P2P Users More Likely to Cheat, Shoplift

prostoalex writes "New research report (sponsored by the recording industry, so should definitely be objective) suggests that those who download music online are also likely to cheat at schools/universities and to shoplift. From the Globe and Mail: 'Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society,' said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls."

Comments

P2P: the new gateway drug.

[TripMaster Monkey]

This "study" referenced in the TFA is so poisonously misleading I barely know where to begin.

From TFA:

Canadians between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more willing than other age groups to make illegal copies of software programs, cheat on exams or even shoplift, an Environics poll suggests.

Regarding the first two statistics, perhaps that because (a) they're the ones to use the software programs the most, and (b), they're the ones in school. Regarding the last point, the actual figures were 6%, as opposed to 2% of the general population. With a poll base of only 2,043 individuals, and an error range of 3.1 percentage points plus or minus, one can seriously question the validity of this last statistic. Add this to the fact that teens have been shoplifting since the invention of the 'shop', and this statistic quickly becomes meaningless.

What's especially nauseating about this "study" is that it attempts to establish a causual connection between increased P2P file sharing and these other, 'antisocial' activities:

Again from TFA:

"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society," said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls.

Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[Compholio]

Young people 'steal' music, young people steal stuff. Therefore, 'stealing music' (leads to)/(increases the probability of) stealing stuff. Someone should give these people an award, for stupidity.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society," said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls.

Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation.

Where in that quote are they saying that file swapping causes people to do these things? It sounds to me like they are saying that people who do those kinds of things are more likely to file swap. (Although they are still wrong)

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[bedroll]

They have a defense, though. Read it again, there isn't a single absolute statement made to correlate the two. Everything suggests that these factors correlate. This is the weakest worded article I've read in quite some time. It's apparently meant as flamebait and to sway the weak-minded.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[garcia]

Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society," said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls.

Not only does the RIAA/CRIA harm artists they also have little respect for their own customers which threatens new and interesting music which is at the core of music value!

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[mysqlrocks]

Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, it's like this classic example:

Increased ice cream sales in NYC on a given day linked to increased crime rate.

Of course if it's hot out, both ice cream sales and crime are going to increase but they have nothing to do with each other directly.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[metternich]

I once heard that the demographic most likely to shoplift, (at least in the US) was middle aged white women. Of course that's also the demographic that does the most shopping...

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[RealityThreek]

That quote can be read both ways. He's not flat out saying that File Sharing -> more petty crime. He's saying that File Sharing points at a loss of values.

Make no mistake, Mr Henderson wants you to believe that File Sharing is a cause.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[assassinator42]

Again, correlation does not imply causation. They can't isolate album sales by people who download the music from people who don't. Also, people are more likely to answer in a survey that they download music if they buy the music afterwards.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[Rei]

It sounds to me like they are saying that people who do those kinds of things are more likely to file swap

Actually, it's even worse: assuming the article is correct, it found that the *age group* of people who commit the most piracy are the same *age group* that commits the most shoplifting. I.e., they didn't even find a correlation between piracy and shoplifting, only that "teens are the most likely to commit piracy" (obvious - they use the net the most) and "teens are the most likely to shoplift, although they're not very likely to" (also obvious, and a long historical fact), but *not* that "teens who commit piracy are those who are most likely to shoplift".

One thing that raises big flags is that if they *did* find a correlation between those who commit piracy and those who shoplift, it wasn't stated. Are we to believe that they didn't bother to check for a correlation after conducting this sort of poll? That stretches credibility. It seems likely, then, that they found *no* correlation, and so simply stated that they're in the same "age group" to try and suggest to readers that there *is* a correlation where there is none.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[Overly Critical Guy]

You can't write off study after study by saying "correlation does not imply causation."

Yes, you can. If you're going to cite all the studies to back a flawed premise, they can all be written off. Correlation does not imply causation is a basic logical tenet to avoid chasing false conclusions that aren't true.

You just want to believe that the studies support your pre-made conclusion. That is why avoiding such logical fallacies is so important, and why "correlation does not imply causation" is a completely valid response.

