:4, Interesting)
because it doesn't work? why are our police resources being used to enforce extended copyright law when it is neither enforceable nor in the public interest to do so?
hence the law is unenforceable- that is to say that it can't be enforced without far more draconian measures that violate other rights.
all it has to do is discourage the advancement of the arts relative to an alternative solution. In that case the copyright system as it is would be unconstitutional in the US.
those tactics are often illegal, rights violating and unconstitutional. suing people for 10,000 x damages is a violation of the 8th amendment. various practices by the RIAA/MPAA are illegal including but not limited to violating the DMCA, abuse of the legal system, fraud and entrapment...
live cds, distribution of software patches, advertising which ADV films uses P2P to distribute advertising clips for their anime media, distribution of creative commons licensed materials etc...
I'm sure that had nothing to do with single tracks being sold on Itunes, the poor state of CDs released today or the recession.
Figures lie... (Score:3, Interesting)
And liars figure.
The best way to shut these slime-oids up would be to conduct a forensic audit of their royalty payments to artists. I bet not one of the companies would come out clean.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:3, Interesting)
11 million world of warcraft players regularly use file sharing as a means to receive regular game updates. They could easily have picked up a bunch of those players and lumped them in with the "illegal" file sharing crowd. The study is bogus because it doesn't account for those situations.
Re:Why the BBC rocks (Score:3, Interesting)
"The grass is always greener" as the saying goes, so I'd naturally love to believe that. But sadly, I can't, because I have extensive experience watching, listening, and reading the BBC.
The BBC's news reports are almost always moderately-shallow fluff, VERY light on facts relative to their US counterparts, and rarely researched more than summarily, and constantly providing unconfirmed 3rd party information without so much as a footnote.
The levels of journalistic integrity displayed by the BBC would become a scandal at any (real*) major US news provider, either print or the major 3 TV networks.
None of the above are serious US news sources. Try comparing the BBC to the New York Times, or to the morning/nightly news broadcasts by the major 3 US TV networks (NBC, ABC, CBS). For more in-depth issues, try comparing the BBC to Frontline, 60 Minutes, etc., and then come back and attempt to justify your US-bashing... The BBC does a reasonable job, but they can
No, the "local news" that's on several hours a day isn't up to par with the BBC, but the two have completely different purposes and scope, so they're hardly comparable. Nor the "early shows" which resemble talk shows vastly more than a serious attempt at news reporting.
And no, the existence of all the crappy, non-news sources that you (or I) can (and have) point to don't detract from the fact that there are many extremely GOOD news sources in the US. If you want to go that route, the UK is in an even sorrier state... Even the most dedicated tabloid readers in the US would be aghast at the tabloids on the UK news stands. Never-mind the heavy-handed, unbelievably biased pieces of trash which get passed off as documentaries (even on BBC TV/Radio, though not the worst of it).