Christian Engström, Pirat

4 december 2011

Swiss gov’t study: downloading leads to sales, so we’re keeping it legal

Filed under: Copyright Reform,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 21:37

Boingboing writes:

The Swiss government commissioned a study on the impact of copyright-infringing downloading. The independent study concluded that downloaders use the money they spend to buy more legitimate entertainment products. So they’ve concluded to maintain Switzerland’s extant copyright law, which makes downloading for personal use legal. It’s a rare victory for evidence-based policy in a world dominated by shrill assertions of lost jobs and revenue, backed by funny-number ”statistics” from industry-commissioned researchers.

Read more at Boingboing

and at Torrentfreak

36 kommentarer

  1. Amazing that at least one country can keep a cool head on make fact-based descisions. That gives some hope…

    Kommentar av telesys — 4 december 2011 @ 21:48

  2. Very strange conclusions. If shoplifters spend their money in shops, does this make it OK to do shoplifting?

    The important issue is that the money should go to the individual creators, not to the industry as a whole.

    If a certain record shop makes huge losses due to shoplifting, even if the music industry earn money from the shoplifters, this is a cold comfort for that particular record shop.

    If the music industry earns money from downloaders, this is a cold comfort for each individual artist.

    If I sell apples and my apples are stolen from me, it’s a cold comfort that other fruit sellers may get some money from the thieves that stole my apples.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 december 2011 @ 22:27

  3. @ntp
    And how much do the individual artist get from a CD sale or from Spotify now? 5-10%?
    They get a far bigger cut from live-performaces that are easier to sell tickets to thanks to filesharing.
    So if you want the artists to get a bigger part of the total income you should welcome downloading.
    You must know this by now…

    Kommentar av telesys — 4 december 2011 @ 22:41

  4. @nejtillpirater:
    Speaking of apples. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Copying, however illegal, is a very different thing from stealing. Period. You can never have a serious discussion on the subject of copying copyrighted material until you realize that.

    Kommentar av Patrik — 4 december 2011 @ 23:31

  5. nejtillpirater:

    Trying to ban computerized file-factories will seem just as arch-conservative in the 21st century as it seems today to try to ban factories for material goods back in the 19th century to protect the businesses that were made obsolete back then.

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 5 december 2011 @ 10:14

  6. It is strange that we still have to point out to some, that copying is not theft.

    Kommentar av Deep Blue — 5 december 2011 @ 12:16

  7. @ntp
    ”The important issue is that the money should go to the individual creators, not to the industry as a whole.”

    Then you must be delighted. Every studie shows that the actual artists are the winners in the age of downloading. Their total part of the overall income has increased over the last 10 years, never ever has so many artist been able to make a living out of their performing.

    The losers are the middlemen who do not have the same role to play in this new age.

    So why are you against downloading if this clearly is good for the average artist?

    Kommentar av JohJoh — 5 december 2011 @ 14:12

  8. If you have an apple and I take, you don’t have an apple anymore. If you have a piece of music and I copy it, you still have your piece left.

    Stealing and copying are not to be compared directly.

    Kommentar av Anonym — 5 december 2011 @ 14:18

  9. I see that our dear ”nejtillpirater” still has a serious problem trying to separate the copying of information between party A and party B from the deprivation of said property from person C.

    The same argument, applied to real life, would mean that in copying someone’s house I would be rendering the inhabitants of the original house homeless.

    Apparently this makes sense to ntp.

    I am not surprised that the Swiss have made this decision. Rather that not more governments have followed suit as the studies upon which the Swiss rely have been publicly known for years. Still, it’s a question of when, not if the rest of the world follows suit. The US in particular is going to have to drop the majority of IP legislation within a decade once they realize where the current legislation will put them compared to China fairly soon: In the same position they are at when it comes to manufacturing right now.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 5 december 2011 @ 14:56

  10. @telesys

    ”They get a far bigger cut from live-performaces that are easier to sell tickets to thanks to filesharing.”

    ”They”? A non performing artist gets nada from live performances that other artists do.

    @patrik

    ”You’re comparing apples and oranges. Copying, however illegal, is a very different thing from stealing. Period.”

    Why should I compare apples with apples? There’s no point in comparing equal objects. And yes, copying and stealing is not the same but in both cases there’s an economic loss or a potential economic loss. So the comparison is valid. Period.

    @Deep Blue

    ”It is strange that we still have to point out to some, that copying is not theft.”

    To whom? I’ve never said that copying is the same as theft. There are similarities. In a legal sense, different laws are involved. But for the artist, the result is almost the same as theft.