The fact remains that it's pointless anyway, as the copyright holders are getting ripped off and have the right to determine how their materials are distributed, not some Slashdotter with a DSL line trying desperately to justify ripping off music, game, and movie companies. Ask Slashdot geek hero John Carmack sometime how he feels about people pirating Doom 3. Think he'll agree with your side? He worked for years on that game, but people don't compensate him for it. Such reasons are why companies are flocking to consoles, where it's more difficult to pirate, and why the PC game industry is in decline.

These are the consequences pirates never think of. It's like when people throw a piece of trash out the window on a highway. "One piece of trash won't hurt." "Someone else will clean it up." Multiply that person by hundreds of thousands, and the results are disastrous.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[Moofie]

Getting your morals from a government is like trying to get drinking water from a gas pump.

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[Damvan]

"Communists take the money, peek into your bedroom, want to decide what you think and what you say and what you read."

And how is this different from what is beginning to happen in the USA right now?

Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[doxology]

My statistics teacher would have a had a good laugh at this. I wonder if the CRIA realizes that they're only losing credibility by these ridiculous "studies."

Other Way Around

[Azarael]

Maybe those types of people that are more likely to cheat, etc are drawn to P2P. Classic example of correlation vs causality.

Misleading subject?

[g051051]

Perhaps the report should state that people who use P2P for illegal purposes are more likely to commit other crimes. Which is completely logical: if you're willing to commit one type of crime, you're probably more likely to commit others.

I make occaisional use of P2P, but I don't do illegal things with it.

Re:Misleading subject?

[jitterysquid]

I don't pirate music. I don't buy much music period. I still think the RIAA is evil. Why?

* They want to shut down P2P networks that I use for other purposes (ISOs, mostly)
* They want to insert themselves in my computer to make sure I'm obeying the law
* They want to obsolete my CD player by making non-compliant discs
* They want me to pay a tax on blank media, because I am obviously infringing copyright with it
* They want to restrict my fair use of music that I purchase

I am obeying the law. I am respecting copyrights. I am remunerating the music companies and the artists for their work. Why am I treated like a criminal?

If I never listen to music, why should the music industry be allowed to affect other parts of my life? If I don't buy stuff from Wal-Mart, should they come after me with legislation hindering my daily activities?

That's not what it says!

[program21]

From TFA:

Canadians between 12 and 24 years of age are responsible for 78 per cent of illegal music downloading, even though they make up only 21 per cent of the population, it says.
...
Canadians between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more willing than other age groups to make illegal copies of software programs, cheat on exams or even shoplift, an Environics poll suggests.

What it does say is that people in the same age group as typical P2P users are more likely to shoplift or cheat. It does not make any correlation between P2P users and these things!

Re:That's not what it says!

[M00NIE]

What it does say is that people in the same age group as typical P2P users are more likely to shoplift or cheat. It does not make any correlation between P2P users and these things!

This is exactly what I was thinking. So all this article really says to me is that 12-24 year olds are more likely to shoplift. Gee, I needed this article to know this? Last I checked, that was a phenomenon long before P2P file sharing existed, heck I think it even predates *gasp* computers.

RIAA has a long row to hoe if they think this is going to get most intelligent people to side with them. But you didn't need me to point out the patently obvious anymore than you needed this article too.

Re:That's not what it says!

[fumanchu32]

Canadians between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more willing than other age groups to make illegal copies of software programs, cheat on exams or even shoplift, an Environics poll suggests.

I couldn't agree more with the parent post.

Well duh, I bet 18-29 year olds have always been more likely to shoplift than older age groups. 18-29 age groups don't tend make as much money as the other groups. Also, they are more likely to be in school than older age groups too so the are more likey to cheat on exams.

People who have cars are more likely to drive than people who don't.

People who are alive are more likely to die within the next year than people who aren't alive.

Re:That's not what it says!

[elgatozorbas]

Indeed, this link is never made. The article is rather an opinion piece learning us what the authors consider 'bad acts' (shoplifting, downloading, picking your nose,...), and confirming that those who are still young enough to be able to commit them, do so.

newsflash!

[gigoguy]

Extra extra! Read all about it! Children likely to have less rigid morality than adults! Children may or may not understand concept of intellectual property! Extra, Extra!

Canadian Content

[_am99_]

The CRIA is a poorly funded wannabe RIAA that complains about everything. They already have enough supporting laws and programs on the books. And now that there is enough focus on these issues, they are not going to get anymore.

