Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

So we're all left groping in the dark looking at trends in overall statistics and making inferences.

Looking at trends in statistics and making inferences is done in many businesses every single day. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. And it's certainly more data than you've provided supporting your position.

Besides, I was only doing what you said "at best" I'd "need" to do. If you don't want to see a correlation, then don't tell me that's what I need to find.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by marcanuck

STOCKHOLM–A defense lawyer in the Pirate Bay file-sharing case said Thursday he will demand a retrial after the judge admitted he was a member of copyright protection organizations.

Just started reading about this. Impartial and corrupt trial.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-l...etrial-090423/

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by kad032000

Looking at trends in statistics and making inferences is done in many businesses every single day. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

Yes, and I do those sorts of things in my work, but I understand their limitations.

Originally Posted by kad032000

And it's certainly more data than you've provided supporting your position.

My position is "you don't have enough data" so I don't need data to support my position. The only way to know if you're right is with time, and since 100 other factors are also evolving with time, whatever the outcome can always be blamed on something else. Yes, it sucks for both of us.

Originally Posted by kad032000

Besides, I was only doing what you said "at best" I'd "need" to do. If you don't want to see a correlation, then don't tell me that's what I need to find.

I don't think the stats on one release are enough to show a correlation in the entire industry, and I don't think a correlation in the entire industry is enough to show a causation.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

My position is "you don't have enough data" so I don't need data to support my position. The only way to know if you're right is with time, and since 100 other factors are also evolving with time, whatever the outcome can always be blamed on something else. Yes, it sucks for both of us.

Well ... then be fair for both sides. There is no data stating "piracy is bad" so there really is no reason to "do anything against it", wouldnt you agree?

I don't think the stats on one release are enough to show a correlation in the entire industry, and I don't think a correlation in the entire industry is enough to show a causation.

Hmm, as far as I know correlations in entire industries are more often then not used to show causations. I agree that this is not a correct behavior from a scientific point of view - but then: business seldom is.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

My position is "you don't have enough data" so I don't need data to support my position.

No, originally your position was:

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Well I still feel that as people shift from pbooks to ebooks, ebook piracy is going to grow and become significantly more of a threat

(emphasis mine)

I refuted this by saying that 1 download does not equal one lost sale. I gave an example from the movie industry. Regardless of the example, judges in America have supported the fact that 1 download = 1 lost sale is a fallacy.

In fact, as Kovid pointed out earlier, 1 download does not even necessarily mean .001 lost sales. The impact may be zero, or may in fact even be negative.

Originally Posted by sirbruce

You can't equate that at all; at best you'd have to find a correlation between movie piracy and DVD sales/rentals.

So, I found you a correlation with the same example between movie piracy and DVD sales/rentals.

I gave you reasons showing that if ebook piracy grows, that doesn't necessarily mean it will have a more harmful impact. No, no one can be 100% sure until it happens, but now everyone considering this argument has more reason to believe me than you. In fact, you yourself have more reason to believe me than you.

Now you're saying my examples don't mean anything?

Even if my example was completely irrelevant, then no one would know anything and you shouldn't be making blanket statements like:

Originally Posted by sirbruce

So as pbook sales shift to ebook sales, a growing percentage is "lost' due to ebook piracy.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well ... then be fair for both sides. There is no data stating "piracy is bad" so there really is no reason to "do anything against it", wouldnt you agree?

No, I lock the door to my house regardless of the rate of crime in the area.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Hmm, as far as I know correlations in entire industries are more often then not used to show causations. I agree that this is not a correct behavior from a scientific point of view - but then: business seldom is.

If it were that easy, every business would be a winner. It takes further thought, analysis, and lots more data to determine if Mediterranean people have lower rates of heart disease because they eat a better diet or if it's primarily because they get a lot more sunlight (= Vitamin D).

Or as someone else wrote:

A) The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

(B) On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

(C) The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

(D) The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

(E) Conclusion: Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

No, I lock the door to my house regardless of the rate of crime in the area.

Which is your choice - and completely unrelated to the given problem.

It takes further thought, analysis, and lots more data to determine if Mediterranean people have lower rates of heart disease because they eat a better diet or if it's primarily because they get a lot more sunlight (= Vitamin D).

Wouldnt I know ... bioinformatics is quite a lot about "Why you really cannot interpret this data the way you want" (no, not originally. But we both know about the differences between "job description" and "to do").

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

No, I lock the door to my house regardless of the rate of crime in the area.

Would you if "crime" had no negative impact on your belongings? What if someone could come in your house and copy all of belongings and take them home with them. What if that person could do so without having to invade the privacy of your home?

