$200B Lost To Counterfeiting? Back It Up

An anonymous reader writes "Over the weekend, the NY Times ran a story about how the recession has impacted product counterfeiters. In it, the reporter regurgitates the oft-repeated claim that counterfeiting 'costs American businesses an estimated $200 billion a year.' Techdirt's Mike Masnick asks the Times reporter to back up that assertion, noting two recent reports (by the GAO and the OECD) that suggest the actual number is much lower, and quoting two reporters who have actually looked at the numbers and found (a) the real number is probably less than $5 billion, and (b) the $200 billion number can be traced back to a totally unsourced (read: made-up) magazine claim from two decades ago."

Comments

Re:Maybe newspaper articles should list references

[AK Marc]

Having lived abroad for a while, the US is in desperate need of "infringing on the First Amendment." It'll never happen because people will see it as that and consider their right to lie more important than reduction of fraud.

Many places have advertising rules that state that if you make a claim, you must have proof. It needn't be good proof, but proof none the less. The penis enlargement commercials would end. If they claimed it made you bigger, better, last longer, or whatever, they'd have to have a study that showed that. People have been prosecuted because they claimed common sense things and couldn't back them up. If you are going to claim it to sell a product, then you'd better be able to back it up.

But, for whatever reason, in the US we've gotten to the point where the right to speak is more important than the responsibility of having something worth saying. People lie for a living in the US, and people call them entertainers. News channels run more opinions pieces dressed up like facts when they are notoriously devoid of them. "Debate" is pushed so that the fringe gets equal time for their Flat Earth society or whatever. And the result is the noise exceeds the information, even in the formerly reputable areas like broadcast news and traditional newspapers.

The solution is to prosecute lies for profit as fraud. That includes newspaper stories where they don't check facts because a single disreputable source will give them something that will sell papers, and that's the goal. Or even the for-profit Slashdot running articles with headlines and summaries that are purposefully twisted to give a false impression in order to generate page views. It's a falsehood done for profit. But that's considered good advertising (as long as you don't get caught) and not considered a bad thing. So we put up with it and blame those taken in for not being more discriminating.

Re:Not surprising

[tehcyder]

Indeed, I recently bought a fake Breitling watch for $100.-.

Even though I have to take it off in the shower (yes I bathe) I would never buy the +$4000.- real deal that's water proof to -500 meters.

The fact that you are happy with an inferior product simply because it bears a certain brand name proves that you are not just a buffoon, but a fucking cheap one too. Congratulations.