Canadians are taxed on all blank CDR media to offset the loss of piracy, and since the Canadian content laws under our version of the FCC are the only thing that keeps a lot of crappy Canadian content on the air, and since most of it is funded with our tax dollars, the CRIA can kiss my cold Canadian A*S!

Many Canadian content providers and distributers shield themselves from real competition thru backwards isolationalist-style trade-restriction-like programs and law.

Government funding allows tax dollars to be sophened to companies that produce content that usually SUCKS - as along as it meets the "Canadian content" requirements by mentioning curling or the Toronto Maple Leafs.

At the same time, broadcasters are limited in what they can show because they have to be inline with another set of rules that dictates a percentage limit on the amount of non-Canadian content they can broadcast.

So we have cable providers that suck, a lot of content that sucks, and it is all subsidized by our own tax dollars.

All that being said, aside from not being able to get American TV legally, and having the same climate as upstate New York (in Toronto at least), it is still the best place to live in the North America - IMHO.

With all of this Canada self-bashing, I should point out a couple of examples of Canadian content at its finest. Here are two artists that are proud to be Canadian, and are world class for sure - highly worth checking out:

    1) Esthero - a voice and songwriter like no other
    2) K-os - hip-hop with real instruments, who's quality is unmatched

Bah... BS math.

[XorNand]

"Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society," said Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which commissioned the polls.

Even assuming that this study is valid, this is pretty much a non-story since causation hasn't been linked. I'm sure that industry is trying to spin it the same way as marijunana is blamed as a "gateway drug", e.g.: "Parents! Better watch your kids; if they're pirating music today, odds are it'll lead to a life of cheating and stealing."

Canadians between 12 and 24 years of age are responsible for 78 per cent of illegal music downloading, even though they make up only 21 per cent of the population, it says.

Any how was this determined? Extrapolating musical tastes? Asking anonymous P2P users their ages? I'd really question their methodology.

The illegal downloading has cost retail music stores more than half a billion dollars in lost sales since 1999, a study by Pollara for the recording industry estimates.

Again, how do you determine the difference between someone who downloaded instead of buying (legit lost sale) and someone who only downloaded in the first place because it was free (lost sale only via mystical accounting practices)?

How do I start my own polling firm where I get paid to tell clients what they want to hear? Seems like a sweet gig.

Sponsored studies

[Bullfish]

This all just really goes to show that knowing who sponsored the study is more important often than the results. I took a journalism course once and had an assignment to check out a study about how milk sold in plastic bags went bad faster than in opaque cartons. Thing is, I found that it took a couple of days to go bad, had to be exposed to light (yeah, the fridge light does go out when you shut the door) and only two per cent of the milk sold at the time as sold in these plastic sacks. The study was, however, sponsored by ex-cello who just happen to make - opaque milk cartons.

A lot of these studies a crap and presented as fact and are not to be taken seriously. They exist to push an organization's viewpoint while deceiving the public as to their true nature.

Look no further than the tobacco company studies that show nicotine is not addictive. Yeah right, and beer causes cancer in asbestos workers.

Re:Not really a surprise

[Russ Nelson]

The problem here is that nobody sees the RIAA as breaking the rules. They've managed to break the copyright rules (by which I mean the natural law, not the legislated law) by ensuring that copyright never expires. Copyright is inherently a bargain between the publishers of copyrighted works and the recipients of copyrighted works. The publishers promise to eventually put the work into the public domain, and the recipients promise not to copy. That's copyright *natural* law. Whenever legislated law doesn't match natural law, you see a massive disrespect for legislated law.

CompSci & Engineering Projects at Rent-a-Coder

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

those who download music online are also likely to cheat at schools/universities...

Just last week I was surfing the coder-for-hire sites, and, in addition to the ridiculous, asinine demands people were making [$100,000 projects for opening bids of $100 - the sort of thing that would starve an already emaciated Bangalorean peasant], I was just appalled at the number of spoiled, self-obsessed, ingrate college students who were advertising for coders to write their CompSci and Engineering projects for them.

What the hell ever happened to academic integrity?

You get the kind of customers you market to

[p_conrad]

Can you really fault a kid for wanting to steal the latest copy Gangsta Rap Knee-Cap? The music glorifies the life of crime, so the would-be customers embrace that ethic by stealing that music. Makes perfect sense to me.

