Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Oh happy days.
[Edit]
Oh, never mind.
You appear unable to think in meta terms, I hope you learnt at least something.
Anyone else notice all the news about huge withdrawls of peer reviewed papers because people found out they were litereal gibberish? Not even poorly written papers that weren't worthy of being published, but actual generated gibberish that said absolutley nothing while using a list of technical terms to make it sound sophisticated.
Then there's the "good ol boys" method where industry scientists form a cabal and filter the "science" so only things that agree with their "facts" are allowed through.
The faith people hold in the peer review process is fading fast. It's been proven a lie far too many times for it to be held as some lofty standard by which all things should be judged.
Remember all that "propoganda" from the pirate party? And how we should all ignore it as "rubbish"?
This term, that European Parliament is revising the copyright monopoly – definitely once, possibly twice. It starts out by evaluating what works and what doesn’t with the current set of laws on the matter. And the rapporteur for that dossier – meaning “the person writing the actual legislative document” – is Julia Reda, representative for the Pirate Party from Germany.
Let’s take that again: a Pirate Party representative is writing the European Union’s official evaluation of the copyright monopoly, and listing a set of necessary changes. Jan 4th 2015
http://torrentfreak.com/in-europe-pirates-are-writing-the-copyright-law-150104/
https://juliareda.eu/2014/12/eu-copyright-evaluation/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_Wxu6x1HU
Will this be the end of the matter? Of course not, that's why certain companies bribe certain prosecutors to file legal challenges and so on. I have no doubt that, of course, behind closed doors there will be counter-moves. Especially as the TTP draws closer.
However, at the very least, the debate is being held in some societies, and in public with some measure of transparency.
(And that, gentlemen, is a 3-pointer).
Trust me, ignoring your off-topic drivel and threats isn't due to a lack thinking on my part.
Also, you seemed to have ignored my counter-rebuttal post of #1319, mainly to due with the fact that any Spotify effect was accounted for in the Adermon 2014 paper, but also other things.
Or did you concede defeat already?
Which is why peer reviewed tiers with high citation indices exist. And on the contrary, proper peer review is what stands against oil lobbyist's 'peer review' process and creationists.
The IPCC is a great example of humanity's restored faith in the scientific method for instance.
It's not perfect but it is the best we have.
Trumps 'working papers' from the Pirate Party UK any day of the week, though it is very easy just to point out flaws in the paper as a layman too, or non-regressioned surveys or dare I say polls from illegal activity, rofl.
Someone didn't read the prior post:
Let’s take that again: a Pirate Party representative is writing the European Union’s official evaluation of the copyright monopoly, and listing a set of necessary changes. Jan 4th 2015
Ooops?
And no, Spotify existing in 2008 isn't part of your "refuted" delusion - go re-read my posts, I specifically said "Sweden digital sales uptick from 2008 q3" < I even bolded the "8" for you, to make the point explicitly clear. How blatantly dishonest can you get? I'd factored in when Spotify was released, if you check the graphs, you can clearly see an upward trend in sales before IPRED becomes law.
I'll add to this, for the record: the Steam TOS has been broken so many times this thread by multiple posters that to consider it moderated is a joke. Someone, somewhere, is paying for a pit fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dvzIL53v4Q
“le mal qui est dans le monde vient presque toujours de l'ignorance”
/fini
What you conveniently fail to mention is that I am discussing specifically a 'working' paper from the Pirate Party UK that will never see the light of day that attempts to, in a very bias manner, to dispute the HADOPI findings. That paper was so poorly written that a layman could point out flaws in just about everything (and I did start on that, but could've gone on much longer). THAT is what we are talking about specifically, not how many seats the Pirate Party in Germany obtained.
There is a clear trend break in total music sales from Sweden, if you look at Figure 3. 'Sales increased compared to the same quarters in the previous year which is a pattern that cannot be found for any two consequtive quarters in the countries without a reform or in Sweden prior to the reform'.
Even if I were to biasly cherrypick only looking at digital music sales, there is still a clear trend break, despite the positive sales trend in Sweden and Norway prior to the reform. 'The increase in the three post-reform quarters does not have a counterpart elsewhere in the data'.
What you fail to completely understand is that a difference-in-differences approach would capture any statistical bias not observable to the human eye just by looking at the figures, which may appear at first glance subjective. There are rigorous data analysis methods developed just to avoid these sort of 'visual' interpretations of data.
Ahh how I love it, another natural experiment finds a massive increase in sales due to a big drop in piracy, like the HADOPI paper.
