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, Insightful)
Because statistics are hard and outrage is easy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Excellent Summery
Statistics are hard, and so is gramer.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Story meaning? (Score:4, Informative)
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did. 2. they altered the numbers on an estimate of how many people fileshare on the assumption that the number was under-reported. 3. conflict of interest... it's like the tobacco industry sponsoring studies claiming that smoking doesn't have anything to do with lung cancer... there is significant reason to believe that the study carries significant bias in favor of their conclusion and must at the least be repeated by other sources.
N. real statistics researchers know that this study has numerable crippling flaws and should not be held as gospel by anyone. Even a first year stats student can see it. The reason this story is important is that it may influence governmental policy and it's flawed... That's dangerous.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't really make sense to claim "sample size is small" for an 1,100-person sample. If the sampling was done in a random, unbiased manner, that size sample gives a margin of error of +/- 3%. If there are flaws in the sampling method, that's another thing, but the sample size alone doesn't seem problematic, unless you need accuracy better than +/- 3%.
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:Story meaning? (Score:4, Insightful)
The study is effectively making the assumption that filesharing = copyright infringement.
I have a very hard time believing that the vast majority of people that use any filesharing application do so exclusivley for legit and non-copyright infringing purposes.
Given the vast quantity of content, I seriously doubt that very many people go through any sort of hassle to determine what is legit and what is not, which results in virtually everyone obtaining material that is copyrighted, regardless whether they know (or care). Given that, I think its a fair guess on their part that yes, most people that claim they are using file-sharing software do so to obtain material illegally.
I just don't understand the stance that most people on this board seem to take regarding this issue. How can everyone be so supportive of what very obviously amounts to theft? It appears to me that somehow people think it is their "right" to obtain copyrighted material for free. I just don't buy for a second that people who claim to only use file-sharing apps for legitimate purposes only actually do so.
If you do indeed use all file-sharing applications for 100% legit purposes, please educate me what you use these services for that makes them so very essential to cause these very emotional posts here.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:4, Informative)
not everyone does obviously... most reasonable slashdotters advocate for reformed copyright pertly because of the unenforceable nature of longer copyright terms. many such as myself support the concept of a shorter more reasonable copyright term that does what the constitution requires: encourage the advancement of the arts.
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...
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
...I don't see why these tactics are unreasonable...
So, just so that you can protect your "copyrighted content" from being stolen by someone other than me, you believe that it is "reasonable" to use bogus or flawed "research" to fool the government into a) taking away my legal rights (fair use); b) criminalizing software that can be and is used for legal purposes (P2P); c) abuse our legal system (suing people as scare tactic/impose excessive/unconstitutional fines); and d) crippling your "copyrighted content" so that I cannot exercise my right of fair use after I have purchased your "copyrighted content" (DRM/refer back to a) )?
It is even more difficult to attach a value to the legitimate uses of file-sharing networks, but if you can point me at examples of how file-sharing systems have a positive economic impact on anyone, please let me know.
Really? So you don't see value in a content provider being able to reduce operating expenses by distributing their content via P2P? Just because you are too lazy to do a simple search using any common search engine doesn't mean such examples [pbworks.com] don't exist. And why exactly does it have to have a positive economic impact on anyone - why does it have to have any economic impact at all? There are many things that have neither a positive economic impact nor any economic impact whatsoever, should those be illegal too?
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not "obviously" amount to theft. It *is* illicit, and it may be immoral (see Free Rider Problem [wikipedia.org]), but it is not theft. If I steal 10 M&Ms from you, you have 10 fewer M&Ms - not the case if I download your song, in which case you have less than you otherwise would have *if and only if* I would otherwise have paid for it. This clearly is not the case for, say, college students with tens of thousands of dollars "worth" of media on their hard drive.
As for legal uses of "file-sharing" technolo
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Re:Story meaning? (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, except that the confidence level for the interval is 95%, not 50%. Should've quoted that, but 95% is the usual assumed one.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:4, Informative)
A margin of error of +/- 3% is the Maximum margin of error for a random sample of 1100 drawn from a large enough population at the 95% significance level (actually its really +/-2.95%), i.e this is the margin of error when the observed % is 50% , The margin of error is less when the observed % approaches 0 or 100%.
In the case of an observed % of 11.6 the margin of error is +/-1.9% so it is 95% likely that the population figure is between 9.8% and 13.5%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In this case, 3% is >1.17 million people.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as easily as a random sample can accurately reflect a population as a whole, it can equally be skewed to be a completely inaccurate representation of the real world.
If by "just as easily" you mean "with an enormously lower probability", then yes. But then, that's what a statement of margin of error says.
Statistics isn't all that complicated, and what a statistical measure means can be both demonstrated and proven. You don't need to get all faux existential about how "it's all just a bunch of crap, man". You don't know what you're talking about.
Also, entropy? No such thing as random? Really? Don't inject physical phenomena you clearly don't understand in a discussion about pure mathematics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's a thermodynamic concept that has been extended to information theory. Prior to major developments in statistical mechanics, entropy was a loss of energy associated with physical transformations. This significantly predates both statistical mechanics and information theory. Stat mech formulated the modern definition of entropy, and Shannon applied it to information theory.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. the same size is small.. probably too small to make the claims they did.
First statistics lesson I ever had, first thing the professor did was make an estimate based on 10 people about the whole population. He was correct, by the way. He went on to rant that anything that uses large amounts of people (by which he meant more than at most a few dozen) was not proper statistics. If you simply count everybody, it should be called "counting", you see, not statistics.
2. they altered the numbers on an estimate of how many people fileshare on the assumption that the number was under-reported.
And since they are right that the number turned out to be bigger in other studies, slightly. It seems a reasonable adaptation. It's easy to say it's unreasonable, of course. But they are absolutely correct that the number is most likely smaller. So how much should they adjust it ? Like I said, it seems a reasonable adjustment. Not absurdly high, not absurdly low.
3. conflict of interest... it's like the tobacco industry sponsoring studies claiming that smoking doesn't have anything to do with lung cancer... there is significant reason to believe that the study carries significant bias in favor of their conclusion and must at the least be repeated by other sources.
There don't exist studies that have no bias. Either research is funded by companies, or it's funded by government. Both have serious axes to grind, mostly pertaining to political ideology. If business intrest groups would not fund research we'd never have even the semblance of unbiased research that we have.
By the way, who should pay for studies ? Obviously the government has a vested interest in more legislation. The ifpi (us dept) has a vested interest in creating legal instruments to counteract filesharing. And the filesharers have a vested intrest in more "privacy", and legal instruments against ISPs (for the same reason a thief wants privacy, obviously, let's please not start the "what about those who only share openbsd", we all know that's not the filesharers being talked about).
How about we do the sane thing, and let all of them fund studies. Then read them all, and see what we believe to be true.
Just because people are biased, by the way, does not mean the truth can be biased. We are simply limited to imperfect instruments for reading the truth. Truth is absolute, and the number of filesharers is just a single number, not 2, not 5. And yes, we'll probably need a better definition and classification than "filesharers". The effects of filesharing are negative for artists (certainly for pop artists), and especially for the "music industry". There can be little doubt about that. How much damage is done, is anyone's guess. But by criticizing their observations, AND listening to them criticize our observations, we can hope to get closer to the real truth.
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
And since they are right that the number turned out to be bigger in other studies, slightly. It seems a reasonable adaptation. It's easy to say it's unreasonable, of course. But they are absolutely correct that the number is most likely smaller. So how much should they adjust it ? Like I said, it seems a reasonable adjustment. Not absurdly high, not absurdly low.
Here's where I find a major problem. You do not fudge your data. Period. These other studies may show higher numbers, but do we have proof they weren't fudged as well?
There's too many stories about companies performing pharmecutical trials and then throwing the data away because it didn't present a positive light.
If you're going to adjust numbers, you better have a damn sound reasoning for it rather than "we have a hunch people lied, so..."