If the RIAA members want a more mature audience of paying customers, perhaps they should attempt to create a more mature product. Since they obviously aren't going to do that, they should just accept the shrinkage and price accordingly, like every other business in the world.

My whole life the record companies have been blaming their customers. Home taping was killing music. Bootlegging concerts was killing music, even though there's little interest in official live albums. Now P2P is killing music until the next scapegoat comes along. This is a pretty long swan song, isn't it?

FUD

[Idealius]

ha!

Look, CRIA.

I've seen many a good person cheat, shoplift, or download P2P music. (Including myself)

You will never convince me downloading music makes someone evil. People have vices, some are worse than others. The ones you list are a lot less important than ideals such as "loyalty", avoiding domestic violence, or being finacially responsible.

Some vices are the result of our environment. The internet is an environment where a new P2P software sharing application can be released every six months, and you can shut them down a couple years down the line. Somewhere in between a lot of people download music for free. Deal with this and fix the actual problem instead of trying to convince me I'm evil for downloading music years ago.

You cannot morally influence someone to avoid stealing music from their own home because they're going to have friends with less morals that care not, and are living examples of what a low risk it is to be caught.

It's hard to justify stealing entertainment as evil. I mean try to justify stealing medical supplies or food or something. But jesus, entertainment? COME ON, ok ok ok so it's bad, but it is by no means evil. Fix the problem yourself because you can't MAKE STEALING ENTERTAINMENT LOOK EVIL. ..A more useful study would be one that shows most people who cheat, shoplift, or download P2P music don't have enough time to REALLY stick it to the man by doing all three in in one day.

Re:Badly Written

[sik0fewl]

I don't know about that.. it's legal to download music in Canada. Maybe they mean that the music is illegal and therefore we should not be downloading it?

Re:Not really a surprise

[kotku]

If you are talking about natural law as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law/ I would tend to disagree. Natural Law stems from complex moral arguments basically being that the "law" in question has been discovered rather than invented. I don't see any overriding moral arguments that a publisher should ever have to put thier work into the public domain. I'm not saying they should or that they shouldn't it's just I don't see an overarching moral point either way. Given that so many people have *very* different opinions on exactly what the right thing to do is with regards to published works it would be very difficult to claim a Natural Law basis for copyright.

I WOULD believe... Re:P2P: the new gateway drug.

[kibbylow]

I would be more inclined to believe that cheaters and shoplifters are more likely to download copyrighted material.

However, I'm not sure where the article even talks about P2P users being more likely to cheat or shoplift. It talks about Canadians 18-29 being more likely than the general population to do these acts.

Re:That's still not good science

[Sycraft-fu]

I would say the study is so inconclusive that it is inappropriate to make any statement. The conclusion should have been "Based on this research, no conclusion can be reached about the relation between P2P use and other criminal behaviour." To me, it looks like it didn't even meet stastical significance, meaning that all they might have found is a sampling anomly.

Re:Darn Canadian PSP users!

[Dolda2000]

Actually, I first read the post as PSP Users More Likely to Cheat, Shoplift. I was really starting to wonder. Actually, I read it 4x, and didn't catch the error until reading a few comments. Darn those Canadian PSP users, the hosers!

The funny thing is that the report would have remained at the exact same level of "validity" if it indeed were changed to say PSP users. People in the ages 18-29 are probably more likely to use PSPs than people of other ages, just as they are most likely to be using P2P software.

Re:RIAA Failed Statistics

[Catbeller]

We've trained ye well.

That's right. Walking into a shop and taking away an object is stealing. Copying a record, tape, CD, or digital file deprives no one of their property and IS NOT stealing; nor is it rape, barratry, public drunkeness or murder.

Symbols and their meanings define human reality. Keeping terms unconfused keeps definitions sane, keeps PEOPLE sane, and prevents liars and bastards of all types from confusing the issue by false symbol assignments in order to falsely win a fraudulently defined contest.

In other words, don't let liars define the terms of the argument. Swat them down or they steal the semantic ground you stand on, making it impossible for manipulated people to follow sane arguments because the terms are redefined in THEIR HEADS. False definitions are reality filters.