Piracy Stats Don't Add Up

arenam writes to tell us Australian IT is reporting that a recent briefing for the Attorney-General's Department prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology draws certain piracy statistics into question. From the article: "The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian shows that copyright owners 'failed to explain' how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases. Figures for 2005 from the global Business Software Association showing $361 million a year of lost sales in Australia are 'unverified and epistemologically unreliable,' the report says."

Comments

Re:First Impression

[Xiroth]

Uh, no. They are saying that they've seen the report, not that they're referencing it in an academic sense, which wouldn't make sense as they're not.

Re:this is rather good

[Valacosa]

That's not even taking into account site licences. Any computer I have ever bought on behalf of the university I worked for was purchased without an operating system. The university has an academic site licence for Windows, and students can get a legit copy for free as well. Why then would I shell out $200 for the convenience of having Windows preinstalled?

But man does that have the potential to screw up the piracy stats!

Re:There is only one number they can be sure of

[celotil]

Hmmmm, wonder if that has anything to do with Australia starting life as a British penal colony? Sorry, couldn't restist. /don't have anything against Down Under

No offence taken, mate. According to the state records of New South Wales, our first policemen were convicts. :)

The following is from The NSW State Government Archives:

Historical Background

In August 1789, Arthur Phillip established a night-watch which came under civil control. It consisted of eight of the best-behaved convicts in the Colony. This was the first Police force in the country.

Re:First Impression

[psmears]

Uhh... are you sure about that?

• The article is in Australian IT, connected to The Australian newspaper.
• The report in question is a draft of a confidential briefing. So it hasn't been published, and so can't be "cited" in the conventional sense, by The Australian or anyone else.
• It's quite common for newspapers to mention that they've seen unpublished material that they're writing about, usually with the phrase "seen by"
• However, in Australia/NZ the phrase "sighted by" seems to be more common in this context.

I'd say there's a very good case for "sighted" being the word that was intended...