Slashdot Mirror
BSA's Latest Piracy Claims 'Shockingly Misleading,' Says Geist
An anonymous reader writes "This week the Business Software Alliance published a new study
which purports to estimate the economic gain from a ten percent reduction in piracy of business software. For Canada, the BSA claims that the reduction would create over 6,000 new jobs and generate billions in GDP and tax revenue. But Michael Geist says the BSA claims are based on nothing more than the economic gains from a ten percent increase in proprietary software spending. The BSA now admits its estimate is based on the presumption that every dollar 'saved' by using unlicensed software would now be spent on proprietary software."
Glyn Moody pointed out more flaws in the BSA's report.
For every 10% increase in broken window glass over 6,000 new jobs would be created and billions in GDP and tax revenue would be generated.
There is a finite amount of money.
Thus, if $1000 more is spent on software, $1000 less is spent elsewhere. Roughly speaking, 6000 new software jobs equals 6000 fewer other jobs.
This is approximately a zero sum game.
There are benefits to reducing piracy, but their argument doesn't hold water.
The only shocking thing about this is that they admitted their fudging of the facts after they were called out on it.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Even the US Government Accountability Office has announced that you can not accurately make economy-wide estimations for this type of thing.
Most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts.
Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of IP infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data.
"the reduction [of software piracy] would create over 6,000 new jobs and generate billions in GDP and tax revenue"
That also assumes that any money not spent on proprietary software is being stashed under a mattress.
The truth is more like the money would be diverted from other spending, and these "billions" of dollars would just be distributed differently, with no plausible increase in net GDP or tax revenue.
It comes from reduced spending someplace else? Or increasing consumer or business debt, right?
This is an old, old economic fallacy. I tried to debunk it once in a blog post: "Broken Windows and the Ghost of Keynes" but you can't kill the undead.
If you were to increase software sales by 10% for an equal reduction in piracy, you would be causing billions of dollars of HARM to the economy because those former pirates would experience no increase in value in the software they have and now have fewer resources to spend elsewhere.
Piracy does cause some harm to the software/entertainment industry, but it does so by enriching the greater economy by creating a net gain in value when you consider the big picture.
Their argument is fundamentally flawed in ways far beyond the fact that they are making up random numbers.
And for the next twenty years, we'll be seeing this study cited as fact in Government position papers, other MPAA/RIAA/BSA "studies," Congressional testimony, treaty discussions, etc.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Unfortunately, the new jobs will not be in product development, but rather in legal prosecution and defense, as companies spend more time hunting "pirates" with very little result per dollar spent, then are sued themselves by companies using the same tools they use to attack others.
Oh, and the law teams will almost certainly end up costing far more per 'employee' than developers.
The BSA is what you get when lawyers see how this cycle works, and band together to accelerate the process, while maximizing leverage against companies to keep the cycle going. It's like a union, without the meager shared humility of strenuous work to justify the pride involved - it's all union bosses playing with money here.
Ryan Fenton
A lot of people who pirate (eg.) Microsoft Office will only use it once a month or so.
Spending $600 so they can use Office a dozen times a year is probably worse for the economy than spending it on something else.
No sig today...
Conclusion: YES, you want people to pay for software they use but (IMHO) measuring the economic impact is a devil's game. At best.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
I get it! It's so clear now!
My new plan is to pirate $100,000 worth of software, movies, and games every year. The money I save I will put into a retirement account, and I'll be able to retire in style in no time!
Now, I don't make $100,000 a year, and my current expenses are only a little less than my current income, but that's neither here nor there. The BSA has shown me that this logic is sound!
A penny pirated, is a penny saved, is a penny earned, right?
"BSA. Because not enough people are using Open Source"
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen