Slashdot Mirror
$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."
Trying to get more free money from the government?
Gasp!
I don't see how counterfeit products could do much damage to the US job market. Most of the legit products are made overseas too, right?
Help me fix my brother's injured butt!
Maybe newspaper articles should cite their sources and have a list of references at the end like academic papers do. That way at least readers or other interested parties could independently verify the facts in the article.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
On one hand, they are trying to salvage old media, and on the other hand they are trying to kill efforts like Wikileaks.
It seems pretty obvious.
CNN can just say anything they want, even if it's completely inaccurate and has no sources to back it up. They can just say their source is secret, and nobody is even going to ask.
Wikileaks, OTOH, shows you the actual docs. That's why they are being persecuted as criminals.
Encyclopedia Britannica is written by an unknown number of employees under unknown circumstances, and they cite no sources clearly (In the best case, they just cite a bunch of sources that might or might not back up their claims, and there's no direct way to check them easily).
Wikipedia is edited by the general public, each edit can be easily identified and accredited to a single author, and all sources are directly linked to in most cases.
And yet, Encyclopedia Britannica is considered more credible than Wikipedia, even when it's been shown that it's far more inaccurate, not to mention outdated.
Old media has to die, but the almighty economic powers that run this world won't let it go without a fight.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
The missing element in these claims is the citation of some sort of study that combines an examination of buying power and psychology to determine when piracy or the purchase of a counterfeit good represents a lost sale to the afflicted rights holder and when it does not. You can't just multiply retail cost of original good by estimated number of IP violations; that very likely surpasses the upper bound of the "damage" that has been caused. It's faulty journalism to ignore this fact or pass the responsibility for the veracity of this information to somebody else, but that doesn't seem to stop anybody from breathlessly regurgitating these sky-high numbers.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
The whole "back it up" line made me think for a second, they wanted people to copy money to preserve it from counterfeiting...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is largely not due to high import duties but due to corrupt customs officials. Fucking hell hole, I'm longing to get out of it.
The place to start with this is doing something like purse shopping. You can go to a Coach store or Prada and find a really nice purse for $1500 and an OK one for $500. Then go to a store that sells similar knock-offs and you can see things that look more-or-less like the Prada ones for $100. Then stop by the street vendor with a absolutely faithful Prada copy for $35.
There are two things that the average Joe learns from this adventure:
What this does is by the mere presence of the counterfeit goods in the marketplace is reduce the willingness of the public to buy originals. It doesn't matter what the "original" is, obviously there has to be a cheaper counterfeit version available. This applies to everything from caviar to computers and automobile parts to luggage.
$200 billion lost because of the presence of counterfeit goods? Easy. The direct losses might only be a few million, but pushing the idea of "just as good as" in front of people pushes the originals out completely.
The "lost sales" numbers companies claim often are based on 100% of people buying the more expensive real product (which most of us would agree is a completely bogus number).
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.
Yet some lawyers would tally this as a $4000.- lost sale.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Five billion dollars is still a lot of money.
But put the numbers in perspective.
US GDP $14,260,000,000,000 (2009 estimate, courtesy of the CIA)
$200 Billion equals 1.4% of the GDP
$5 Billion equals 0.035% of the GDP
One is a problem worthy of immediate attention. The other is a problem to worry about when nothing else is pressing.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
The difference is between effective government and ineffective government, not the ability of a government to provide a just society. Hang on, I'll put it simply: you need to learn more than what your daddy told you. It's a big, big world out there.
Let's look at two modern western nations and see what the results are:
USA vs Norway
GDP per Capita (World Bank)
Norway: $55,000
USA: $46,000
Life Expectancy
Norway: 80 years
USA: 78.2 years
Poverty Rates
Norway: 7%
USA: 12%
Employment Rates:
Norway: 3.5% (April 2010)
USA: 8% (April 2010)
Income Inequality (Lower is Better)
Norway: 25.8
USA: 40.8
Vacation Time
Norway: 25 days
USA: 14 days
Awww boo. Reality is a bitch, ain't it?
Well, did the person selling the fake skirts make it clear that they were fake (or at least, did the customers know)?
If so, then all they wanted was a skirt that looked a particular way; they didn't care who made it. Your ex's store, or the designers who supply her, can only try to compete in three ways, it seems to me.
First, quality; their skirts may be made of better materials than the fakes, or may be made with better techniques. If so, try to differentiate based on this. Of course, some people are satisfied with synthetics instead of natural materials, or poorer materials instead of finer ones, or single stitching instead of double stitching, so it won't always work, and the price difference may remain substantial. (There was an interesting article in the NY Times the other day about the Italian fashion industry and wool quality)
Second, price; how cheaply can the real skirts be made? Maybe it would be more efficient to sell skirts out of a van, instead of out of a store that is expensive to lease. It looks like the fake guys are winning on this front, but there's no reason that they necessarily have to.
Third, brand; there may be some cachet that can be used to make money out of the brand of the manufacturer or the distributor. Some people presented with identical products from different vendors at different prices may prefer the more expensive one as a form of conspicuous consumption. (You can see it elsewhere; a real Picasso is worth a lot, but a forgery, no matter how identical, is worth a lot less to people who care about this sort of thing) It can work, but it has problems. Some people don't care about brands, but just want a nice skirt. If the fake is good enough, they'll probably buy it since it costs less than the same thing from elsewhere. Some people care about brands, but are excluded due to artificially high prices set by the people controlling the brands. They'll deliberately seek out the fake skirts in order to most closely approximate the real thing.
I suspect that the ex et al have been trying to compete only on brand, and perhaps partially on materials (although usually brand justifies more of an increase in price than materials). If it's not working as well as they'd like, perhaps they ought to try a different approach?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Like most other U.S.-bashing slashdot members, you fail to include some important facts in your comparison. For instance, population of either country. Please note...
Approximate population
Norway: 4,478,497
USA: 309,162,581
Whether your underlying point is right or wrong, I don't consider your comparison valid because of this little detail.
I would even venture as far as to say that your statement goes against your point. The fact that the US figures in your original post are so close to those of Norway even though the US has to govern almost 80x the population is actually more of a testament of an effectively scaling government. It's unlikely that the governmental system of someplace as small as Norway would meet the needs of such a large population.
that's teh shizzle bizzle