    @JohJoh

    ”Every studie shows that the actual artists are the winners in the age of downloading. Their total part of the overall income has increased over the last 10 years, never ever has so many artist been able to make a living out of their performing.”

    ”The actual artists” – what artists?
    ”Their total part” – what artists?

    How much has the overall income increased for the non performing artist? Or for the less popular artists? If the most famous live artists have huge incomes this has no effect whatsoever on the other artists.

    @Anonym

    ”Stealing and copying are not to be compared directly.”

    But I just did compare them. Indirectly… They are not the same but similar – perfectly valid comparison.

    @Scary

    ”Apparently this makes sense to ntp.”

    Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 5 december 2011 @ 18:59

  11. Great news Christian! A wise descision by the Swiss government. There is no need to further complicate and restrict the copyright law. It is complicated as it is today and very few people understand it. Hope the Swedish government will learn something from this but I doubt it.

    Kommentar av Anonym — 5 december 2011 @ 19:45

  12. Thank you for sharing this information, Christian. It’s encouraging to see common sense applied at the government level, and even more so when it happens in such a respectable country as Switzerland. Excellent news, indeed.

    Kommentar av Observer — 5 december 2011 @ 21:19

  13. @ntp
    ”A non performing artist gets nada from live performances that other artists do”
    Then maybe the songwriters need to include this in their ”deal” with the performing artists

    Kommentar av telesys — 5 december 2011 @ 23:02

  14. @ntp:
    Can you give a single example of a non-performing artist that has lost any money due to file sharing? That is as in an artist that is _still_ doing any music. Or should we cry a river for Jimmy Hendrix (for instance), that he looses money due to file sharing? I tell you what, the money for the artist has never been in record sales, but in merchandise and live concerts, except for a handfull of musicians.

    Further, what you do not seam to grasp is the fundamental difference between shoplifting and file sharing – in one of the cases the ”victim” looses something, in the other what was once one is now two. It is more like you see a screwdriver in a store and then you go home and make one your self, instead of purchasing it. Does that in ANY sense of the word even resemblance stealing to you? Sure, in both cases the shopkeeper looses money, but there is a fundamental difference, which I do not have any hopes that you even want to try to understand.

    And I just have to ask you, if it is the individual artist you care about (and only care about) then would not flattr or other fundsurfing be a much better thing for the artist? http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/selling_out_550.png I mean it’s less than a buck they make for an entire album (those with good deals, and we should not even start to talk about spotify and the likes). I mean, if the artist has a ”send one euro” when you download our album they would make MORE money than to have a record deal! And I tell you what, it has been tried and has been a success for really small, medium and known artists.

    Kommentar av Rev. Smith — 6 december 2011 @ 9:24

  15. @Rev. Smith

    ”Further, what you do not seam to grasp is the fundamental difference between shoplifting and file sharing – in one of the cases the ”victim” looses something, in the other what was once one is now two.”

    In two of the cases the ”victim” looses something. There is of course differences between shoplifting and illegal file sharing – but also similarities. If I have a copy of music CD that I like, why should I buy it? I have several friends that claim that they haven’t bought music for several years, they download it instead.

    ”And I just have to ask you, if it is the individual artist you care about (and only care about) then would not flattr or other fundsurfing be a much better thing for the artist?”

    It’s the individual artists that I care about. And what’s best for the individual artist is a decision of each individual artist, not a decision taken by people breaking the law. If flattr etc. is the best decision according to one artist – fine. If a record contract is the decision – fine. All artists are individuals, let them decide and not the mean and greedy rabble.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 6 december 2011 @ 18:59

  16. @nejtillpirater

    ”Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense.”

    You mean the reasoning which is backed by serious peer-reviewed studies performed by the Dutch government, the university of commerce in Norway and half a dozen other rather dry but impeccably researched and written studies during the last ten years?

    I’m sure this does not make any sense to someone like you whose own, very personal opinion seems to override historical data and empirical fact. Nevertheless it’s true. And your arguments have been proven false many times over.

    Not that this stops you from posting what can only be described as irrelevant nonsense backed by one-liners and bad argumentation.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 7 december 2011 @ 15:46

  17. @nejtillpirater

    ”All artists are individuals, let them decide and not the mean and greedy rabble.”

    I think I’ll cut in line here. The artists do have a choice. If they want control over their information then they are free not to disseminate it so that it becomes publicly available. We have for the last seven thousand years worth of recorded history known for unassailable fact that human nature does not allow for ”public secrets”.

    In order to even hinder copying of such information you first have to prevent communication. That’s basically it. Any other option basically assumes we can change human nature in ways even the leninists in early soviet russia did not believe.

    China today contains a vast online community alongside the most draconian government surveillance system ever developed. Ostensibly they do use this system to discourage illegal filesharing in the same manner that they track down dissidents (perhaps not so odd, pirates in China do tend to be ”dissidents” as well, as what they do is, in essence, to obtain information they shouldn’t obtain).

    That does not change the fact that the estimated percentage of illegal filesharers in China’s online community is a whopping 62%. At the time the estimate was made the online community was roughly 200 million strong.

    There is a very easy conclusion to draw from this and from the last hundred years worth of copyright conflicts we’ve experienced in the west – as soon as there is a venue of communication at all, copyright infringement between ordinary citizens explodes.

    You do not change this without also radically altering how the human race works. And thus, if the artist wants to keep his work under control he or she will simply have the option of revealing it. Or not.

    When we aren’t simply talking about copying, people understand this immutable rule well – which is why you don’t see people revealing their ATM card PINs to all and sundry in the naíve understanding that the information won’t be used. Apparently as soon as the information concerned is some form of media, everyone assumes that magically different rules will apply.

    That just isn’t true and never has been.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 7 december 2011 @ 15:58

  18. @ nejtillpirater

    Very strange conclusions. If shoplifters spend their money in shops, does this make it OK to do shoplifting?

    Not at all. The strange conclusions are coming from those who simply can’t distinguish between copying and actual theft of property, even though the differences have been pointed out for them for years now.

    The important issue is that the money should go to the individual creators, not to the industry as a whole.

    If the money goes to the ”industry as a whole” it does go to ”individual creators”. What do you think the ”industry as a whole” is made up of, if not partly of ”individual creators”? Care to clarify your thoughts?

    If a certain record shop makes huge losses due to shoplifting, even if the music industry earn money from the shoplifters, this is a cold comfort for that particular record shop.

    Your analogy is completely irrelevant, once again, because you are comparing copying to actual theft of property. Stop comparing apples with oranges already?

    If the music industry earns money from downloaders, this is a cold comfort for each individual artist.

    Not really, as individual artists are a part of the music industry, and thus get a share of the profits.

    If I sell apples and my apples are stolen from me, it’s a cold comfort that other fruit sellers may get some money from the thieves that stole my apples.

    Once again, completely irrelevant analogy.

    Kommentar av Professor — 7 december 2011 @ 16:58

  19. @ nejtillpirater

    @telesys

    ”They get a far bigger cut from live-performaces that are easier to sell tickets to thanks to filesharing.”

    ”They”? A non performing artist gets nada from live performances that other artists do.

    Obviously. However, there are more than one way to make money. Those who adjust to the new industry landscape will be the winners. The lazy ones will not. It’s just how things works in all other industries.

    @patrik

    ”You’re comparing apples and oranges. Copying, however illegal, is a very different thing from stealing. Period.”

    Why should I compare apples with apples? There’s no point in comparing equal objects. And yes, copying and stealing is not the same but in both cases there’s an economic loss or a potential economic loss. So the comparison is valid. Period.

    No. When comparing two different phenomena they have to be as equal as possible on the utmost fundamental plan. Theft and copying are not.

    When it comes to copying, there is a potential for an economic gain, loss, or even insignificant changes. Theft on the other hand is always an economic loss directly proportional to the number of items stolen. Copying and theft don’t are in their nature as different as they can be.

    @Deep Blue

    ”It is strange that we still have to point out to some, that copying is not theft.”

    To whom? I’ve never said that copying is the same as theft. There are similarities. In a legal sense, different laws are involved. But for the artist, the result is almost the same as theft.

    To you. Almost all of your arguments relies on a wishful thinking that theft and copying actually would be of similar nature. They are not. In fact. They are so dissimilar in nature so that by simply pointing out this simply fact, virtually all of your arguments instantaneously become eradicated from the surface of the earth. So dissimilar are they.

    @JohJoh

    ”Every studie shows that the actual artists are the winners in the age of downloading. Their total part of the overall income has increased over the last 10 years, never ever has so many artist been able to make a living out of their performing.”

    ”The actual artists” – what artists?
    ”Their total part” – what artists?

    How much has the overall income increased for the non performing artist? Or for the less popular artists? If the most famous live artists have huge incomes this has no effect whatsoever on the other artists.

    More popular artists have always, and will always, make more money, whether it be by selling copies of their music or by performing.

    The important question to ask here will not be what the best way to babysit less popular artists is, but how does an artist get popular in the first place? Is it by selling overpriced copies of unknown artists? Or is it by spreading the music to as many people as possible slowly building a supporting fan base?