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're going to "adjust" the numbers, why did they even bother doing the research at all? Why not just come out and say,"We didn't like what the numbers said, so we threw them away and we're making a WAG with some bullshit we're pulling out of our ass." I understand that they're a research (read "marketing") company, and so are constitutionally incapable of telling the plain truth because they could burst into flames, but it would be a new experience. And fun to watch!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He was correct, by the way. He went on to rant that anything that uses large amounts of people (by which he meant more than at most a few dozen) was not proper statistics.
10 people could in no way make any reasonable assumption of any population. He was wrong. First and foremost 10 randomly selected people of any population would not represent any complete demographics of any nation. Rich, poor, middle class, professional, artist, unemployed, computer literate, music fan, and student does not come close to
Re: (Score:2)
1176 people compared to 10 comes a lot closer to real truth. Close enough to have just a few % error margin, so in statistics it works good.
Re: (Score:2)
How did they standardize their sample? I'd guess they picked either people it was convenient to pick, or people they thought would prove their point.
And I also think the sample size was too small, even given an unbiased sample. We used lots larger numbers to guess at journey-to-work times, and we KNOW that some of our predictions were wrong. We tested.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every politician should undergo a statistics examination as a prerequisite.
Re: (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.
Scoundrel Statistics (Score:5, Informative)
This is almost as cliche in arguments of statistics as the car analogy is on slashdot, and it's the sign of a scoundrel. If you actually had a first year stat student's understanding of stats you'd know where the weaknesses actually are, and where all the rest of the smoke blown in this discussion goes laghably wrong.
So let's apply some first year stats to the issue.
First, the sample size. Whether it is numerically large enough to be useful is a matter not only of it's size but also the number of positive results. IOW, a sample size of 1176 is too small if you found 3 of what you're looking for, but if you found 136 (11.6% of 1176), you have plenty of samples. The question is then only whether you had a representative sample.
My next concern would be precision. Using data with three or four significant digits (136, 1176) to make conclusions to seven significant digits (11.56463%) is silly, but that doesn't seem to have happened here. The only number in all of this that is fishy is the 16.3% number. To get three significant digits they'd have to know the number of lying households to that precision. If they had another study that determined this number they might very well have a number to that precision, but I'm assuming they just guessed.
That's still not a problem. If you guess, you run your confidence interval through your formulae (here it's a simple product) to put a range on your results. If it's a from-your-ass guess you might put a 100% failure estimate on your low end (i.e. there might be no lying households at all) to arrive at a conservative range. Here, it looks like they used an estimate of 40%. They should have (and might have; I didn't RTFA) run the un-adjusted 11.6% through the formulae to get a conservative low-end range.
Anyway, the number they finally used was 7%. One significant digit. That doesn't imply the same precision as, say, 6.7% would. In fact, if their figure for the number of lying households really was accurate to one digit (i.e. 35-45%) then rounding their final result to one digit was the correct procedure. If it was just a guess they should have run the absolute low estimate (probably, zero lying households) through to get a range.
So, with actual first year stat knowledge it's possible to actually state what might be wrong with the study, and not resort to "any first year stat student" hand-waving. It's clear that the most-cited criticism (the sample size) is the result of ignorance and group think, not actual knowledge of statistics.
Re: (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 pro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Survey sizes of around 1000 are pretty standard. If you run the survey and get 3 positives out of 1000, you say "Oh shit, sample size is too small", then run the same survey with 5,000 or 10,000 people to catch a larger number people you are targeting - i.e. we're looking to see what percentage of people practice illegal file sharing, we need to find at least a decent number of illegal file sharers so we know our survey is accurate.
It's not a matter of knowing what you'll get before hand or rigging the stu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My next concern would be precision. Using data with three or four significant digits (136, 1176) to make conclusions to seven significant digits (11.56463%) is silly, but that doesn't seem to have happened here. The only number in all of this that is fishy is the 16.3% number. To get three significant digits they'd have to know the number of lying households to that precision. If they had another study that determined this number they might very well have a number to that precision, but I'm assuming they just guessed.