Again, thank you for indirectly bringing this to my attention and not being able to refute it. It only strengthens the findings in my literature review.
You? Stil fumbling over non-peer reviewed propaganda leaflets. Remember folks, the piracy industry has a lot to lose, don't be surprised if there are some 0 level accounts with no profile pics shilling for copyright infringement. Not exactly a hard thing to sell either, I would have expected more from Boinkers. 'Hurrr, come to the dark side, it's free with no repercussions, Durr'. But I suppose that is why it is currently the biggest market failure in PC gaming.
The paper is badly formatted, so finding exact numbers is difficult, and they don't list their actual figures:
However -
In 2008 q3, digital sales in Sweden appear to be roughly 15 mn SEK. In 2009 q3 it looks close to 48 mn SEK. At the implementation of IPRED, it appears to be ~25 mn SEK.
I've already stated the following, based on Swedish government statistics: For reference, that's ~730k odd people engaged in p2p (Sweden's population at the time was 9.2million).
Since the authors of the paper consider >50% of all P2P traffic to be piracy, we'll assume that 50% p2p traffic equates to a 1:1 user (of course this is insane, but hey, the paper's other guesstimates are just as bad).
365,000 "pirates" and their conversion are partly responsible for a 23 mn rise in revenues. 36% trend, apparently.
(1,044,076.94 USD [converted - 36% slice of 23mn SEK]) / 365,000 =$2.86 / "pirate" spent in post IPRED period increase.
You might notice that the math here appears very odd: increasing sales by 36% only increases spending / "converted" pirate by $2.86 over a year. Which is less than an album, even at spotify pricing.
Hmm. Big music fans, these pirates. However, since we're also claiming that there was a 40% drop in internet traffic and 100% of this internet traffic was piracy [footnote 16], and 36% sales increases [total revenue] is based on IPRED cutting piracy, this leaves a quandary: with 365,000 people 'converted' from piracy, surely the sales rise should have been far, far, far greater?
I'm not going to bother dissecting the math they used to get to their "impressive" totals (even when they ignore their own survey data from B), but it's largely rubbish.
That's because it's based on assumptions that clearly don't work in the real world, are clearly specious, and produce fairly insane conclusions.
Which is 100% exactly what assuming 50% of internet traffic is piracy, then applying a drop in traffic <> increase in music sales does without considering actual # of pirates <> traffic ratios and so forth.
A single user who shifts 200+gig / day has no chance of ever paying for all that pr0n.
It leaves out the actual important thing - the consumer doing the buying; which is fairly important for an economics paper.
There's zero (0) mention that digital markets are also porous - you'll find that in the three countries listed, many shoppers from one country already travel across the border to shop for physical goods to get lower prices.
Ignoring the fact that many consumers in Norway take advantage of Swedish lower prices is a bit dumb.
Essentially, the entire paper is built on sand. A 36% increase sounds impressive, but going from 1.2 > 1.632 is also a 36% increase.
Footnote: HADOPI resulted in a 5% drop in piracy; this has been explicitly stated many times. "Big drop" = 5%, you know you're shrilling.
p.s.
Yeah, you're back to generic statements, repeating outright lies and being lazy. I also know 100% you're conditioned to get "one more reply in", but I think we're done here.
Norway, which introduced no targeted laws such as IPRED, saw an 80% reduction in piracy in the 2008-2012 timeframe.
The research was commissioned by Norwaco, and executed by Ipsos MMI, a widely trusted Norwegian research firm. Consequently, the stats are highly reliable. The chosen method involved monthly interviews of a large and scientifically-selected focus group comprising a demographic and geographical average of the internet population.
From 2008 and to date the annual number of:
Illegal music downloads has dropped from 1.2 billion to 210 million.
The number of pirated movies has fallen from 125 million to 65 million annually.
Pirated TV shows have fallen from 135 million to 55 million annually.
While illegal music downloading has been falling steadily since 2008, movies started their decrease in 2010, and TV shows in 2011.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/07/31/norwaypiracy
A new report shows the number of pirated music downloads have decreased by more than 80% in just four years, thanks to legal alternatives such as Spotify
http://www.digital-digest.com/news-63709-Music-Piracy-Down-by-80-Thanks-to-Spotify-New-Report.html
http://musically.com/2014/01/15/norwegian-music-sales-up-11-in-2013-thanks-to-streaming/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10187400/Spotify-and-Netflix-curb-music-and-film-piracy.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Piratkopieringen-i-Norge-stuper-7254221.html
Report (in Norwiegan):
http://www.aftenposten.no/incoming/article7254471.ece/BINARY/Rapport+om+kopiering.pdf
So, claims of "Natural Experiment" rather fall flat when the country used as a control group for the paper mentioned... had an 80% drop in piracy simply due to market access rather than oppressive IPRED laws.