    @Anonym

    ”Stealing and copying are not to be compared directly.”

    But I just did compare them. Indirectly… They are not the same but similar – perfectly valid comparison.

    Not at all. A valid comparison would at the very least share the same fundamental nature, which is far from being the case here.

    Theft is in comparison simply a relocation mechanism of physic matter within the universe, whereas copying is the fundamental of life itself and all of its creations. Theft is relocation and copying is creation. Simple as that.

    @Scary

    ”Apparently this makes sense to ntp.”

    Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense.

    Somewhat ironical coming from a person who seems to base all arguments on the flawed assumption that copying and theft would actually be of similar nature.

    What Scary Devil Monastery did was simple applying your flawed logics on real life examples. If you think that the outcome doesn’t make sense, remember that they are based on your own reasoning, and not his/her.

    Kommentar av Professor — 7 december 2011 @ 17:42

  20. @ nejtillpirater

    In two of the cases the ”victim” looses something. There is of course differences between shoplifting and illegal file sharing – but also similarities.

    There it is yet again. A complete failure of distinguishing copying from actual theft by illogically stating that copying deprives people of things. It’s pretty clear from above that you do still need to be reminded of the differences between copying and actual theft.

    If I have a copy of music CD that I like, why should I buy it? i>

    Why do people buy bottled water even though they can it for free from the tap? Why do people buy things they otherwise can get for free?

    The answer is pretty simple and straightforward. Because they think it’s worth the price. Only because you personally can’t find a reason doesn’t mean that others won’t, and judging by the research in the area, they clearly have found plenty of reasons for supporting their artists.

    It’s the individual artists that I care about. And what’s best for the individual artist is a decision of each individual artist, not a decision taken by people breaking the law. If flattr etc. is the best decision according to one artist – fine. If a record contract is the decision – fine. All artists are individuals, let them decide and not the mean and greedy rabble.

    1. People downloading songs never take away any decision making from an artist.
    2. Whether people are breaking any laws by downloading songs is completely irrelevant for this discussion.
    3. Since all your writing was based on erroneously and illogical reasoning it contains nothing of substance.

    Kommentar av Professor — 7 december 2011 @ 18:03

  21. @ntp
    Since you did not answer the question:
    ”Can you give a single example of a non-performing artist that has lost any money due to file sharing? That is as in an artist that is _still_ doing any music.”
    I guess that you do not know of any.

    n two of the cases the ”victim” looses something. There is of course differences between shoplifting and illegal file sharing – but also similarities. If I have a copy of music CD that I like, why should I buy it? I have several friends that claim that they haven’t bought music for several years, they download it instead.

    First of all you can not loose anything that you do not possess. Since the revenue did not exist in the first place, it could therefore not be lost. Second when someone shoplifts from the record store, it is not possible to sell that particular record – it is lost. If someone file share the record, you can still sell the record and get a potential sale.

    Second there are several reasons to purchase a record you have on your computer – you get the physical product for one with the art work etc, you get the impression that you support the artist and so on and so forth.

    Third, if your friends wouldn’t have downloaded music, would they have purchased it instead? Or would they copy it from radio, each other, youtube, grooveshark etc instead? And don’t come here and say that radio pays royalties, because what is the difference between downloading a track from the radio and from TPB, save for one of them is legal?

    All artists are individuals, let them decide and not the mean and greedy rabble.
    In deed all artists are individuals and they may do as they please in their risk vs. potential profit strategy. Nevertheless, if the potential profit does not appear, they should not try to ruin democracy, freedom of speech and Internet to get that profit. Can we agree on that?

    Kommentar av Rev. Smith — 8 december 2011 @ 1:11

  22. The report also concludes that the sampling effect is minimal, that the buying behavior is about the same for both people that download illegal contents from the Internet and for those who don’t.

    The report also says that 63% of people that are file-sharing music buy music legally at least ONE time during a year, a very low number! This also means that 37% of file-sharers never buy music legally during a year!

    A study performed by the Swedish company Mediavision concludes that if the files had not been available for download, they would have been bought legally in 25% of the cases.

    http://www.mediavision.se, parts of the study have been published at http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/sverige-ar-fortfarande-piraternas-paradis_6674284.svd, for specific questions please contact Mediavision directly.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 14 december 2011 @ 19:24

  23. […] heller ”Pirate MEP” Christian Engström lägger dessa väsentliga resultat på bordet i sin […]

    Pingback av Piraternas pinsamma feltolkningar av forskningsrapporter « Nej till pirater och Piratpartiet — 14 december 2011 @ 19:29

  24. @ nejtillpirater

    The report also concludes that the sampling effect is minimal, that the buying behavior is about the same for both people that download illegal contents from the Internet and for those who don’t.