It wasn't that precise. The original number was 17.0% and the article poster just converted it from metric percentages so Americans wouldn't get confused.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically it's not 7 million, but more like 4?
Lies it may well be, but does it really make any difference with regard to conclusions drawn from that number (which obviously vary widely depending on which side you're on)? The order of magnitude is still the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it makes a difference. When the lobbyists stand in front of lawmakers, those lawmakers want to know the real size of the problem. If the industry's lobbyists have to say, "We think we are losing almost a million pounds each and every year to piracy", lawmakers are going to be mildly concerned. However, if they lie, and claim that they are losing BILLIONS of pounds, those lawmakers realize that the tax collectors are losing a huge sum of money.
When you want action, you always exaggerate your losses a
Re:Story meaning? (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, the number is meaningless in itself. The fact that government agencies have been using the number is the issue. Either they knew that the number was wrong or they didn't bother checking it. Both possibilities can point to incompetence or malice and reflect very badly on the people responsible.
You might be happy with government by making shit up and gut feelings but for the rest of us this is a good example of why government has no respect.
Re: (Score:2)
So your problem with it is that they claimed 7 million when it was actually more like 4 or 5 million?
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary tries to paint this study bad because it "downsides" the amount of filesharers
I presume by "downsides" you mean "reduces"? Well the summary says "That 11.6% was adjusted upwards to 16.3% 'to reflect the assumption that fewer people admit to file sharing than actually do it.'" So they actually UPPED the number of filesharers. This is objection #1 to "good research":
1. You do a survey to objectively measure the support of your hypothesis
2. The survey of a tiny sample indicates that filesharers are a pretty low percentage
3. You "adjust" this number -- otherwise known as "fudging the data" -- to better reflect your own hypothesis.
The same tactics in any scientific endeavor would get your papers retracted, your funding canceled, some sort of disciplinary action initiated, etc.
The second objection, and this applies to other studies too that try to make grand claims from small samples, is that it's A SMALL SAMPLE. For your survey to be representative, your sample has to be representative. It's also difficult to choose people independently at random, and without that assumption, all your basic statistics fall apart. Perhaps they went through a list of BT subscribers and pulled names at random -- but what if downloaders are overrepresented amongst BT subscribers? What if they only polled home internet users, but then used the "total number of internet users" -- which includes corporate subscribers -- to come up with their 11mil number? There are other possible, non-numerical issues too. What if the respondents confused downloading from bittorent with downloading from iTunes?
If you want many other examples of "bad science", read Ben Goldacre's blog [badscience.net]
Re:Story meaning? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not.
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html [raosoft.com]
About 60 million people in the UK, sample size of 1,176, confidence interval of 96% gives a margin of error of 2.99%. So, it's 96% likely that they got within 2.99% of the right answer (to the question of how many people admit to it).
I hate seeing this "that's too small a sample size" objection to every single study, from people who clearly don't know enough about how sample sizes work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice calculator, I think the GP's main point though was that there is no evidence of a properly selected sample. You would be right in saying that the sample size has very little to do with anything compared to whether the sample is biased or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
What was real strange was someone else objecting that this sample size was too *large*, and that TEN should be enough for any kind of statistical analysis.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you missed the point of that post.
The point was that the sample size has almost no bearing on the accuracy of the survey provided it is truly representative of the overall population.
If you can get a sample size of 10 that is representative of a population of 60,000,000 people, you'll have a pretty accurate survey. The reality is, that's not possible in most cases. You'll generally have more than 10 demographics of varying percentages of the total population, making 10 simply too small. 1000, however
Re: (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 cas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The second objection, and this applies to other studies too that try to make grand claims from small samples, is that it's A SMALL SAMPLE. For your survey to be representative, your sample has to be representative. It's also difficult to choose people independently at random, and without that assumption, all your basic statistics fall apart. Perhaps they went through a list of BT subscribers and pulled names at random -- but what if downloaders are overrepresented amongst BT subscribers?