Hmmm. "Natural Experiment" indeed. Seems that 80% of people aren't "scum", and given access to legal sources do indeed use them.
Rojimboo probably won't add that to his paper though, as that might require changing his mind somewhat. Remember his addage:
Actually, looking at Norway, that's simply not true.
p.s.
Oh, and if you want to make some kind of cultural claim about the law abiding Norwiegans, you might want to examine the amount of cross-border tax evasion they engage in with Sweden over booze / tabacco. It's not as if they won't resort to smuggling if it hits their pockets too much:
http://www.djoef-forlag.dk/sites/ntj/files/2010/2010_11.pdf
Based on peer reviewed data it is reasonable, the situation is much worse in Eastern Europe for instance, than Germany.
Completely bogus numbers based on non-transparent methodology.
Non regressioned survey analysis used in any other way but to get a general 'feel' of the direction of the data dispersion, is largely rubbish.
Your math skills astound me. Ask any retailer, digital or otherwise, whether a yearly 36% increase in sales is significant and they'll probably choke a little just before answering.
Actually, I was under the impression it's only been stated once by the French government in a non-peer reviewed, non-transparent way, based on a survey of all things. Oh how you love those things, hypocrite.
We've got two natural experiments that are peer reviewed mentioning massive sales increases due to piracy reduction, not explained by anything else.
Your feeble attempts to find flaws in their methodology reeks of bias rather than skepticism, especially since you start quoting outside numbers from non-peer reviewed sources.
I will expect you concede defeat already.
Yes, what were you saying about survey data? Hypocrite.
But seriously, non-peer reviewed probably non regressioned non-transparent survey data of illegal activity...
And Adermon et al actually had access to the data and performed a difference-in-differences approach, capturing any bias or placebo effects from the control groups...
Your kung-fu is weak.
...which they admitted was a guestimate based on German figures, produced by a deep-packet inspection Security company who have ties to the MPAA, Saudi security and other shadow-government agencies who have a vested interest in reducing freedom to internet users. (Hint: find where the paper discusses incoming traffic from outside Sweden, which is logically where a majority of pirates using The Pirate Bay and servers hosted in Sweden would come from. Answer: you will not, no source attributation took place, all traffic was assumed internal, because they're dishonest muppets).
Am I bothered to go to the 2009 paper and start picking it apart? No, since you're ideologically (and egotistically) invested in being "right" rather than interested in reality. - And, tbh, attacking people like them really does get "the authorities" interested.
I'm not even going to bother with claims that the French or Swedish government cannot produce correct data when they're the ones who paid for the Laws to be enacted and have direct access to ISPs and census data. They have every reason to know the 'correct' data: that you can't even be bothered to read the French, Swedish or Norwiegan sources is not my problem. It's always about the money: France and Sweden concluded, especially with examining data from Norway, that easier access to markets is more efficient than aggressive legal measures (at the personal level).
Last question: if piracy falls 80% with better digital markets, and aggressive legal moves drop it by 5-10%, what's the remaining percentage of "dye in the wool" pirates who will never change?
10%.
QED.
The circle is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xPMpm_eCKM
Ah how I love it.
Boinkers misguidedly went after the list of peer reviewed papers based on surveys showing how piracy is detrimental to sales, calling them names and slandering them, yet little did he realise he would be basing his entire position on some non peer reviewed, non-transparent, likely non-regressioned survey data.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot!
Awesome, love it when the internet eats you alive.
And by the way, my objection was never that they were survey data, merely that the HADOPI government figure of 5% reduction in piracy was based on non-transparent, likely non-regressioned survey data, which is also likely why it was never peer reviewed. The same can be said actually about the Norwegian study, that happens to be one of the richest countries in the world to boot. And also the Swedish goverment's figure of 8% p2p.
What? We are to take their word on the matter? A government, eager to fudge its internal reports for popularity and political convenience? Somebody needs a lesson of Yes, Minister and how the real world operates.
See my updated lit review by the way, thanks for the Adermon paper, cheers!
Edit: lol at the 11 hours between posting and editing your post.