    So basically, what you are saying is that people who illegally download files from the Internet, despite all the downloads, has roughly the same buying behavior, and thus wouldn’t buy more if they were not illegally filesharing.

    Now, with your own words you have now clearly stated that online piracy is a non-problem in itself, as by your own reasoning there is no significant difference between a pirat and a non-pirat when it comes to buying patterns.

    The report also says that 63% of people that are file-sharing music buy music legally at least ONE time during a year, a very low number!

    A very low number? In what sense? What are your references?

    63% is a majority, it’s 26% larger than 50%, and yet you believe, despite that a majority of file-sharers according to yourself buy music one or several times a year, this big number to be a very low number?

    That just doesn’t make sense. A very large number can’t be a very small number without a logical justification, which you have not provided. Your reasoning is irrational at best.

    This also means that 37% of file-sharers never buy music legally during a year!

    This also means, by your own reasoning, that roughly 37% of non-file sharers ”never buy music legally during a year!”. Remember that you yourself stated that file sharers and non-file sharers shared roughly the same buying pattern. So what does this tell us? Nothing really…

    Any reason in particular that you mentioned this completely irrelevant information?

    A study performed by the Swedish company Mediavision concludes that if the files had not been available for download, they would have been bought legally in 25% of the cases.

    So. First you want to establish that 63% of pirates and non-pirates buy music one or several times a year, only to bring in contradicting information that puts the figure as low as 25%? Did you have any point with your comment besides bringing fourth contradictions?

    Kommentar av Professor — 14 december 2011 @ 22:17

  25. @Professor

    You obviously didn’t understand the facts and have drawn very strange conclusions based on that. Give it another try before I answer you, try a little more this time. You’re mixing up figures in a very illogical way.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 14 december 2011 @ 22:58

  26. @ nejtillpirater

    You obviously didn’t understand the facts

    On the contrary, facts are fairly easy to understand, however, the figures that you have posted can in no way can be counted as facts though. What is harder to understand is what point you were trying to make, as your entire comment was made up of posting contradicting reviews of different studies plus a very odd statement, without resorting to any form of discussion around it.

    Now when you had the chance to clarify, you didn’t take it. Instead you came out strong with lame accusations that I didn’t understand the non-facts that you are trying to paint with the ”fact”-color.

    and have drawn very strange conclusions based on that.

    Not at all. I haven’t drawn any conclusions at all based on those non-facts alone. The conclusions I made were solely based on your own reasoning, and that is clearly detailed in my comment.

    Give it another try before I answer you, try a little more this time.

    If you want to dodge the questions it’s up to you. It wouldn’t be the first unanswered questions on this page from your side.

    You’re mixing up figures in a very illogical way.

    Everyone can make up statements like this above, but few can argue for them. Where do you belong?

    Kommentar av Professor — 14 december 2011 @ 23:16

  27. @Professor

    I don’t really see the point since you’re either completely lost or mixing things up deliberately. In either way the effect is the same. Anyway:

    ”he report also concludes that the sampling effect is minimal, that the buying behavior is about the same for both people that download illegal contents from the Internet and for those who don’t.

    So basically, what you are saying is that people who illegally download files from the Internet, despite all the downloads, has roughly the same buying behavior, and thus wouldn’t buy more if they were not illegally filesharing.”

    No, this conclusion cannot be made from that.People who download illegally may spend the same money (not MORE according to the report) but they also consume a lot more media that is not paid for. The downloaders have a need for more consumption of media and are likely to pay MORE if the have to (downloading is not possible). The Mediavision study confirms this.

    ”Now, with your own words you have now clearly stated that online piracy is a non-problem in itself, as by your own reasoning there is no significant difference between a pirat and a non-pirat when it comes to buying patterns.”

    ”In my own words”, that’s a lie, stick to the truth! Your confused words are not mine, if you see it that way you obviously need some basic training in logic reasoning.
    And then you go on an on with the same confused logic.

    ”The report also says that 63% of people that are file-sharing music buy music legally at least ONE time during a year, a very low number!

    A very low number? In what sense? What are your references?”

    ”low” was referring to ONE.

    ”This also means that 37% of file-sharers never buy music legally during a year!