You don't seem to understand the way good polling and statistics work. If you already have solid data on the demographic makeup of your population, it does not take a very large sample size at all to get accurate results. A sample size of 1000+ is more than enough to come within 3% accuracy (plus or minus) for any given study provided you already have good demographic information. To be accurate with a small sample size, you do NOT want to choose your survey takers at random, at least not completely. Sp
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, sharing files is not in and of itself illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
"The 6.7m figure was then calculated based on the estimated number of people with internet access in the UK. However, Jupiter research was working on the assumption that there were 40m people online in the UK in 2008, whereas the Government's own Office of National Statistics claimed there were only 33.9m people online during that year."
I think this demonstrates the point better then the rest of the article. They made significant numbers up in their head to inflate their claim. This is not qu
Re: (Score:2)
That's "downsizes"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1 The 7m figure had actually been rounded up from an actual figure of 6.7m
2 It gets worse. That 11.6% of respondents who admitted to file sharing was adjusted upwards to 16.3% "to reflect the assumption"
3 The 6.7m figure was then calculated based on the estimated number of people with internet access in the UK.
TFA is pretty clearly challenging those figures based on assumptions made, faulty estimates, and rounding up. The original "research" was clearly engineered to give a high number.
Is there anything el
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be working from an assumption of some sort. How about we consider the taxman coming to your place of business to conduct an audit. He finds that you owe 7 million dollars in taxes, instead of the 4 million dollars that you claimed. Can you argue that the numbers aren't off by an order of magnitude? "But, sir, my numbers are only wrong by about 75%, this isn't fraud!" Or, we can work those same numbers backward - "But, sir, my numbers are only off by about 50% - of course it's not fraud!" G
Re: (Score:2)
>>>e rant about examining only 1,176 people for the study - in which case the same kind of tv viewer statistics
Yes but those TV stats are produced by carefully selecting the homes to reflect each city's ethnic makeup (at least that's true with Nielsen in the States). In contrast the 1176 people were an uncontrolled survey of people who *volunteered* to take the poll, and therefore represents... essentially nothing. It's unscientific.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know, that statistics tend to sway towards the point of view of the paying party.
And then we get a problem with Wikipedia Source paradox. The state takes numbers from a biased corporate study and present's them as fact, then that entity will say that "According to the government..." and present that study as official government sponsored study.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"I am doing an study for the BPI, are you downloading files illegaly?"
11.6% of which admitted to having used file-sharing software
^
Where is the downloading illegally bit? I torrent linux distros fairly often. I know people that have limewire, and use it to get music from many decades back. Depending on where you are, this could be 100% legal.
Also, the outrage is more over the upwards estimation technique. 4m is significantly less than 7m.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure there's a large enough fraction of people who sit around torrenting Linux distros to significantly affect the result.
Re: (Score:2)
How 1 article became 2 (Score:2)
there is a question that needs answering
Fantastic programme ... (Score:2)
[**] You need to be a loyal listener to understand the choice of phrase.
What's the confidence interval? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever you estimate a statistic like that, you should also indicate the level of uncertainty surrounding the estimate. Why are they not reporting the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval surrounding that estimate?
Re:What's the confidence interval? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever you estimate a statistic like that, you should also indicate the level of uncertainty surrounding the estimate. Why are they not reporting the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval surrounding that estimate?
Perhaps because it's hard to come up with confidence intervals when you admit to fudging your own data by bumping the estimate up by almost five percentage points.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the other thing of course is that, since the statistical estimate was ~11%+/-3%, that 5% increase results in possibly over a 50% increase in the estimated number of file sharers in their "worst case" scenario (8%). Basically these people padded the estimates at every possible step instead of carrying through the error factor. Shoddy error analysis that would probably get a bare pass (if not an outright fail) for a first year paper in any scientific discipline.
The only possible interpretation for all t
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you believed them? (Score:4, Informative)
They think that a single copy of a song is worth over a hundred thousand dollars too. They claim to lose more in revenue each month than the GDP of most countries. All because of those dyyyeaaarrrn pirates. Enron looks positively boring in comparison to the accounting techniques the recording industry uses. None of this is news. About the only people that buy this crap are judges and legislators -- the rest of us are almost universally of the mindset that a bag of potato chips has more value than most of the recording industry's portfolio.
Re:Wait, you believed them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, let's look at the maths - supposing each person only shares 24 mp3s. By US standards at least, that's a cost of $1.92 million. So with 7 million file sharers, that's $13.44 trillion.
Now let's check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) [wikipedia.org] - wow, these 7 million people are causing damage to the UK economy equal to almost 5 times the entire GDP of the UK...
Meaningless admission (Score:5, Insightful)
Using file-sharing software does not equate to sharing files illegally. I admit to using BitTorrent to download Fedora ISO's, and there's nothing illegal about that.
Re:Meaningless admission (Score:5, Funny)
I asked the British government, but unfortunately they told me you don't actually exist. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, because I'm sure there's SOOOO many people who use BitTorrent only to download free linux ISOs and never ever download movies, series, porn, games, books, music.
Translation : the number of people who only do that are insignificant. It would be dishonest or delusional to disagree.
the story title is kind of lame (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the estimation steps might be sketchy, but the basic practice of estimating a population proportion from a sample of that population is not particularly questionable. That's how almost all studies of populations work, because taking censuses of all people in a country is rarely feasible. We have century-old statistical theory on how to put bounds on the sampling error, too, assuming the sample was indeed random.
You could have a whole slew of these stories if you really objected to that basic methodology, e.g. nearly every estimate of N million people suffering from a disease or disorder is based on a sample.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. In fact, the 1,000 person sample size is a well-established sweet spot for statistical sampling of a population. Of course, in addition to the munging they did to the final results (rounding up to account for self-reporting errors), there may be issues with how the sample was taken (ie, was it truly a random sample of net-connected households). But on the face of it, I agree, I see very little wrong with their methodology.
Re:the story title is kind of lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it ok to change "11.6%" to "16.3%" based on a "hunch"?
I'm not a statistician, this is an honest question
Re:the story title is kind of lame (Score:4, Insightful)
If there was some previous result that only 2/3 of filesharers admit it when asked, then an upwards revision by 1/3 in an estimate would be defensible. A "hunch" is not quite as good evidence. of course.
I was objecting mainly to the "how 136 people became 7 million" title, which to my ears reads mainly as a criticism of the sample size. But whatever the problems with this estimate, the sample size wasn't really among them.
Re:the story title is kind of lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it ok to change "11.6%" to "16.3%" based on a "hunch"? I'm not a statistician, this is an honest question
IAAS, and the answer is no. That goes for the GP as well -- no one is contesting estimation theory, just that the fundamental assumptions are so grossly unmet in this "study" as to render it meaningless. And as someone else already commented, it's dangerous here because it's going to dictate public policy.
If you're going to "adjust" your objective findings, based on some bizarre assumption that a certain percentage of people will lie about file sharing, then why do a survey at all if not to create mathematical/sciency-sounding smoke and mirrors?
Re: (Score:2)
So it's your contention that no one would lie when asked if they file-share? Really?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not but you need some basis if you are going to make such an adjustment. There are ways to determine the rate of sampling error for instance and then use that. In this case that might be to much effort or get you into legally murky waters so what an honest researcher would write something like this:
In my sample of XXXX, YY responded that they sometimes used p2p software in an illegal fashion. Based on this the number of extra legal file sharers in the total population would be ZZZZZZ. I would not expect
Re: (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 really big hunch (Score:2)
is assuming file sharing == illegal file sharing. As others have pointed out, that alone makes the rest of the conclusions meaningless. My stat class said sample size should aim to be around sqrt of population. Of course, smaller samples just lower the confidence intervals. The 1000 people (sqrt(10^6)) is at least in the ball park for a population of 30 million.
This calls for a quote (Score:2, Insightful)
~Albert Einstein
Idiot (in-Numerate) Government Workers (Score:2)
This stuff does not have ANY substance and certainly dosn't deserve the description Research. It is ignorant crap.
Why are we surprised that nothing that New, or Old Labor does works?
Re: (Score:2)
To modern Government, statistics are a tool that is used to define reality, rather than understand it.
You're more likely to agree with something if you think 90% of the population are backing it. This is the purpose of opinion polls and focus groups; not to find out what people think, but to find out how they can be told what to think.
The decisions come first. Then, the statistics follow to show that the decisions were right. It is cunningly manipulative. Even those familiar with the old "damn lies and stat
mathematics (Score:5, Funny)
file sharing software=pirate??? (Score:3, Insightful)
using file sharing software does not mean you pirate software or media.....
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: (Score:2)
right, then how did they adjust dishonesty?
They just adjusted from 11.3% to 16.3%
Where did they get this 5% of people lie on surveys figure?
so then, if you take 16.3% and plug it in...
192/1176 * 18.3M ~=3M
that's still far less than 7 million people. The ath don't madd up! ;p
the true "what the fuck" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much higher?
Keep in mind, before you answer, note the UK only has a population of 60 mil, so try to pick a number below that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a solipsist I'd say everyone does it.
Why the BBC rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
This is yet another example as to why the BBC is the finest broadcasting and journalistic organisation on the planet (I've never worked for them, sold to them or have any other financial connection other than the license fee).
They actually investigated something created by an industry group and found it to be bollocks and then reported it. The BBC are arguably the most "socialist" organisation in the democratic world (funded by a tax on everyone for the benefit of everyone) and yet they still question and challenge everything.
The US seriously needs something that questions vested interests and rubbish statistics as much as the BBC. Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are just comedians and FoxNews is just comedy.
Given a choice between the first amendment and the BBC, I'll take the BBC; its demonstrated more freedom of speech in a week than the US media has in a decade.
Re:Why the BBC rocks (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on, the BBC have reported this number many times since it was first used and you sing their praises because Radio 4 happens to do a show devoted to statistics? I wonder just how much time they will devote to debunking this statistic considering how many times they have quoted it.
Just because the BBC is better than the US networks doesn't mean we should be proud, personally I'm appalled at how low the bar is set.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this, strictly speaking, true? I thought you had to pay a yearly television license fee based on the number of TVs you own. No TV, no fee. (Which creates problems of its own, including the necessity of sending around TV detector vans to make sure no one's hiding an unlicensed TV. I'm thinking it would in fact be better if it were a simple universal fee and be done with it...)
Oh, and agreed about the Beeb rockin'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can also avoid paying the licence fee if your TV can't receive over-the-air pictures, e.g. if it is disconnected from the aerial.
There was once a "radio licence", you can still see a reference to it in one episode of Monty Python, but this was phased out when almost nobody owned a radio but not a TV.
In the future, I expect the TV licence will be extended to include Internet connections as well, since those can now be used to receive BBC programmes too. At that point, we will see if the BBC can continue
Re:Why the BBC rocks (Score:4, Informative)
You only need one license, you can have as many tellies as you like. Portable tellies used in caravans and the like will be covered by the license for your home as well.
If you have two houses, you will need two licenses though, afaicr - which is why students away at Uni need to buy a license - including if they're in halls - even though their permanent residence might still be their parent's house.
I find the BBC great value and love it dearly. I suspect people will say that's because I'm white, middle class and liberal or something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 par
Winston Churchill (Score:2, Interesting)
O "The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself."
Tick one.
Wow... (Score:2)
Can I hire these guys to make me money? Seriously, I've never seen number fudging like this.
So, to sum up (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly wouldn't wager any money that it's significantly higher than actual piracy.
Why not?
Given the difficulty determining an reliable answer, you could probably wager any money at all and not have to pay up.
Have fun trying to collect on your bet.
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: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.