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Well ... then be fair for both sides.

Yes, sirbruce, you started off by saying that piracy will have a negative impact on ebook sales. I said there's no evidence of this. I then gave you an example of why it may in fact be the opposite. You said my evidence wasn't enough. My original point still stands: you have no proof that piracy will have a negative impact so you shouldn't make blanket statements that it will.

Be fair to both sides. Even if I don't have enough data, you have even less.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by kad032000

No, originally your position was:

That's not my position, that's me feeling, and I painted a "Dan Brown" scenario as to how that might occur. Neither side has enough data to be "certain" of anything and probably won't until we get there.

Originally Posted by kad032000

I refuted this by saying that 1 download does not equal one lost sale. I gave an example from the movie industry. Regardless of the example, judges in America have supported the fact that 1 download = 1 lost sale is a fallacy.

And I countered this by saying I wasn't arguing 1 download = 1 lost sale, I was arguing 1 ebook sale = 1 lost pbook sale, and more ebook sales = more piracy, so converting from pbook sales to ebook sales = lost sales.

Originally Posted by kad032000

So, I found you a correlation with the same example between movie piracy and DVD sales/rentals.

For one movie, in an entirely different industry.

Originally Posted by kad032000

I gave you reasons showing that if ebook piracy grows, that doesn't necessarily mean it will have a more harmful impact. No, no one can be 100% sure until it happens, but now everyone considering this argument has more reason to believe me than you. In fact, you yourself have more reason to believe me than you.

And I gave you reasons showing that if ebook piracy grows, it does necessarily mean it will have a more harmful impact. I'm unpersuaded by your reasons. Everyone else is free to believe as they want to.

Originally Posted by kad032000

Now you're saying my examples don't mean anything?

I never said they don't mean anything; I said they're not persuasive. This is a discussion, not a debate.

Originally Posted by kad032000

Even if my example was completely irrelevant, although you haven't given any reason why this is actually the case, then no one would know anything and you shouldn't be making blanket statements like:

That wasn't a statement of what *will* happen, but a statement of what I *believe* could happen. The fact you are more certain in your convictions that ebook piracy isn't a problem and I am not does not make you any more right. I find your examples unpersuasive; I find my reasoning much more likely.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Which is your choice - and completely unrelated to the given problem.

It's entirely related. You offered:

No data stating "piracy is bad", therefor no reason to "do anything against it."

I countered if there's no data stating "crime (specifically burglary) is bad", therefor no reason to "do anything about it" by the same logic. But I still lock my door; I still "do something about it" so I reject your logic.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Wouldnt I know ... bioinformatics is quite a lot about "Why you really cannot interpret this data the way you want" (no, not originally. But we both know about the differences between "job description" and "to do").

Still, we all have our pet beliefs, or at least suspiscions. I suspect NSAIDs to increased risk of MIs and tell people so, even though the data is still inconclusive. (Well, it's conclusive in one study, but more studies are needed.)

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I don't think the stats on one release are enough to show a correlation in the entire industry

That was just an example. There are countless more. The most popular films (the ones that make the most money) are routinely pirated the most.

If I have the time, I'll try to find evidence that even though piracy is increasing, so are overall movie sales/rentals.

and I don't think a correlation in the entire industry is enough to show a causation.

I wasn't concerned with causation. I'm not saying high piracy causes movies to do better (although it might). I'm saying high piracy doesn't mean it will hurt movies. Causation is irrelevant for this argument.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by kad032000

Would you if "crime" had no negative impact on your belongings? What if someone could come in your house and copy all of belongings and take them home with them. What if that person could do so without having to invade the privacy of your home?

I wouldn't mind, but other people would. Nevertheless, I do not believe ebook piracy has no negative impact on my belongings, nor would I fault other people for locking their doors needlessly or misguidedly. (I'd add "or refuse to enter their homes" but the analogy starts to break down here.)

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by kad032000

Be fair to both sides. Even if I don't have enough data, you have even less.

I have reasoning, which I've presented. And reasoning why your data doesn't apply. So if I reason that the speed of light in a vacuum is c and you say you've measured it underwater and it's not, that doesn't mean you're any more likely to be right about the speed of light in a vacuum despite the fact you have data and I have none.

But you're free to believe it if you wish; neither of us has cause to be certain yet.

[zerospinboson]

in related (/.) news,

"The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business. Apparently they're having some success, as the NC State Senate has proposed bills that would do TWC's bidding.'"

Such marvellous, sporting companies, these oligopolies you support and believe in, wouldn't you say? I'd fight for their survival too.