    This also means, by your own reasoning, that roughly 37% of non-file sharers ”never buy music legally during a year!”. Remember that you yourself stated that file sharers and non-file sharers shared roughly the same buying pattern. So what does this tell us? Nothing really…”

    You obviously also need training in basic mathematics. 37% of file-sharers is a completely different group than the whole group of file-sharers. A behavior on average for the complete group of file-sharers can’t be transferred to a small part of the group, a very specific part of the group with people that NEVER buys any of the downloaded media during a year. You’re completely lost!

    ”Did you have any point with your comment besides bringing fourth contradictions?”

    The point is that you’re completely lost in basic mathematics and logical reasoning.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 15 december 2011 @ 7:13

  28. @ nejtillpirater

    I don’t really see the point since you’re either completely lost or mixing things up deliberately. In either way the effect is the same. Anyway:

    Basically you enter the discussion with the mindset of you being right and the rest of the world being wrong. Tread carefully, this is a minefield…

    ”he report also concludes that the sampling effect is minimal, that the buying behavior is about the same for both people that download illegal contents from the Internet and for those who don’t.

    So basically, what you are saying is that people who illegally download files from the Internet, despite all the downloads, has roughly the same buying behavior, and thus wouldn’t buy more if they were not illegally filesharing.”

    No, this conclusion cannot be made from that.People who download illegally may spend the same money (not MORE according to the report) but they also consume a lot more media that is not paid for. The downloaders have a need for more consumption of media and are likely to pay MORE if the have to (downloading is not possible). The Mediavision study confirms this.

    On the contrary. This conclusion can definitively be made from ”this”.

    You stated that pirates share roughly the same buying behavior as non-pirates, and if they were suddenly to cease being pirates, they would essentially become non-pirates which, wait for it, according to yourself shares roughly the same buying pattern as pirates.

    Can you make up your mind already? Do they share the same buying pattern or not?

    The downloaders have a need for more consumption of media and are likely to pay MORE if the have to (downloading is not possible). The Mediavision study confirms this.

    If you believe that the Mediavision study confirms your statements than you are free to provide a quote directly from it, or at least provide a means to view the source.

    ”Now, with your own words you have now clearly stated that online piracy is a non-problem in itself, as by your own reasoning there is no significant difference between a pirat and a non-pirat when it comes to buying patterns.”

    ”In my own words”, that’s a lie, stick to the truth!

    There is no lie here. Remember that I have not stated that you yourself directly have deemed online piracy a non-problem. In fact, if you had read exactly what I wrote, It would come clear to you that the thing about online piracy being a non-issue is to be seen as the natural consequence of your own wording, and not necessarily what you yourself wanted to convey.

    You are free to argue about the implications, but you really have no basis for calling people liars here.

    Do you deny the simple fact that you stated that pirates and non-pirates share roughly the same buying pattern?

    If they share the same buying pattern as non-pirates, they will as a result not buy less than non-pirates. If they, despite all the ”free” content available, still not pay less than non-pirates, then there is really no problem worth mentioning.

    Your confused words are not mine, if you see it that way you obviously need some basic training in logic reasoning.
    And then you go on an on with the same confused logic.

    Oh, but there are no ”confused” words from my side, unless you find some words you directly find confusing of course, but then may I suggest a dictionary?

    I won’t go into this deeper as I have already explained it above.

    It’s interesting to note though, that you once again feel the need to resort to lame ”Ad Hominem”-arguments just because you misinterpreted the text you read. Wouldn’t it be simpler to just bring fourth objective reasoning that actually is relevant to the discussion?

    ”The report also says that 63% of people that are file-sharing music buy music legally at least ONE time during a year, a very low number!

    A very low number? In what sense? What are your references?”

    ”low” was referring to ONE.

    Isn’t it little ironic that the very same person that blindly accuses people of being liars and lacking in the mental department makes the rookie mistake of interpreting the phrase ”at least one time” as being equal to ”one time”?

    I noticed that you in your last comment stated I would be in need of training in basic mathematics, and yet you are having problem with one of the most basic logical operators in the world.

    Let me give you a few examples of numbers that all fits the criteria for >= 1:

    1
    10
    100
    1000
    10000
    100000

    By your own reasoning the number 100 000 would be a very low number in itself.

    ”This also means that 37% of file-sharers never buy music legally during a year!

    This also means, by your own reasoning, that roughly 37% of non-file sharers ”never buy music legally during a year!”. Remember that you yourself stated that file sharers and non-file sharers shared roughly the same buying pattern. So what does this tell us? Nothing really…”

    You obviously also need training in basic mathematics. 37% of file-sharers is a completely different group than the whole group of file-sharers.

    Doh?

    Of course a group consisting of 37% of the entire group is a different group than the whole group of 100%. No one has said the opposite though. Whose reasoning did you say was confusing now again?

    A behavior on average for the complete group of file-sharers can’t be transferred to a small part of the group, a very specific part of the group with people that NEVER buys any of the downloaded media during a year.

    Do you ever read what people write before you answer them? This is the second time in this very comment that you completely failed to properly interpret basic writing and the logic reasoning behind it.

    I didn’t apply the properties of 100% of file sharers onto 37% of file sharers above, I applied the buying patterns of the group of 100% of non-pirates to the group of 100% of pirates, as per your own premises of the both buying patterns being practically equal.

    Instead of running around blindly accusing people of not following logic, please first make sure that your own ass is covered…

    You’re completely lost!

    You enjoy collecting Ad Hominems?

    Considering your ever growing list of offenses on this blog one must ask…

    ”Did you have any point with your comment besides bringing fourth contradictions?”

    The point is that you’re completely lost in basic mathematics and logical reasoning.

    So now you are basically admitting to what others have suspected a long time now, that you are simply trolling this blog?

    Could this become the second copyright-oriented blog you get banned from for disturbing the objective discussion climate? Only time will tell.

    Either that or you once again completely failed to interpret a simple question, despite your efforts of trying to paint yourself as logical superior to others?

    Kommentar av Professor — 15 december 2011 @ 11:44

  29. I believe the old bug is back where all of the following comments will become bolded…

    – I fixed the broken end tag, so now it’s ok. /che

    Kommentar av Professor — 15 december 2011 @ 11:47

  30. @Fredrika

    It’s not Ad Hominem to say that you’re completely lost in mathematics/logic – since you are. Your answer in #29 and #30 shows this beyond doubts.

    ”Isn’t it little ironic that the very same person that blindly accuses people of being liars and lacking in the mental department makes the rookie mistake of interpreting the phrase ”at least one time” as being equal to ”one time”?

    I noticed that you in your last comment stated I would be in need of training in basic mathematics, and yet you are having problem with one of the most basic logical operators in the world.

    Let me give you a few examples of numbers that all fits the criteria for >= 1:”

    bla. bla…

    The notion of ”at least one” is basic mathematics. Basic mathematics also leads to that the complement is zero in this case, since the problem domain is the number of times a person buys a product after downloading. If the number is not >=1 (1,2, ,,, whatever), i must be 0.

    I said ”This also means that 37% of file-sharers never buy music legally during a year!”

    This statement REQUIRES understanding of what the complement to ”at least one” is, and obviously also understanding of what ”at least one” means.
    The accusation of my making a ”rookie mistake” clearly shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about and you were lost AGAIN!

    I see no point at all in further discussions with you involving mathematics or logic reasoning, it would be a complete waste of time.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 15 december 2011 @ 17:30

  31. @Professor

    I accidentally addressed #31 to Fredrika, instead of Professor. Maybe it’s the way you write that made me erroneously think that Professor = Fredrika…

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 15 december 2011 @ 17:51

  32. @ nejtillpirater

    @Fredrika

    In a comment were you are trying to defend yourself against accusations of Ad Hominem, you are bringing out yet another one. Brilliant…

    Although I’m flattered that you are comparing me to a far better debater than myself, it’s yet another clear personal attack from your side.

    It’s not Ad Hominem to say that you’re completely lost in mathematics/logic – since you are. Your answer in #29 and #30 shows this beyond doubts.

    ”@Fredrika”
    ”if you see it that way you obviously need some basic training in logic reasoning”
    ”The point is that you’re completely lost in basic mathematics and logical reasoning.”
    ”You’re completely lost!”

    Are all unquestionable examples of Ad Hominems. None of the phrases are objective and all are directly attacking your perceived view of your opponents personal qualities rather than their arguments.

    bla. bla…

    The notion of ”at least one” is basic mathematics. Basic mathematics also leads to that the complement is zero in this case, since the problem domain is the number of times a person buys a product after downloading. If the number is not >=1 (1,2, ,,, whatever), i must be 0.

    I said ”This also means that 37% of file-sharers never buy music legally during a year!”

    This statement REQUIRES understanding of what the complement to ”at least one” is, and obviously also understanding of what ”at least one” means.
    The accusation of my making a ”rookie mistake” clearly shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about and you were lost AGAIN!

    Oh, I’m not lost. On the contrary.

    When asked for clarification regarding exactly what you deemed being a low number, you simply answered ”ONE”, although there was no such number in the original statement, only a mathematical expression where the number one is the least likely.

    Now. It doesn’t matter at all that you recognized the relevant portion of the concept of ”at least one” before this, when you calculated the aforementioned percentage. That does in now way erase your following mistake.

    By coming here and defending the wrong part of your statements, you clearly show us that you failed to even recognize what part you actually need to address. And after doing something like that, finishing with a statement of how ”lost” your opponents are, well that’s quite something.

    I see no point at all in further discussions with you involving mathematics or logic reasoning, it would be a complete waste of time.

    Despite being the superior logical being that you are trying to give the impression of, you are quite fast at withdrawing from the discussion. Interestingly enough, you have still not disproved my statements. A few personal attacks and a defense speech of an irrelevant portion of your writings is pretty much what your last comment were made up of.

    Kommentar av Professor — 15 december 2011 @ 18:36

  33. @ nejtillpirater

    It’s not Ad Hominem to say that you’re completely lost in mathematics/logic – since you are. Your answer in #29 and #30 shows this beyond doubts.i>

    Really?

    Let’s take a closer look at comment #30. It’s a comment where I express that the bolding bug, which has been seen on this blog before, is back, and thus making all new comments bolded.

    What magic formulae did you use to come up with this remarkable conclusion?

    Kommentar av Professor — 15 december 2011 @ 18:50

  34. @ nejtillpirater

    @Professor

    I accidentally addressed #31 to Fredrika, instead of Professor. Maybe it’s the way you write that made me erroneously think that Professor = Fredrika…

    So what you are saying is that the reason for this mix up is not simply because you mistakenly thought you were discussing with Fredrika, but instead that you mysteriously interconnected two completely different alias to each other?

    You are well aware that you have had simultaneously discussions with both of us in the past. You have also been notified every time you have erroneously clumped together these two alias in the past.

    How come that you still are doing it, despite that Fredrika isn’t even participating in the discussions?

    Kommentar av Professor — 15 december 2011 @ 19:04

  35. @Professor

    Because nejtillpirater isn’t interested in a debate – he wants to bury any issue he decides weighs in against his own vested interests in a filibuster. In that respect he’s shooting himself in the foot. Again. People are in general drawn to the articles containing more responses than not.

    I’m still wondering whether ”nejtillpirater” isn’t just a pirate of the troll persuasion hell-bent on painting a very unflattering picture of what the average pro-copyright fanatic looks like. It’s certainly convincing, and I have yet to see a ”neutral” reader who didn’t start questioning his sanity and logic after reading at most three of his more ”inspired” posts. No completely sane man could fail to recognize just how insane he sounds once you link together almost any two statements made by him on copyright-related topics. He contradicts himself almost at every turn, and tries to back both views with a lengthy slew of fictious numbers and made-up ”fact”.

    That said if this is the case I’d wish he’d dial the lunacy down a notch or two. Although there are no doubt people like Johann ”Child Porn Is Great” Schlüter and SONY CEO Howard ”Nothing Good Has Come From The Internet” Stringer out there, such people are in fact a minority among the copywrong crowd. The majority being driven by simple inertia and the illusive profit margin.

    Kommentar av Scary Devil Monastery — 19 december 2011 @ 11:24

  36. @ Scary Devil Monastery

    Because nejtillpirater isn’t interested in a debate – he wants to bury any issue he decides weighs in against his own vested interests in a filibuster. In that respect he’s shooting himself in the foot. Again. People are in general drawn to the articles containing more responses than not.

    He’s clearly not interested in a debate judging by his actions on this blog. Not only are people going to be drawn to these articles like you said, but additionally his confused and abusive reasoning is more likely to have a pro pirate effect than the opposite.

    I’m still wondering whether ”nejtillpirater” isn’t just a pirate of the troll persuasion hell-bent on painting a very unflattering picture of what the average pro-copyright fanatic looks like. It’s certainly convincing, and I have yet to see a ”neutral” reader who didn’t start questioning his sanity and logic after reading at most three of his more ”inspired” posts. No completely sane man could fail to recognize just how insane he sounds once you link together almost any two statements made by him on copyright-related topics. He contradicts himself almost at every turn, and tries to back both views with a lengthy slew of fictious numbers and made-up ”fact”.

    One can certainly wonder, considering the high level of illogical reasoning, pure contradictions, personal attacks, outright lies, failure and unwillingness to answer simple questions, guilt by association arguments, strawmen arguments, bias towards selectively answering those questions which can be answered with illogical reasoning and mudslinging, and the seizing of every opportunity to smear his components with personal attacks and irrelevant guilt by association arguments.

    Kommentar av Professor — 19 december 2011 @ 12:19


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blogga med WordPress.com.

%d bloggare gillar detta: