TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Spain to Crackdown on Pirate Sites and Outlaw File-Sharing

After becoming known as somewhat of a haven for both file-sharing sites and their users, Spain is preparing to crack down on breaches of intellectual property rights. In a blueprint published by the government today, sites said to infringe copyright on a large-scale face fines of up to 300,000 euros and having their payment processors and advertisers removed. P2P downloads will also be outlawed by limiting the right to private copy.

spain-flagIn January 2012 it was revealed that the United States, tired with Spain’s apparent lack of protection for intellectual property, had threatened to put the European country on a trade blacklist.

Four months later Spain introduced the so-called Sinde Law which was designed to offer greater protections for rightsholders. It included a provision to close infringing sites but to date that has never been used.

“More than ever, websites providing or linking to illegal content can be secure in the knowledge that takedown measures are nonexistent and result in no consequences,” the international Intellectual Property Alliance complained last year.

However, all that could be about to change. Today the Spanish Government unveiled its plans for amendments to its copyright law that will excite copyright holders eager for protection. During a press conference Culture Minister José Ignacio Wert said that the reforms have three objectives.

The first, with a nod to the SGAE scandal in 2011, is to ensure that content rights management entities operate with “greater transparency” than they did in the past, with fines being levied if irregularities are found.

The second objective is to crack down on those who facilitate “large-scale” downloading of movies, music, TV shows and other cultural content.

Finally there is to be a review of the right to make private copies, for which rightsholders are currently compensated through a levy on blank media. As we will see, objectives two and three are linked.

In respect of piracy, the reforms aim to boost the powers of the Comisión de Propiedad Intelectual (Copyright Commission). The draft, known as ‘Lassalle Law’ after Secretary of State for Culture Jose Maria Lassalle, envisions the Commission obtaining new power to deal with infringement.

Sites will be required to remove wide ranges of infringing content on request, such as that from a particular rightsholder or artist, without having to deal with each instance individually as is the case today. Failure to comply will be costly, with penalties of up to 300,000 euros ($388,400) for sites that repeatedly fail to remove illicit content.

“This is about putting in measures to prevent recurrence,” said Culture Minister Wert, who went on to clarify that search engines such as Google, that may unwittingly link to content but comply with takedown requests, would be exempt.

Further augmenting the tools available, the draft sees the Commission being empowered to force companies to remove their advertising from illicit sites. In line with moves already underway in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, payment processors will also be forced to withdraw their services.

Finally, the amendments to the right to make private copies will be of real interest to users of file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent and eD2K. Currently Internet users aren’t prosecuted since their downloads are covered by a levy on blank media, but the draft envisions these freedoms being removed – and then some.

The reforms see the right to private copying only covering legally obtained media, meaning that in theory file-sharers could be prosecuted for their downloads from unauthorized sources. But that’s not all. Even though the blank media levy will be removed, compensation will still be paid to rightsholders. However, in future it will be the general Spanish tax-payer footing the bill, rather than just those doing the copying.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Guest

    idiots

  • das

    great, now spain

    well censorship won’t work

  • Mark

    sadly it’s all about the politics

    if people won’t protest, they won’t go back and they will censor all the internet to their like

    democracy people! yeah!

    • Violated0

      People in Spain do protest. It just seems the Government does not care much about democracy. Sinde Law is a good example.

    • Drawing

      Yes, there are different types of protests in Spain,
      even though, their government is still doing what they want.

  • Anyone

    and another government turns against the will of the people

    • IHaveNoBalls

      Its a joke, i hear a while back its legal to download in Spain and now they are flip-flopping and saying the opposite, its illegal…

      Hypocrites

      • ScrewEwe2

        Get a VPN and torrent through Portugal.

        • guest

          VPN = hiding under the bed.

        • Dross

          © The U.S. style 2012 – 20XX

        • Anonymous

          indeed, they really ought to be FIGHTING this both in the streets, and by NOT visiting the movie theaters, we really need to, why are people so interested in latest film releases anyway? must be something in the water…

        • Lolatron

          In Aus, wordmean (website news thingy) has a campaign going on billboards that protests it best with “Boycott the monopolists – spend your money on local amateur bands and movies”

        • superfly fishyguy

          surely, that’s the same as
          guest = hiding under the bed

          … nothing wrong with hiding under the bed, so longs as it’s a log free bed ;)

      • Berto

        It is legal indeed. The judiciary system with the current law in hand says so, but the copyright lobby is inside the government (ministry of education, culture and sport) lies to the people, even paying tv spots trying to convince us it is illegal.

    • Guest

      Will of the people vs Will of the US gov.
      One might getr angry and complain on the internet.
      The other one will thrash you with sanctions.

      As usual the issue here is born from the US GOV’s close and unhealthy relationship with the big media lobbying firms.

      • Guest

        Sanctions would be nothing compared to a monster treaty signed by every country on the planet sans america, the treaty would bar any export/import with said country.

        Either the USA would wake up and apologise left, right and center, or it will collapse under the weight of its bankruptcy due to China also signing said treaty.

        • ShEsHy

          What exactly does ‘Murica stil export, other than fat tourists, soldiers/mercenaries and weapons?

          I’m not (excessively) trying to be funny here, I’m really curious. I mean, most of their production occurs in China, most of their tech support is from India and most of their workers are from Latin America.
          All I can think of are games, movies, music and software, but we can always DL those.

          So forcing countries to criminalize DLing digital goods for free by threatening them with no more purchaseable digital goods seems to be their tactic now?!?

        • Ardvaark

          Whatever they produce in china they resell and export later as well, also Weapons and most importantly, influence…

        • Milkshake Man
        • bobmail

          Guest, you need to learn a little economics. You will start to understand perhaps that the “chinese miracle” of the last decade is directly as a result of exports to the US. They aren’t so stupid as to cut off their main source of income, especially with Europe in the toilet.

          It’s the sort of post of TF that reminds me that few here seem to have a clue about the bigger picture on things. Your noses are way too close to the piracy issue to see for what it is, and where it really ranks on the world stage.

        • icec0ld

          The Chinese Miracle however is not the Chinese dependency on the US. China has ties to just about every market as a result of but not necessarily continued trade with the US. Seems you’re unfortunately the one in need of an economics lesson.

          Also on an ironic note. The country with the least copyright legislation happens to be one the largest economies in existence Go figure.

        • bobmail

          IceCold… US represents the biggest part of the reason there is the Chinese miracle. The near collapse of Europe only took about 2 percentage points out of the Chinese annual growth. If the US turned off the tap (or China suddenly decided not to deal with the US) their economy would flatline overnight.

          Where do you think all those IPhones come from? Space?

        • icec0ld

          “Biggest reason” was acknowledged It is not the only reason and it is most certainly not the only thing keeping China going. Honestly, perhaps you should get reading my posts before you make shit up?

          If the US turned off it’s tap to China, Cina would turn else where and the US would get it’s products from people willing to import it to the US. More than anything however the US would suffer. As you said, where do all those iphones come from? Last time I looked the USA had no sweat shops to make these things, so bye bye Apple in America. No, China would be fine. America would however be the one to ultimately suffer.

        • UraPhake

          “Your noses are way too close to the piracy issue…”
          =-=-
          We know what your nose is embedded in.

        • Guest

          You just lost all credibility, all ‘cos your name is bobmail.
          Go figure.

        • fanmail

          We are the terrorists!! It all makes sense now thank you.

        • MadAsASnake

          China has been very busy diversifying both import and export markets (quite scary for other reew), so no, US sanctions would not unduly harm the Chinese economy. They would of course call in the debt Bush built up to kick in Iraq… You might also find the US public pretty peed off if they can’t get their iGadgets – all built in China.

        • bobmail

          Perhaps you can go back and read the thread – it’s not about US sanctions against China, it’s about China unilaterally deciding not the trade with the US as some sort of punishment. The Chinese just aren’t that stupid.

        • icec0ld

          On the contrary. The US would be stupid to allow China to get to this situation and commit economic suicide. “Where would those iPhones come from?” in freaking deed.

      • Predator

        “. . .Will of the US gov.” Which really mean Will of few entertainment corporations who does not entertain us.

  • Truth

    Why ? “But that’s not all. While the blank media levy will be removed, the
    money will still be paid to rightsholders, but it will be the Spanish
    tax-payer footing the bill instead.” – that makes no sense.

    • Anyone

      it makes sense if you know who is bribing the people making these laws

  • Jack Ryan

    Fools.

  • Service

    /etc/init.d/bobmail start
    Starting bob mail…

    • Guest321

      LMAO! Best post I have seen this year and all of last year. Still can’t stop laughing.

      • bobmail

        Wow, you don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you?

        • Guest321

          I would kill myself if I ever become like you. So much negativity, hatred in heart and absolutely no sense of humor at all. You live in your own bubble, have no friends, hate sharing anything with anybody. You should be the last person to talk Bobby. But still, thank you for entertaining us, credit where due.

        • IDIOCRACY

          ay ay hrrrr hehe

        • Guest

          hating haters isn’t the answer either

        • xappstudio

          hating haters isn’t right either

        • Guest321

          Who said anything about hating Bobby? I just said I don’t want to ever become like him, there’s a difference.

        • bobmail

          So there is hope yet! Perhaps you can save us all a little time and get right to it.

          I would say that if you made it up to being like me, it might be such an improvement in your life that you would reconsider your kind offer.

          Actually, I don’t live in a bubble. I have seen both sides of the debate through the eyes of the people involved, and I know that neither has the moral high ground. I sit more in the middle, where I think the rule of law is key, and that you change things by changing the laws, not by anarchist moves to upset the apple cart by trying to burn down the establishment, whatever it is.

          I also think it sucks grandly that the piracy movement has been hijacked by two groups, the profiteers who are making a ton of cash off your backs, and the rabid idiots who support them without realizing what they are really doing.

          So if I live in a bubble, it’s a really f–king big bubble. Yours, however, appears to be the same as a scuba mask. Covers your eyes and stops you from even having a sniff at reality.

        • Danny

          killall -9 bobmail

        • Guest

          Don’t forget to kill the crontab entries…

  • glen

    LOL.. and in the meantime can we have another bailout?

  • An0nYm0u5

    US: Do what we say or be blacklisted.

    Spain: Stupid com’ons… If your corrupt plan of forcing Unions in our lands didn’t originally work we would destroy any outposts you currently have on our lands for threatening us like this.

    Portugal: Just remember that we were forced into this Union and don’t give a damn about International Trade. Threaten us like you have the rest of the world and we won’t bend over like everyone else… The people will not only remove you from our lands but remove anyone who attempts to poison our peoples minds with your corruption.

    • Guest

      If only more countries sid NO to threats then maybe this international political abuse would end.

      • SCP-914

        Portugal realizes America’s in no financial shape to demand anything. I really think more countries should consider America’s debt crisis before doing what they tell them. Why would you want to listen to someone who’s not good with money? Only way you could take their advice is to do the opposite of what they say to avoid ending up like them.

        • Frontier

          @SCP-914 “Why would you want to listen to someone who’s not good with money?”

          Because they have weapons of mass destruction (I’m being a little ironic here, but still serious) and their banks always finance their wars? Great Depression one day and the next day: “we’re going to participate in WWII”.

          I still can recall what some Spaniard said, he was criticising Latin Americans on a forum, when some of them attacked what USA govt. does, the Spaniard jumped and said something like this: “all of you are always attacking USA, but they are in charge, they have the best army and weapons, thus they can do whatever they want, we can do nothing”.

        • SCP-914: The Clockworks

          Yes, I know that. Heck America could “settle” it’s debt with China by trying to blow them away. Thing is they haven’t done so yet. Maybe they realize they are out numbered there. China has over a billion people, which is a lot.

  • Anonymous1

    Sounds like yet more dick sucking on behast of the USA govt and its bum buddies!

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Which isn’t going to go over well with the Spanish people and might have some of these people out of jobs if they push this.

    • Milkshake Man

      Your casual homophobia weakens the argument you make.

      Such as it is.

      • Smeg

        No it doesn’t

        • Milkshake Man

          Considering the whole of his argument consists of casual homophobia, you may have a point.

        • Andrew me

          Go away and cry on another site, this is not the place to debate your or anyone else’s homophobic tendencies.

          The comment in question has nothing to do with being homophobic either casual or otherwise, and there are many sites you can visit to discuss your issues, this site is for copyright discussions.

        • U.S. Not. Again.

          Quite ironic, you just criticised the bigotry on one of your previous comments and now you’re just acting as a bigot, also your current mentally coincided with the things that your fellow countryman, in the southern part of USA, just have said, I mean wargamer1969. Oh, and how do you qualified the Southerners? “Republican racist bigoted fundamentally flawed individuals who populate the south”, right?

          Anthropologists must be fascinated with the double standards of your country.

        • Guest

          There’s nothing bigoted about his post, sorry but you couldn’t be so wrong.

          Unless of course, you’d like a moderator to spell it out for you.

        • Guest123

          Agreed.

      • Guest

        eh.. if I say “Spanish government are faggots” it doesn’t mean I disrespect gays – it’s just a figure of speech..

        • Milkshake Man

          You really don’t understand the term ‘casual homophobia’ at all, do you?

        • Schmoe

          There are women in the Spanish government too, dummy. You’re the one reading homophobia into it and picking a fight.

        • dummy

          yes good point. clearly bum buddies is a reference aimed at women..

        • wargamer1969

          USA here specifically the Southern region and homophobia isn’t the term we use. Its hate the fags and they are not welcome here…ever. That’s how we like it and adhere to. So take your homo loving ass some other place where they suck on each other.

        • Guest

          you mean only old people, like you?..

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          wargamer, now you ARE a bigot. What people do in their own private lives that has no effect on you, you should just butt the crap out of.

          That is speaking as someone who finds homosexuality (at least male-male) abhorrent and squicky.

        • Guest

          No one cares…

          Queer people, as long as they keep their queerness away from me, I don’t have a problem with them.

      • Guest123

        Casual homophobia weakens your argument.

        Such as it is.

        Oh gawd, cry me a river!

      • DornerTheDarkKnight

        Considering you left the comment “n*ggers” on boxhouston you got a lot of nerve complaining about “homophobia” of course considering how racist gays are I shouldn’t be surprised

        Link to the racist and protector of gays Milkshake Man’s comment

        http://theboxhouston.com/8423901/rihannas-california-king-bed-new-video/#comment-841413359

    • http://twitter.com/SteveCall5 Steve Call

      up to I looked at the receipt which was of $4933, I didnt believe …that…my mom in-law could actualey taking home money in there spare time on their computer.. there mums best friend started doing this for only nineteen months and just paid the depts on there house and purchased a brand new Fiat Panda. go to…………. BIT40.ℂom

  • mc007

    haha, we people here in spain won’t give a fuck as we know our gov. isn’t capable to hold a pen right.

    • Russian Guest

      hahah same here friend ;)
      although.. come to think of it, it is really sad

  • Who

    stupid is as stupid does

  • Pierat

    as Ron White says you can’t fix stupid

  • John Space

    Behold, another law that will be taken to Spain’s Constitutional Court!
    Partido Popular, could you please stop existing? No matter if quickly and painlessly, of course.

  • SlinkySlim

    Spain? I’ve never heard of this “Spain” that you speak of. Is this a new American territory?

    • Anyone

      it’s the beta version of Mexico

      • ScrewEwe2

        So, people in Spain don’t speak Mexican?

        • Castle

          Also Mexicans don’t speak Mexican.
          In Spain they speak Basque, Aranese, Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Extremaduran, Asturian, other dialects and of course, Castilian.

          BTW, who speaks Mexican?

        • http://twitter.com/Jatthewmoly Matt

          Mexicans

        • Tam

          And retards like you, make obvious and bad jokes.

        • Kiltro

          I’m pretty sure there are more people who speak russian, german or english than aranese leonese, extremaduran or asturian.

        • Bananas

          Is speak Galician, i do not understand mexican;

        • ScrewEwe2

          I know that. It vwas a fuckin’ joke. Some people are just too fucking touchy. I have a lot of Mexican friends and neighbors.

    • Henk Krol

      in fact, europe is American territory

    • MadAsASnake

      It’s where the Spanish Language comes from

    • March

      Yes, USA just expanded its territory at the southwestern part of Europe.

  • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

    Necessary measures, all countries in the world need to have similar handling of internet related criminality.

    • Anyone

      sharing is not a crime

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        Piracy is.

        • SlinkySlim

          No, the real crime is that the vested interests are naught but a bunch of bottom feeding, creativity lacking, criminally stubborn asshats that believe and behave as if their “gifted” monopoly must be made to survive an apocalypse. The apocalypse of near uninterruptible and private communications cometh. Therefore if you do not provide you will collide and, given past and present behaviours, you are not going to know what hit you.

          Have a seat, enjoy the show as you continue to reap that which you sow.

        • bobmail

          “the real crime is that the vested interests are naught but a bunch of bottom feeding, creativity lacking, criminally stubborn asshats”

          A perfect description of torrent site owners, who try to jam as many ads in your face (and in popups, in the downloads, and so on) all to try to make a few pennies out of pirated material.

          An excellent description, I will have to remember that one.

        • MadAsASnake

          Paying politicuians to implement laws for you is a crime…

        • UraPhake

          “Paying politicuians to implement laws for you is a crime…”

          To put it more succinctly — politicians implement crimes.

        • Fredrika

          > “Piracy is.”

          Still haven’t figured out the difference between penal law, which regulates crimes, and civil law, which regulates civil offences, such as copyright infringements?

          Seriously, people have tried to explain it to you for four years now.

        • Ardvaark

          Welcome back to the warzone, soldier.

          You were missed

        • Ardvaark

          Aww dislikes already?
          Someone’s not happy with Fredrika’s return…

          I can smell who they are.

        • ScrewEwe2

          That would be BobNegAnon.

        • Trix is for Kids

          Back? Fredrika obviously never left this place and it’s always around here, everyday, calmly awaiting for a Nejtillpirater’s comment.

        • ScrewEwe2

          We were wondering where you’ve been.

        • Guest

          Seriously, people have tried to explain it to you for four years now.

          Exactly, if they didn’t understand you by the second time, they’re most likely mentally retarded and no amount of reasoning with them would convince them otherwise.

          Let history wash their last century thinkmind away, like it always has done before.

        • SoundnuoS

          So why is shoplifting a criminal offence? The seriousness seems to be equal.
          And France of course has made copyright infringement a petty crime.

        • Anyone

          for the same reason jaywalking is a crime

          and filesharing is nothing like shoplifting, you should of course know that by now

        • SoundnuoS

          Goods get taken without paying for them, this is true for both cases. Seems there’s more than a superficial resemblance.

        • frank098

          Look who it is SoundnuoS our own failed artist.

        • Ardvaark

          Because shoplifting is tied with actual property loss and clear loss to the owner.

          Piracy doesn’t involve loss of property or damages to the owner.

        • SoundnuoS

          And piracy is tied to losses to the owners of the songs.

        • Ardvaark

          Right you’re out of arguments, resorting to old, disproven claims now.

          1 download != one lost sale. Pirates are proven to consume more media.

          Give up already.

        • SoundnuoS

          I’ve never claimed one download to be one lost sale. Somewhere between 25-40% seems to be a good estimated range.
          And the only thing that’s been shown is that SOME pirates are among the bigger consumers of digital media. This in itself doesn’t say anything about whether they are still avoiding paying for some of what they download and enjoy.
          And piracy as a whole tends to have quite a few people who mostly use it for the free ride, this is also something that’s been clearly shown.

        • Ardvaark

          SOME pirates are among the bigger consumers of digital media.

          Yeah, the remainder wouldn’t buy it either way which constitutes a non-sale. No damages.

          And piracy as a whole tends to have quite a few people who mostly use it for the free ride, this is also something that’s been clearly shown.

          Oh I’m surprised you say so but that’s indeed very true.

          Very few people pirate because it’s free, most of them pirate for discovery or test before buying. Or because they can’t actually purchase it in their country, or because the show isn’t available or is released months / years later on its country. Or to avoid evasive DRM.

          Thank you very much for highlighting the harmlessness of piracy once again.

          We share because we care.

        • SoundnuoS

          “Yeah, the remainder wouldn’t buy it either way which constitutes a non-sale. No damages.”

          And this is distinctively something that has never been shown, and there’s quite a few indications to the opposite.

          “Oh I’m surprised you say so but that’s indeed very true.”
          And what exactly do you think I’m saying? Judging from the rest of your reply, it doesn’t seem to be what I meant.

        • Ardvaark

          There’s plenty of proof of that most downloads constitute no-sales.
          Something that has never been shown, however, is the actual damages piracy causes.

          You clearly wrote that the number of people pirating because its free is a minority. I think I understood that pretty well.
          Maybe a Freudian slip? Just shows what’s actually in your mind and what you actually spew.

        • SoundnuoS

          Here’s the damages from Canada, based on selfreporting by p2pers (so probably underestimated):
          http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990153&rec=1&srcabs=1989240&alg=1&pos=2

          “You clearly wrote that the number of people pirating because its free is a minority.”

          Seems to me I wrote “quite A few”. Meaning : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quite_a_few

        • Ardvaark

          Seriously…

          A paper about piracy affecting physical sales? In 2012?

          Sorry, you fail.

          Seems to me I wrote “quite A few”

          Right indeed. My bad.
          My point still stands however that the major driving factors for piracy are the ones I mentioned.

        • SoundnuoS

          “A paper about piracy affecting physical sales? In 2012?”
          Fairly relevant still. If digital piracy can be shown to displace even products which aren’t a 100% substitute (i.e. physical records), it’s even more likely it will displace sales of products that it in fact is a 100% substitute for (i.e. music files)

        • Ardvaark

          Right now I wish I could punch my monitor and a fist would come out on your side of the screen, this is the 3rd time I read a paper you claimed showed something only for me to spend 30 minutes reading a paper and find bullshit everywhere.

          First of all I start doubting their numbers when they clearly have doubts about their results and didn’t properly validate them:

          people did not always provide consistent answers

          and when I see calculus like this: 95+445+61= 602

          Secondly It seems I was indeed right. They mention P2P but their primary focus is p2p vs CD sales:

          We are in particular interested in the response to question 4.4b) what % would you have purchased as part of a music CD if they were not available through P2P

          But that’s not all.
          I was being very careful with the numbers since that previous mistake on them and voilá the sum of all the 4 groups of music consumers sums to 97% only. What a great job. But wait, after you take P2P away, the values add up to 100% again. Magic.

          But it’s also fun how they then shift to % of downloaders after they split them in the 4 categories.

          According to them only 29% of all music consumers are downloaders and only 17% of those are actual pure pirates. That 17% is only 5% of all the consumers.

          On the other hand, a big chunk (62%) does buy a lot of CD’s while pirating at the same time. But take P2P away, and that drops to 17%!
          Paid sites however show a big increase and so does the “No CD or Paid site” group. Interesting on how P2P actually increases people’s unwillingness to buy…

          But what is you say?

          In total, 75% of P2P downloaders responded that if P2P were not available they would have purchased

          Well that’s funny, because before P2P the percentage of paying pirates was 80%. Could it be you mistakenly proved that piracy improves sales? Also note they chopped 3% magically of the equation, it’s very likely that the paying part was 83%!

          So piracy effectively increases music consumption from 5% to 7%. Which is actually in line with the other papers linked in here lately!

          Also remember one thing: nowhere in the paper it says those 80% that already paid for content while pirating would spend more than they actually do. The most likely scenario is they wouldn’t because of budgeting limits they would just consume less.

          Then, to me, the best part comes.
          The table with the actual value displaced.
          First of all, again, the numbers are fairly incorrect.

          First of all they “ate” one person. Secondly their sums are incorrect in 3 rows.
          Then there’s the most incredible part.

          Let’s look at the hardcore pirates:
          Ammount of Songs Replaced per month: 400 (Sites) 617 (CD).

          First this makes no sense, replacing digital downloads with CD’s more than digital sales (goes against the trend actually and their own claims in the first graph) but even so, this means that each person would spend 1017$ more per month. That is absurd!

          In the second and third data columns, we have the amount of downloads respondents said they would replace by purchasing CDs or from pay sites per month, if P2P networks were not available.

          But wait there’s more: Total yearly expense: 12720$ that’s about the same 1000$ a month!

          And remember, the values each column are per person except on the last one where they divide by each person twice since the values are already individual. In order to bring the values to something more credible. Subtle, but you clearly fell for it.

          Now if you look at the percentages and number of files downloaded in the previous paragraphs you’d get to more credible numbers. Were it not for the fact they inflated all losses by 1 to 4$. These people cannot be trusted with numbers obviously.

          Finally, one last point, this is in Canada. Which isn’t as affected by the issues that cause piracy as the remainder of the world like Europe, Asia, Australia etc where gated releases and unavailability reign supreme.

        • SoundnuoS

          True to form you’re missing a lot of what’s written in the text, which is what’s causing you to misinterpret.

          The 95+445+61=602 is obviously wrong. Well caught on that one. He’s accidentally added the 1 from the Yes=1 column to the result. That’s kind of sloppy, but let’s see what difference it makes for the end result.

          This makes the real number 601 for people who admit to using p2p from the total sample of 2092.

          With 602 the percentage becomes 28.7762… which rounds to 29% as seen in table 3. With 601 the percentage becomes 28.7284… which also rounds to 29%. As he’s using the the rounded numbers as well as the correct number of downloaders in the rest of the paper, this makes the error insignificant.

          And in the rest of the paper the numbers actually add up.

          The missing 3% you’re getting caught up with in the diagram is explained in the text under table 3. It’s the 3% (61 people) of p2pers who answered “don’t know” when asked how many files they downloaded through p2p.

          The diagram is slightly confusingly laid out, but this is how it works:

          The 2 first layers just show how many people are getting music through which channels.
          You have 54% getting music through legal channels only, 29% getting it through some combination of legal and illegal and 17% who aquire no music at all, neither legally nor illegaly (unweighted numbers).

          In other words, of the people who actually get music either legally or illegally, 53.7% are doing piracy, not 29% as you assumed.

          The first row of boxes then focuses on those who gave specific numbers for files they downloaded and those who admitted to doing p2p but answered “don’t know” on the numbers of files question (3%). Slightly confusingly this 3 percent isn’t listed in that row, but that’s because they as well as the 5% who contradicted themselves are removed from the calculation when the actual sales loss is calculated.

          So, this gives us in the first row of boxes:

          3% p2p and paid sites only, 62% p2p and cds only, 15% p2p, cds and paid sites, 17% who get it from p2p only and of course the 3% who answered “don’t know”. All adding up nicely to 100%.

          Then we come to the last row of boxes which lists from what sources people doing p2p would have aquired their music if p2p wouldn’t be available.

          There we can see that just 25% say they wouldn’t have bought anything even if p2p wasn’t available. The other 75% would have chosen to buy some of what they downloaded. So that pretty much proves that piracy displaces sales for the majority of pirates.
          To be exact, of the 53,7% of the music users who do piracy, for 75% of them piracy is displacing sales.

          So far you’ve been wrong about everything in the paper except the first calculation where 602 should have been 601.

          And you continue being wrong in your reading of the table at the end.

          He’s only calculating the sales displacement for the 445 people who gave clear answers as to the number of files they download. The “don’t know” answers and the 5% who admitted to having done p2p but claimed to not having downloaded files during the year are removed, leaving 445 people. Exactly the 445 people listed as having given answers in table 2. No one has been “eaten” as you claim.

          In the last table he then lists the estimates of the respondents themselves as to how much they would have bought if p2p wasn’t available. This is on a track basis so the cd column isn’t complete cds displaced but cd tracks, which are given the slightly higher value of 1.08 vs. 0.99 for downloads.

          This is displacement in each column for the group as a whole, not for one individual.
          This makes the average displacement 179$ per person per YEAR, not your 1000$ / month. Where did you get that?
          The math isn’t exact when calculating sales displacement, but the estimations are made to the low side, making the estimated sales displacement lower than the numbers would indicate it to be. No one is inlating any numbers.

          So, all in all the math works out and the paper clearly shows piracy displaces a significant chunk of cash.

        • Ardvaark

          First of all I find it awesome you spent 5 paragraphs explaining how the 1 extra person doesn’t affect the calculations, which was fairly obvious from the start, when my only point was that they were sloppy with the numbers (which lowers credibility of the whole paper).

          Moving on…

          Would you explain to me how can you go from the right interpretation:

          You have 54% getting music through legal channels only, 29% getting it through some combination of legal and illegal and 17% who aquire no music at all, neither legally nor illegaly

          to:

          In other words, of the people who actually get music either legally or illegally, 53.7% are doing piracy, not 29% as you assumed.

          I know you’re terrible with maths since you failed to understand simple maths before but this is a new low for you. Because the paper clearly states 29% of the 83% music consumers do it illegally and legally.

          So in my world, 29% of 83% is actually 35%, so good job on that overestimation. 35% of the music consumers are doing piracy actually.

          The first row of boxes then focuses on those who gave specific numbers for files they downloaded

          Nope. C’mon you gave me this paper…
          That row actually splits the people according to what they stated their habits were. That graph doesn’t take into account number of downloads per person but number of people per category.
          As for the 3% you’re indeed right. +1 for the author’s sloppiness.
          If my papers were actually this sloppy I’d be fired already.

          There we can see that just 25% say they wouldn’t have bought anything even if p2p wasn’t available. The other 75% would have chosen to buy some of what they downloaded. So that pretty much proves that piracy displaces sales for the majority of pirates.

          Oh hold your horses. Can you actually read??
          With P2P, 80% of the sample is paying for music.
          Without P2P, only 75% of the sample is paying for it.
          It actually lowered 5%.
          The amount of zero buyers increased 8%!

          And the most important thing, the ones who were already paying (or some of them because it lowered), would still be paying some of the songs they downloaded, but nowhere in the paper does it says they’ll overbudget meaning they’ll keep purchasing the same amount. So technically, not even sales are gained.

          So far you’ve been wrong about everything in the paper

          I seriously laughed at this. Mr I-can’t-do-math.

          So far it seems my claims were actually 100% right with the exception of the 3% because they just took it without mention.

          Yours on the other hand…

          You can’t claim piracy reduces music consumption when music consumption lowers after you remove piracy. At least in the real world. You know doing drugs is a harsher crime than piracy right?

          And you continue being wrong in your reading of the table at the end.

          Really? Let’s do some more maths.
          I promises this one is really simple.
          P2P only = 76
          P2P,CD & PS = 66
          P2P,CD only = 276
          P2P,PS only = 12
          Don’t know = 16

          76+66+276+12+16 = 446, not 445. I do believe there is a serious case of cannibalism among the people in the paper.
          By the way, I was well aware that he was calculating the sales displacement for the downloaders never have I said otherwise.

          In the last table he then lists the estimates of the (bla bla bla I’ll repeat what Mr. Aardvark already knows)

          You could have saved all that, I never claimed that it wasn’t the case.

          This is displacement in each column for the group as a whole, not for one individual

          I am also very aware of it since I claimed just that in my second to last paragraph. But before the table they actually leave it open to consideration (I actually quoted that part) and one could be led to believe those are individual values since they mention respondents and not all respondents, especially with a column with the number of people next to it, I bet several people might have fallen for that. If they did, they’d reach the 1000$ value.

          But like I said if you compare the % of displacement with the actual numbers on the table, you’ll see they overpriced the numbers a bit, again sloppiness.

          So, all in all the math works out and the paper clearly shows piracy displaces a significant chunk of cash.

          So all in all the maths does seem to show you’re wrong.

          But there’s one last thing I actually forgot to address. The paper assumes that an already paying pirate would spend 179$ per year more.
          That makes absolutely no sense since the likely situation is that the already paying pirates wouldn’t overbudget.

          Secondly he takes the whole pirate population to reach 1.263 billion in damages. First of all he casually added 1 Million and something in there. The actual value is 1.262 billion.

          And the best part is he spent the whole paper showing only part of the pirates would buy if they couldn’t pay but then he uses the whole pirate population. Great job on blowing off any shred of credibility on that paper.
          But since on the sample 5% less people purchase music after P2P we can safely assume that by removing P2P the industry just lost 63 Million 176 thousand 596 hundred Canadian dollars and 45 cents.

          Oh and I’m surprised you actually forgot to address that they mention they don’t think their sources are good. Or the fact that Canada has lower causes for piracy than the rest of the world.

        • SoundnuoS

          ” Because the paper clearly states 29% of the 83% music consumers do it illegally and legally.”

          No, you’re misunderstanding the layout of the diagram, which indeed is slightly misleading.

          The first level shows music listeners (83%) vs non-music listeners (17%). I’m calling them non-listeners since they are the ones in the sample who claimed to have aquired no music at all, neither legal nor illegal.
          They might of course be listening to radio, but that becomes irrelevant for this paper, they aren’t potential buyers.

          The second level isn’t splitting the 83% into separate percentages, even though it looks that way.
          It’s just dividing the whole sample into legal music listeners (54%), pirates (29%) and the non-music listeners (still 17%) from the first level.

          This means that to get the percentage of music listeners (potential buyers) who do piracy, we’ll need to compare the 29% to the 54%, making the percentage 53.7.

          “That row actually splits the people according to what they stated their habits were. That graph doesn’t take into account number of downloads per person but number of people per category.”

          The first row of boxes only takes into account the people who admitted to doing p2p at some level. On that level of the diagram the people who claim to only get their music from legal sources are removed.

          That level of the diagram simply shows how the people who do piracy are getting their music; through piracy alone or through a combination of channels.
          3% p2p and paid site, 62% p2p and cd, 15% p2p, paid site and cd, 17% p2p only, 3% don’t know.

          This level still doesn’t tell us anything about how piracy might affect sales, it just describes the ways pirates are getting their music.

          It’s the last row of boxes that is the main point of this paper and where this assertion of yours becomes wrong:

          “but nowhere in the paper does it says they’ll overbudget meaning they’ll keep purchasing the same amount.”

          The last row of boxes specifically lists the percentages of pirates who answered that they would buy more music and which channels they would use if p2p wasn’t available.

          Only 25% say they wouldn’t increase their spending at all if p2p wasn’t available, meaning that 75% WOULD increase it. Piracy displaces sales for 75% of people doing it, to a varying degree.

          “76+66+276+12+16 = 446, not 445.”

          True that, missed that one. It’s still not changing the result. It seems it’s not a case of cannibalism but of adding 1 to one of the groups above. The 445 total are still the 445 people from table 2 who gave a definite answer to how many files they are downloading.

          The result of the error will simply mean that the average of sales displacement will actually be slightly higher for one of the groups listed. Once again the error is underestimating the displacement.

          The average displacement for the whole group is still counted with the 445 total and the slightly underestimated dollar total, making it a conservative estimation, not an inflated one.

          “But like I said if you compare the % of displacement with the actual numbers on the table,”

          You’ll have to compare the other way around, the percentages are based on the numbers from the table.
          Then the precentages work out, except for the last group, where there seems to be a typo.
          If we assume the 292 files downloaded for that group should actually be 392 files, then the percentages work out perfectly. Otherwise the actual displacement rate would be around 99%, not the 73% listed in that section.

          ” The paper assumes that an already paying pirate would spend 179$ per year more.”

          The paper doesn’t assume. That’s what the pirates themselves have estimated in the survey, as an average, of course.

          “Secondly he takes the whole pirate population to reach 1.263 billion in damages.”

          And that’s what you have to do to assess the total effect of piracy. That’s the whole point of survey based research. If you get a large enough random sample, you can reasonably assume that the results will be close to that of the whole population.

          “Oh and I’m surprised you actually forgot to address that they mention they don’t think their sources are good.”

          They say that 8% didn’t provide directly usable answers, not that the dataset itself was bad. As a consequence it’s those 8% that are left out when assessing the damages.
          What he does say is that the total estimated damages, might be on the high side, which is reasonable as total music sales in Canada in 2005 was 608.7 million.

          What is beyond a doubt from this paper is that 75% of pirates estimate that piracy is displacing sales to some degree and that even if their estimate of how much they would actually buy if p2p wasn’t an option is inflated by 50% it still means a loss of around 600 million.

          “Or the fact that Canada has lower causes for piracy than the rest of the world.”

          Well this should mean that for the rest of the world the damage from piracy is even greater, shouldn’t it?

        • Ardvaark

          Edited because math.
          True there, the percentage of music consumers admitting piracy is 35.

          Thank you.
          Because of that you’ll find that the following paragraphs literally stat what I’ve said retarding the content of the following boxes..

          That level of the diagram simply shows how the people who do piracy are getting their music; through piracy alone or through a combination of channels.

          Exactly. In that level, the amount of paying pirates is 80%, the remainder, non-paying pirates re the 17% P2P only and the 3% indecisive.

          This level still doesn’t tell us anything about how piracy might affect sales, it just describes the ways pirates are getting their music.

          True

          It’s the last row of boxes that is the main point of this paper and where this assertion of yours becomes wrong:

          “but nowhere in the paper does it says they’ll overbudget meaning they’ll keep purchasing the same amount.”

          Now this is where it starts getting wrong. The personal budget of each person didn’t increase. So, assuming the purchasing power stays the same, the budget that the pirate spends on entertainment is the same. If they buy more music they’ll buy less of something else (Games? Music? Figures?)
          But that ultimately is a case-to-case basis. The fact of the matter is personal budget for entertainment won’t increase I’m sure you’ll agree.

          The last row of boxes specifically lists the percentages of pirates who answered that they would buy more music and which channels they would use if p2p wasn’t available.

          That row shows how they would offset their music consumption indeed. But, like I’ve said, due to budgeting limits, it doesn’t translate to direct increase in consumption.
          And the very strange part is that there’s a tendency to offset digital P2P piracy to physical sales. This goes against the trend of physical sales being replaced by digital sales which might say something about the group.
          Remember this last line, it’ll be important in the end.

          Only 25% say they wouldn’t increase their spending at all if p2p wasn’t available.

          False. Very false. Only 25% would remain not purchasing music. This value increased from 17% to 25%.
          The last column represents who would use p2p only, that is, not purchase music. It doesn’t represent those who would purchase the same, otherwise it would account for people who purchase the same amount of CD’s before and after p2p. But the column clearly says “P2P Only”.
          Precisely like I said. On the beginning, 80% of the sample was paying for music but, after P2P was removed, that percentage lowered to 75%.
          Removing piracy lowered the portion of the population that purchases music by 5%.

          Piracy displaces sales for 75% of people doing it, to a varying degree.

          So in conclusion, piracy displaces music consumption by negative 5% actually. People consume less music without p2p piracy.

          True that, missed that one. It’s still not changing the result. It seems it’s not a case of cannibalism but of adding 1 to one of the groups above.

          It indeed doesn’t change the result, but shows how sloppy they were with the results to the point of misunderstanding their numbers (like I showed in the previous part).
          Also a minor nitpicking but, if the total is 446 but they write 445 they “ate” someone actually, not added. Canibalism indeed.

          Once again the error is underestimating the displacement.

          The error is much more severe than that. The error is misunderstanding the displacement. Again, I’ve showed above.

          You’ll have to compare the other way around

          Oh no no no, sorry but no.
          In the paper they first show the amount of downloads made and the % admitted to purchase. And from that calculus they reach the values in the table.
          Not the other way around since you don’t even have the displacement percentages on the table. So , like I said, if you compare the % of displacement of the total numbers, with the ones with the table, you’ll reach the correct value indeed and not the 1000$/month absurd value that can be misinterpreted from the table alone.
          I’ll admit however, that although the misinterpretation of the table can happen, it’s a fault on the reader’s attention because the author, although slightly confusing on the table, does mention the calculations used on a previous paragraph. Unlike the 3% case that he removes and doesn’t mention anywhere.
          Once again, I’m complaining about precision and conciseness in here, not any grave mistakes. Remember there’s a 1-5$ difference in the final prices.

          The paper doesn’t assume. That’s what the pirates themselves have estimated in the survey, as an average, of course.

          And now the estimate point. This was the part of the article, besides the 5% mistake, where I raised the eyebrow the most.
          The questions made don’t take into account personal budget and, I’m fairly sure, the answer given wasn’t given with that in mind either.
          When asked which of the downloaded musics would they purchase if they couldn’t download, the logical answer is to give the amount of songs you liked the most.
          That amount however doesn’t take into account the extra costs of actually purchasing them, after all they have already 0 monetary value to the pirate.
          If you take into account that they’re constrained by budget the answer is much more likely to imply they’d purchase those songs at the expense of not purchasing some other entertainment product, and then retain their music consumption habits (minus p2p and still, obviously, limited by personal budget.

          And that’s what you have to do to assess the total effect of piracy. That’s the whole point of survey based research.

          Nope. C’mon… Statistics!
          You’ve surveyed a sample to infer that part of the pirate population doesn’t buy even if piracy is removed.
          So you have to apply the same constraints to the whole population! That’s simple, straightforward statistics! He did a very rookie mistake by applying the part to the whole.

          But, let’s not forget that when P2P was removed, the portion of the sample that consumes music lowered by 5%. So what we actually do is calculate what those 5% are worth.
          And so I did, those 64 million dollars is what’s lost by the industry with piracy being outlawed.

          If you get a large enough random sample, you can reasonably assume that the results will be close to that of the whole population.

          When I read that I really felt pity.
          The previous reply actually had an extra paragraph. I removed it in the end because after seeing your difficulties with maths, I thought it would be too much overkill.
          But I guess I’ll put it here now.

          Unfortunately for you I also studied statistics a few years ago. So I grabbed my old books, did some revision and voilá:

          I was actually curious about the statistical validity of this so I went ahead and reviewed what I’ve actually learned about statistics and the sample isn’t even meaningful.
          The 2100 sample isn’t even good enough to claim anything in Canada, let alone the global population (of pirates).
          2100 people isn’t enough to get a statistically valid result with an ok confidence level (95%) (Usually a 99% or 99.9% level of confidence is asked) and an acceptable Sampling Error (1%).
          Actually, I find it funny that they did a survey and forgot to put that data in. It’s actually illegal in my country to not provide such data along with statistical claims when writing public official documents based on surveys.

          So I did the math for you. You’d need about 10000 people to have a statistically valid result for Canada alone taking into account the current age distribution of the population.
          With the current sample, the confidence level of the sample is about 62%. That’s waaaay below acceptable.

          I’ll gladly explain what all this means but bear in mind this pretty much invalidates the whole paper.

          They say that 8% didn’t provide directly usable answers, not that the dataset itself was bad.

          Indeed, the bad dataset was identified by anyone with a statistically keen eye when analyzing the sample.

          What he does say is that the total estimated damages, might be on the high side,

          Yet he didn’t realize that the consumption lowered with the removal of P2P. It appears that he failed to double-check his claims.

          What is beyond a doubt from this paper is that 75% of pirates estimate that piracy is displacing sales to some degree

          Not even that. What is beyond doubt proven is two things:
          1) The paper is statistically invalid, hence all the claims and conclusions in it are wrong.
          2) The sample actually shows that a lower number of the population decides to purchase music after P2P is absent.
          3) The conclusion forgets to take persona-budget (which doesn’t increase) into consideration which in very short term brings personal consumption to lower levels.
          Just to clarify, this means that people would in the first or second month, probably purchase what they couldn’t download (because it was already on their want list) and then they would revert back to the normal consumption levels. And that would only apply to 75% of the population not the previous 80%, meaning the general consumption lowered

          “Or the fact that Canada has lower causes for piracy than the rest of the world.”

          Well this should mean that for the rest of the world the damage from piracy is even greater, shouldn’t it?

          Quite the opposite actually.
          If people on the remaining world pirate mostly because of regional locks, gated releases and unavailability and p2p was removed. The same 3 problems would remain, just like the much lower consumption.
          So in effect the damages would stay the same (and pretty close to 0).

        • SoundnuoS

          First of all, about the statistical validity of the sample:

          The group sampled is Canadians 15 years and older. In 2005 that would be around 26800000 people.

          Some lazy checking with internet sample size calculators tells me that the sample size of 2092 people gives a 99% confidence level with 2.82% margin of error or a 95% condfidence level with 2.14% margin of error.
          So it would seem the sample size definitely falls in the “good enough” category for the group surveyed.

          “The fact of the matter is personal budget for entertainment won’t increase I’m sure you’ll agree.”

          I agree, but that’s not relevant for the results in this specific paper. It’s based on self-assesment by the pirates as to how much they would buy if they wouldn’t have access to p2p.

          We’ll have to assume that the respondents gave at least some consideration to the fact that it would cost them. There is a good chance that it would contribute to an inflation of the estimated displacement, but there’s no reason to assume that this inflation would be 100%.

          “And the very strange part is that there’s a tendency to offset digital P2P piracy to physical sales.”

          This is 2005 data. The cd had a stronger position back then. In fact, as far as I know it’s only during the last two years digital sales have overtaken physical sales.

          “False. Very false. Only 25% would remain not purchasing music. This value increased from 17% to 25%.”

          No, this is where you’re reading it wrong. The last row of boxes concerns only those tracks that have been downloaded from p2p networks, i.e. never paid for.

          This is the question as posed in the survey:

          Considering the songs that you downloaded for free through P2P networks during 2005
          a) what % would you have purchased as paid music sites if they were not available through P2P
          b) what % would you have purchased as part of a music CD if they were not available through P2P

          It simply asks the respondents to asses how much of the music they downloaded illegally they would have bought if the p2p option wasn’t available.

          25% wouldn’t have bought any of it, the remaining 75% would have bought some of it.

          The music they’ve bought legally isn’t a factor in the last row. The last box is titled “no cds or paid sites”, not “p2p only”. The 25% who wouldn’t pay have simply answered that they wouldn’t under any circumstance have paid for their illegal downloads. It doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have paid for the legal purchases they’ve done.

          There’s nothing indicating consumption would lower in the absence of p2p, since p2p is specifically an option that’s removed for the last row of boxes.

          Fact remains, 75% of pirates self report that they would buy some of what they download. Piracy is removing sales, not increasing them.

          “In the paper they first show the amount of downloads made and the % admitted to purchase. And from that calculus they reach the values in the table.”

          True, the question was actually posed as “what percentage would you buy” and not as “how many tracks would you buy,”

          Checking the numbers however seems to show that the slight differences can be explained by rounding errors in the percentages. I.e. the difference between 35.4% and 34.6% is enought to explain the variations in the numbers of displaced tracks.

          Looks like we can assume the numbers are basically correct in the last table.

          So:

          “1) The paper is statistically invalid, hence all the claims and conclusions in it are wrong.”

          No, it actually looks like it is statistically valid.

          “2) The sample actually shows that a lower number of the population decides to purchase music after P2P is absent.”

          No, that’s a slight misunderstanding on your part as to what the last row of boxes are showing.

          “3) The conclusion forgets to take persona-budget (which doesn’t increase) into consideration”

          This is true, it’s assumed in the questions that the respondents will make a realistic answer as to how much they actually would be able to buy. That can contribute to an inflation of the estimated damages.

          However, given that we’ve been over the numbers and have found them to be basically ok, that means that even if the self estimates are inflated by as much as 80% we’re still looking at a loss of 250 million.

        • Ardvaark

          Some lazy checking with internet sample size calculators

          Some lazy and clueless calculations you mean. Why are you using the sampling error as variable when the variable should be the confidence level OR the population?
          Oh, right, number bending…. that’s why.
          The sampling error for this sample is 0.02% (using their numbers!). I gave you 1% as an over-the-top (and already high for the sample size) estimate.
          0.1% increase of the sampling error already influences the sample size by a lot (about 10% more) and you more than triple it?
          The fact that you answer back saying “just” 2.82% sampling error is ok especially on a population this low and when already using a low standard deviation (They omitted it but I got ~0.49 according to their numbers), is absolutely terrifying! I dare not imagine what kind of uneducated answers you’d give to more serious questions.
          A person who knows that is wrong and keeps answering back like that is just arrogant and doomed to fail.
          If you don’t know what you’re talking about just don’t make educated guesses. You’ll look ridiculous.

          Just as a side note, with the actual sampling error, the sample must be 4x higher than what I said, that’s how conservative I was.

          This paper is statistically invalid by a lot.
          I’m amazed you still argue with that.

          I agree, but that’s not relevant for the results in this specific paper. It’s based on self-assessment by the pirates as to how much they would buy if they wouldn’t have access to p2p.

          That self assessment can then give whatever numbers they want, if you don’t take into account monetary limitations you’re failing to estimate monetary gain. Just % of replacement, but that, like I said can be replaced on the 1st month of implementation, to grab the “wish-list” and then the values go back to normal.
          This is by far the most likely scenario. So, even if the demand didn’t actually lower by 5% like I previously stated, you’d actually want to calculate losses for 1 month only. In other words, the actual damage would be 95% lower.

          but there’s no reason to assume that this inflation would be 100%.

          Absolutely, my best guess is it’d work in the first couple of months so the displacement calculated above seems a fair estimate.
          Spoilers: They’re still way off

          This is 2005 data. The cd had a stronger position back then. In fact, as far as I know it’s only during the last two years digital sales have overtaken physical sales.

          I might be biased in this, but in 2005 I was split in ed2k and torrenting and could see a fair amount of music being shared on zero-days (movies I do agree were more rare and CAM was still somewhat acceptable).
          And outside of the internet, piracy discussion and requesting of help and files to more tech-savy people was a fairly common topic. This in Europe, I guess Canada could have lower piracy incidence due to sooner releases and more availability.

          No, this is where you’re reading it wrong. The last row of boxes concerns only those tracks that have been downloaded from p2p networks, i.e. never paid for.

          That’s beyond the point, the percentages are of the number of people from the sample.
          They themselves said:

          Only 25% of people say they would not have bought the music if it were not available on P2P for free.

          So, when P2P was available, 17% of the sample wasn’t paying for music at all.
          When P2P is removed, 25% of the sample still wouldn’t pay for music.
          So the opposite is true: With P2P 80~83% of the population would be paying for music and when P2P is removed, only 75% would be willing to pay for their music.
          Even if applied to their previous downloads this shows the consumption lowered. And this is further validated when you consider the budget limitations discussed above.
          It’s pretty clear.

          The last box is titled “no cds or paid sites”, not “p2p only”.

          My bad, I meant to write “nothing”. Because there’s no alternative.

          It doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have paid for the legal purchases they’ve done.

          Because they omitted that part.
          This paper mentions population consumption trends but fails horribly at trend shifting analysis. We don’t know if the 25% increased because more CD buyers decided not to buy or if it all the P2P-only decided to start purchasing but the P2P+CD+Site decided to not buy en-mass due to not being able to try songs out.
          All we can do is guess. But the Overall sample trends do give away a declining interest in music.

          There’s nothing indicating consumption would lower in the absence of p2p, since p2p is specifically an option that’s removed for the last row of boxes.

          Cause and Effect?
          If people are using p2p as a complimentary and discovery service and they lose that, it makes perfect sense that they’d consume less. It’s very clear that P2P was only an alternative to 17% of the population.

          Fact remains, 75% of pirates self report that they would buy some of what they download. Piracy is removing sales, not increasing them.

          Fact remains that although 75% of the pirates would engage in the purchasing of songs without P2P, the value of purchasing pirates was 5% to 7% higher with p2p.

          No, it actually looks like it is statistically valid.

          I think we’ve moved beyond this, I’ve actually mathematically proved you otherwise.

          Remember, the data-set was actually commissioned by Industry Canda to inform their policy development work. I doubt they would be happy about the surveying company doing a half-assed job.

          Whoops, I guess someone lost his job in 2006 then.
          The paper is incredibly bad mathematically and in terms of content. After so much scrutiny that’s pretty clear.
          Also I can’t believe I didn’t read the last page! After seeing the terrible loss estimates I assumed it was just the same mumbo-jumbo of more revenue for artists and what not (yeah right, especially with all the middle-men still standing).

          Industry Canada sponsored this paper of course what was I expecting… That could’ve saved me a few hours spent in this…
          So it’s not an independent paper but pro-copyright groups’ sponsored paper. That explains it all (including the inability to use numbers).

          It also explains why 7 years later it’s still legal to pirate in Canada.

          However, given that we’ve been over the numbers and have found them to be basically ok,

          We have?
          Let’s assume an 80% inflation then (which by itself says how much fail lurks in this paper).
          Taking into account only 75% of the population supposedly will purchase music, we get 189.4 Million but, take into account that the growth would be temporary due to budget limitations, you can consider it to last about 2 months so the end result would be 31 Million actually.
          Again, this is ignoring the 5~7% decrease in consumption. Which would mean indeed a loss of consumption.
          They’re in a lose-lose situation.

        • SoundnuoS

          I’m sorry, nice try, but it seems very clear this sample size is enough to get statistical validity.

          With a 95% confidence interval the sampling error is 2.1%. This falls well within what’s considered acceptable. Or can you point to any source apart from yourself who think it’s not?

          Secondly, this data set that you are trying very hard to invalidate is actually the exact same data used by one of the few papers that claims piracy increases sales. The Andersen and Frenz paper. That paper actually informed the policy of Industry Canada. That’s not a pro-copyright organisation. It’s a department of the Canadian government.

          The paper we’re discussing right now is just showing, based on the exact same data, that the Andersen and Frenz paper managed to come to their conclusion only by using a flawed method, i.e. regressing two endogenous variables (cd purchases on downloads).
          and by choosing not to analyse the results of question 4.4 which directly contradicts their result.

          “So, when P2P was available, 17% of the sample wasn’t paying for music at all.
          When P2P is removed, 25% of the sample still wouldn’t pay for music.”

          No, if p2p would be removed , the 25% still wouldn’t pay for the music they had downloaded. They WOULD however still have paid for the music they had bought legally. Nothing gained, nothing lost from those 25%

          The question wasn’t phrased “would removing p2p cause you to not buy the music you’ve bought”. It was phrased “how much of the music that you downloaded illegally in 2005 WOULD you have bought if p2p was unavailable”.

          75% answered that they would have bought some of it. Pretty clear cut. Nothing indicates there would be a decrease in consumption if piracy was removed, at least not the answers to question 4.4.
          The only question remaining is if the answers given were realistic from a budgetary pov. There I’ve given you as much as 80% inflation and the damages are still as high as 250 million. For one country.

        • Ardvaark

          I’m sorry, nice try, but it seems very clear this sample size is enough to get statistical validity.

          Are you absolutely insane? Do you even understand what you are saying? Once again you’re being extremely arrogant by assuming you’re correct when you know you don’t understand the concepts you’re applying.

          The sampling error doesn’t change it’s dependent on the sample you get you clueless fuck. What you do is change the confidence level and the sample’s size in order to get accurate results for the general population.

          I can’t even understand how it came to your clueless mind that the solution would be to change the sampling error. What Standard deviation did you use? What was the mean? Did you simply pull those out of your ass?

          This paper’s sampling error, for the current sampling size is 0.02%. That doesn’t change unless you interview more people!

          From there you calculate the population needed.

          Stick to your music if you can even do that. Don’t try to disprove other people on stuff you don’t even understand and expect to get away with it.

          Secondly, this data set that you are trying very hard to invalidate is actually the exact same data used by one of the few papers that claims piracy increases sales.

          From that paper I can also assume two things.
          It’s statistically incorrect ,although from what I’ve read the paper focuses only on a smaller portion of the sample.
          And the dataset shows a decrease of music interest when P2P is removed.

          Again, not all papers that prove the benefits of piracy are correct. Some do it pretty clear, like Roger Wallis’ paper, others do it by accident (the paper you linked) others fail.

          It’s a department of the Canadian government.

          With tasks related with the Copyright Board of Canada and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. The very same offices who are filled with pro-copyright people. Who’re you trying to fool. That’s sounds pretty biased.

          No, if p2p would be removed , the 25% still wouldn’t pay for the music they had downloaded.

          Precisely, but when P2P was available, only 17% wouldn’t pay for the music they had downloaded. Can’t you even spot a trend?

          They WOULD however still have paid for the music they had bought legally.

          Except that the people who do so are on the remaining 3 columns. You even wrote what the title on that column was: no Paid site or CD.

          The question wasn’t phrased “would removing p2p cause you to not buy the
          music you’ve bought”. It was phrased “how much of the music that you downloaded illegally in 2005 WOULD you have bought if p2p was unavailable”.

          Because the 1st question isn’t even physically possible.
          The fact of the matter is, when p2p was removed, more people felt they wouldn’t pay for music they downloaded.

          With P2P, 17% was downloading and not paying.
          Without it, 17% would still not pay, and an additional 8% was also not paying for what they downloaded.
          It’s a decrease in the interest of music purchase clearly.
          Don’t turn a blind eye to a clear trend.

          There I’ve given you as much as 80% inflation and the damages are still as high as 250 million. For one country.

          And I’ve told you that the damages can’t be applied to the whole population since the paper states only a part of the pirate population would remain purchasing. Furthermore, I’ve also explained how personal budget would make the actual consumption at least 6 to 9 lower than stated since it would fall back to normal values very quickly.

          Finally, Canada. If the sample isn’t even big enough to accurately apply to Canada, you can’t even hope to apply it to another 5% of the world, let alone all of it.

          Seriously, It’s like I’m arguing with a rock.
          Even maths is not enough for you to assimilate such simple stuff, it’s ridiculous.

          It’s a shame I can’t just push knowledge through someone’s ears, the world would be such a better place. And yes, I’m incredibly disappointed.

        • SoundnuoS

          Here’s two sample size calculators:
          http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
          http://www.dssresearch.com/KnowledgeCenter/toolkitcalculators/sampleerrorcalculators.aspx

          Plug in the numbers we have, 2092 sample size and 23800000 population, and both return numbers that are quite acceptable for statistical research.

          “With tasks related with the Copyright Board of Canada and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. The very same offices who are filled with pro-copyright people. Who’re you trying to fool. That’s sounds pretty biased.”

          They didn’t, however, have any problems publishing the original pro-filesharing paper on their website back in 2007.

          “Precisely, but when P2P was available, only 17% wouldn’t pay for the music they had downloaded. Can’t you even spot a trend?”

          No, you need to read again.The 17% are the people who admitted they currently get all their music illegally.

          The 25% in the following row is the percentage of people who claim that they wouldn’t have paid for any of their illegally downloaded material, they simply wouldn’t have aquired it at all. They would still have bought their legally aquired material however.

          It’s only through a serious miscomprehension of yours that you come to the conclusion that the percentage of people who wouldn’t pay for music AT ALL would increase.

          Facts remain as they are. 75% of respondents report they would increase their music consumption if p2p was removed.

          “The fact of the matter is, when p2p was removed, more people felt they wouldn’t pay for music they downloaded.”
          No, the question is specifically about the illegally downloaded material. 25% say they wouldn’t buy it even if they couldn’t download it illegally. 75% say they would buy some of it if they couldn’t download it illegally.
          What is it you find hard to understand?

        • Ardvaark

          Oh… OHhhhh
          Why didn’t I suspect of this sooner.
          You’re clueless about this, so you find a tool, plug in some numbers without actually understanding the meaning, and then you act like you actually understand what’s going on.

          So point proven. You’re clueless and wrong. Let’s have a look shall we?
          First of all, you should be fairly aware that sampling error depends of the sample and their results. It’s static for the paper because the survey is done. It’s only a variable before the survey. To improve it you’d have to do more interviews, that is, increasing sample size.
          So with the current sample, the results and the total population you’re pretty much stuck with a sampling error for a certain confidence level.

          If you had any idea of what you’re talking about that’d be the first thing you’d notice and, lo and behold, the site offers no way to calculate the mean or the standard deviation (both needed to calculate the Sampling error).
          because those sites are pre-survey estimative.

          Now bear with me, we’ll do some math using the site and then using the actual formulas. Then you’ll shut the fuck up, stop being arrogant and admit that there’s people who simply put you in a corner in terms of knowledge and that you should learn from them instead of being an idiot who thinks you’re always right.

          On the site you gave, if you put the 2100 sample size, the 17% percentage ratio and the total population you gave. We’d end up with 1.6% sampling error.
          That’s the survey’s sampling error.
          With that you’d find that 2100 sample size is 44% lower than what is actually needed (3705). Therefore the paper is incorrect.

          Now let’s use the actual formulas to further bury your argument.

          I Hope you know how to calculate the mean of a sample at the very least. The mean between 1.17
          With that let’s calculate the Standard Deviation, sigma=sqrt(E(x^2)-E(x)^2) where X is the random variable and E is the mean. So sigma = 0,38 approx
          That’s our standard deviation.
          Now that we have all that, we can calculate the sampling error E
          The formula is N = (zSigma/E)^2

          z is a “static value” that depends of your confidence level, theres tables for that, choosing 95%, z=1.96
          N is the sample size
          E is the sampling error

          so E = zSigma/sqrt(N); So we end up with sampling error of approx 0.02%!
          What does this mean? That the interviewed was extremely honest. But now let’s calculate how big the sample must be, for a 0.02% sampling error and a 23800000 total population, with the same 95% confidence level.

          And the result is approx 12million. So I did the good deed of allowing a 1% sampling error (so it would lower to about 10k people needed only).

          But you, in your infinite ignorance, completely misunderstood what the sampling error consists and how it’s used.
          Good job on proving your extreme ignorance once again.
          Never again do you dare make educated guesses on stuff you’d not understand in a million years and be arrogant about it.
          That’s the most despicable attitude you can have towards me.

          They didn’t, however, have any problems publishing the original pro-filesharing paper on their website back in 2007

          So what’re you trying to say? That you have double standards? A pro-copyright arguing for piracy doesn’t show bias, the opposite does. That’s why pro-piracy results from pro-pirate groups and pro-copyright results from pro-copyright groups are usually very scrutinized and probably biased.
          The opposite is not true. But this is also why people prefer independent studies.

          Nevertheless I’m not even sure of what you’re trying to prove. Is it that their pro-piracy paper should be invalidated? Or are you once again saying that piracy is actually ok?

          No, you need to read again.The 17% are the people who admitted they currently get all their music illegally.

          AHAHAHA amazing.

          You’ve rephrased what I said to say that I’m wrong?
          Your logic: “only 17% wouldn’t pay for the music they had downloaded” is wrong because “17% are the people who admitted they currently get all their music illegally.
          Which by mysterious forces, are exactly synonyms.
          And you complain about using circular logic… Good job.

          So I guess you finally subconsciously understand that I’m actually right.

          The 25% in the following row is the percentage of people who claim that they wouldn’t have paid for any of their illegally downloaded

          And once again you state the same.
          With P2P, of all the people downloading, 17% weren’t paying for music.
          Without P2P, of all the people downloading, 25% (8%more) wouldn’t pay for said music.
          Effectively the interest in purchasing music lowered by 8%.

          They would still have bought their legally acquired material however.

          Except the column says No Paid sites or CD, meaning no legally acquire material.

          It’s only through a serious miscomprehension of yours that you come to the conclusion that the percentage of people who wouldn’t pay for music AT ALL would increase.
          If you bother reading through the text you’ll find that of those 17% of hardcore p2pers, 33% answer that they WOULD start buying is p2p was removed.

          Oh you’re finally starting to get it. I never said that all the hardcore pirates would keep pirating.
          What is proven is that interest in music purchase lowers so there’s some hardcore pirates who would start buying but, on the other hand, there’s some pirates paying for some of the music that would stop buying.
          And the exodus from non-paying to paying is lower than the exodus from paying to non-paying, meaning the non-consuming population increases by 8%.

          And this makes perfect sense.
          I myself purchase the albums of my favorite bands. But 90+% of the artists I listen to were discovered through piracy. Without it, I’m fairly sure I’d purchase a lot less (or none).

          75% of respondents report they would increase their music consumption if p2p was removed.

          Nope, that’s not even stated on the paper.
          What’s stated on the paper is that 75% of respondents would purchase music they would previously download were P2P to be outlawed.
          What they forget to mention is that the same population that’s willing to pay for music when P2P was available was 8% higher.
          Essentially they shot themselves in the foot and hoped nobody would hear their screams of pain.

          What is it you find hard to understand?

          I ask you the same question. It’s fairly evident that a bigger number of people would lose interest in music consumption with no P2P.
          It’s explained beyond exhaustion.

          The paper you so vehemently suggested is flawed on an enormous amount of levels as I’ve shown.
          From wrongly expanding it’s findings to a global population, to statistically invalid claims, to willful (supposedly) ignorance of evident results and to omission of limiting factors (personal budgeting for example).

        • SoundnuoS

          I almost took your calculation seriously, until I reached this:

          “But now let’s calculate how big the sample must be, for a 0.02% sampling error and a 23800000 total population, with the same 95% confidence level.

          And the result is approx 12million.”

          So, what you’re saying is that, in order to be able to draw statistically valid conclusions about a population of 23800000, you’d have to sample more than half of them and reach a sampling error of 0.02%?

          Incredible! You’ve just invalidated every survey ever made and the method itself.

          For surveying populations of that size quite a few surveys settle for a less than 3% error. Do you have a source apart from yourself that claims that’s just incredibly shoddy research?

          “Nevertheless I’m not even sure of what you’re trying to prove. Is it that their pro-piracy paper should be invalidated?”

          I’m pointing out that the governmental organisation Industry Canada can’t be that biased if they choose to publish research that at first glance supports filesharing.

          As for invalidating that research, that’s what this paper is doing.

          “With P2P, of all the people downloading, 17% weren’t paying for music.
          Without P2P, of all the people downloading, 25% (8%more) wouldn’t pay for said music.
          Effectively the interest in purchasing music lowered by 8%”

          No, it didn’t. Please read the question again. The 25% would still keep buying whatever music they had chosen to get legally. The question asks how much MORE they would buy. 25% wouldn’t buy MORE music. 75% WOULD buy MORE music.

          “Except the column says No Paid sites or CD, meaning no legally acquire material.”

          This column isn’t concerned with anything else than the illegally acquired material. 25% wouldn’t have bought any of their ILLEGALLY acquired material. 75% would have bought some of their ILLEGALLY acquired material. The LEGALLY acquired material isn’t a variable in this question.

          Clearer?

          “From wrongly expanding it’s findings to a global population,”
          I wonder what paper it is you think you’re reading? This one restricts itself to Canada only.

        • Ardvaark

          Incredible! You’ve just invalidated every survey ever made and the method itself.

          Wow that escalated quickly.
          Your site seems to agree with me however and return a population of 11952270

          For surveying populations of that size quite a few surveys settle for a less than 3% error.

          You got it backwards. You can “settle” for a sample error when you’re doing the survey (because you lower it with more people questioned).

          After the survey is done, it’s done and the sampling error is calculated as I’ve shown you.

          What you can infer from my calculations is that even with a 1% sampling error the survey’s conclusions would be statistically wrong.

          For surveying populations of that size quite a few surveys settle for a less than 3% error.

          Yes, before the survey. Try to understand. You have it backwards. You aim for a sampling error, and you survey people and analyse your data until you’ve reached the value you want.

          They, however, didn’t pay any attention to that. They don’t even mention it.

          So we have to go the other way around and check , according to the results of the survey, what the sampling error was.

          That’s statistically valid as well and that’s what I did.

          Please go look for the formulas they’re everywhere on the web and you’ll check they’re correct. This isn’t even advanced statistics with bernouli approximations or any other more complex stuff.

          As for invalidating that research, that’s what this paper is doing.

          I think I explained you how bias works only for opposite viewpoints. It would be very wierd to say a pro-piracy research funded from a pro copyright company is biased. Same goes for a pro-copyright research funded by pirates.

          As for this paper’s validity, it seems they did a good job invalidating themselves.

          The 25% would still keep buying whatever music they had chosen to get legally

          No CD nor Paid sites

          That’s what it says on the square. That pretty much says they didn’t chose to get any music since those are the two only options.
          If they decided they’d pay for CD’s they’d be on the CD’s column that’s pretty obvious.

          The question asks how much MORE they would buy. 25% wouldn’t buy MORE music. 75% WOULD buy MORE music.

          Liar, liar, pants on fire.
          It says how much of what they’ve downloaded they would buy. And it clearly shows that 25% would buy none indeed. What does this say?
          That with P2P 17% were downloading and buying nothing. And the remainder were downloading and buying.
          Without P2P, no one can download, but unfortunately for the industry, 25% would now not consume music at all. So some of those who were downloading and paying are now part of those 25% who don’t consume music anymore.

          Consumption drops by 8% indeed.

          I wonder what paper it is you think you’re reading? This one restricts itself to Canada only.

          Need I remind you of the part where he applies the losses to the whole pirate population?

        • SoundnuoS

          “Your site seems to agree with me however and return a sample of 11952270″

          For a sample error of 0.02%. There’s no reason why the sample error needs to be that small.

          As it is the paper has a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +- 2%. This is completely in line with other survey based research.

          We can be fairly confident that this actually is a representative sample of the Canadian population.

          And we can be 95% certain that the percentage of Canadians over 15 doing piracy is between 31 and 27%. And we can be 95% certain that between 77 and 73% of those pirates would buy (given budget) some of their downloaded music if they wouldn’t have been able to pirate it.

          “No CD nor Paid sites”

          FOR THE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED MATERIAL ONLY.

          How many times will I have to rephrase this? Are you sure you’ve actually read the text in the paper or are you misunderstanding on purpose to keep the argument going?

          The four boxes in the last row concerns the music that was downloaded illegally. An increase in the number in that particular box does not mean a decrease in legally bought material, since it’s only concerned with the material that was never paid for in the first place.

          “Without P2P, no one can download, but unfortunately for the industry, 25% would now not consume music at all.”

          Once again, read the text in the paper instead of just looking at the diagram, thinking you have it figured out. They would still consume music. The portion of legally bought music does not decrease because they stop getting music illegally.

          I’ll rephrase it once more:

          That only means 25% wouldn’t pay for the material they obtained ILEGALLY. Since that material has never been paid for in the first place, there’s no sales loss if they choose not to buy it.

          There’s is however a sales gain, as 75% report they would start buying some of what they previously downloaded.

          “Need I remind you of the part where he applies the losses to the whole pirate population?”

          Once again, are you sure you’ve read AND understood the text in the paper? He applies the losses to the estimated Canadian pirate population, not the global pirate population.

        • Ardvaark

          For a sample error of 0.02%. There’s no reason why the sample error needs to be that small.

          Are you actually saying that the paper needs to have a bigger error for it to validate your wrong arguments?
          That’s a new one.
          Unfortunately it’s not a mater of need it’s a matter of being 0.02%. This paper, with this sample and these results has a sample error of 0.02%.
          That’s static and isn’t changing, since the research is already finished.
          Game Over

          As it is the paper has a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +- 2%. This is completely in line with other survey based research.

          HAHAHHAHAHAH
          Did you just discard reality and replaced it with your own?
          That’s amazing! I calculated what the margin of error was using the paper’s data and you instantly jumped to “the paper has +-2% MOE” when you ran out of arguments.
          No justification of where those values come from, no nothing. You just fabricated that.
          That’s a whole new low for you.

          Other papers show their statistical data, this one clearly didn’t for a reason.

          We can be fairly confident that this actually is a representative sample of the Canadian population.

          Nope, that’s pretty much disproven beyond shadow of doubt.

          And we can be 95% certain that the percentage of Canadians over 15 doing piracy is between 31 and 27%. And we can be 95% certain that between 77 and 73% of those pirates would buy (given budget) some of their downloaded music if they wouldn’t have been able to pirate it.

          You can clearly copy-paste what’s on the site with the tools you used to give statistical values when you couldn’t give your own because you don’t understand what any of this means.
          Unfortunately, you’re clueless to the point you don’t even understand the static properties of a sampling error or simple math-proven facts.
          What a shame.

          How many times will I have to rephrase this?

          You keep repeating that but I’m also only referring to the illegally obtained files. You’re getting angry at the wrong points for no reason.

          are you misunderstanding on purpose to keep the argument going?

          Me?? I’ve proven beyond shadow of doubt how things are. You’re the one who keeps ignoring the facts and making up stuff to keep your own bubble in check, and you’re getting more and more obvious. That 2% part was your biggest mistake.

          The four boxes in the last row concerns the music that was downloaded illegally.

          And before P2P was removed, 80% of the people were interested in paying while downloading at the same time.
          Then you remove P2P and the interest on purchasing music drops and a quarter of the sample decides it’s not worth paying for music.

          Once again, read the text in the paper instead of just looking at the diagram, thinking you have it figured out.

          I’ve read the whole paper mate. You’re just pissed you suggested a paper and it turned out that it was statistically invalid and that the author even failed to apply and comprehend his own research results.

          No matter how much you repeat the same mistakes things won’t change. Too bad.

        • SoundnuoS

          “This paper, with this sample and these results has a sample error of 0.02%.”

          In that case it’s brilliantly accurate, so I’m not quite sure what you’re complaining about. Or are you writing because you’re trying to cover up that you’ve confused percentages (2) with hundredths of them (0.02)?

          Are we basically agreeing that the information in this link:

          http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/samples/confidenceinterval.htm

          is how this statistics stuff works and what the terms mean?

          Are you saying that I’m wrong in stating that this paper with this population (23800000), sample size (2092)and percentage of pirates (29) has a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval (sample error) of 2% (1.94 to be exact)? That’s what all the calculators say anyway.

          Correct me in that case and explain why a sampling error of 0.02% would be necessary to draw statistically valid conclusions.

          “Other papers show their statistical data, this one clearly didn’t for a reason.”

          Maybe, if you’d actually read and understand the paper, you’d find that this isn’t a new set of data collected for this paper. This paper merely comments on and criticizes a previous paper based on that same data, the info on the statistical data can undoubtedly be found in that original paper.

          What the author of THIS paper criticizes ISN’T the data itself, apparently he thinks it’s statistically valid. What he criticizes is the way the authors of the original paper set up their equation and how they chose to disregard the answers to question 4.4 which completely contradicts the results they got.

          “And before P2P was removed, 80% of the people were interested in paying while downloading at the same time.
          Then you remove P2P and the interest on purchasing music drops and a quarter of the sample decides it’s not worth paying for music.”

          No, that’s an incorrect conclusion. There’s no indication general interest in purchasing music is dropping. The ONLY thing that’s shown is that 25% wouldn’t be interested in purchasing the material they previously downloaded illegally. Nothing gained, nothing lost. 75% WOULD be interested in purchasing some of what they previously downloaded illegaly. Definitely something gained.
          What it shows is that piracy works to displace sales, not increase them. In todays market the sampling effect of piracy is overrated given all the other legal channels that exist to sample music.

        • Ardvaark

          In that case it’s brilliantly accurate, so I’m not quite sure what you’re complaining about.

          It is incredibly accurate, I’ve actually said that myself, how surprising.
          The problem is you do not understand the implications of this. You’re completely clueless.

          The sampling error is 0.02 I’ve calculated it for you. You read it.
          This means that the sample is not high enough.

          But even better, if you input my results in the tools you trust they confirm my results with a 0.02% sampling error!
          And if you calculate everything from the beginning using only your tools, it shows you need a 3705 sample size so even then the paper’s absolutely wrong.
          There’s no discussion arround that. It’s proven beyond shadow of doubt. Even your own arguments turned against you in the end.

          Are we basically agreeing that the information in this link:
          *link*
          is how this statistics stuff works and what the terms mean?

          Absolutely. If you read the sampling error description you’ll understand exactly why I’m right.

          Are you saying that I’m wrong in stating that this paper with this population (23800000), sample size (2092)and percentage of pirates (29) has a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval (sample error) of 2% (1.94 to be exact)? That’s what all the calculators say anyway.

          Why are you willfully ignoring 17% of the sample? Your percentage is 17% or 83% not 29, otherwise the sample size is 1743 and your total population is 7053251.

          In that case you’d indeed get a 2.13% sampling error but you’d get a 1743 population where you’d actually need 2116, you’d still be 18% too low
          So even with your mistake of ignoring a chunk of the sample you still get statistically wrong results.

          So I think we’re clear now that, beyond shadow of doubt, this paper is void.

          Correct me in that case and explain why a sampling error of 0.02% would be necessary to draw statistically valid conclusions.

          It’s not a matter of necessity, it’s a matter of being. Once you’re done with a survey, the sample rate is what it is and depends totally on the sample, and not on your needs.
          It’s a static value. Try to at least understand that simple thing.

          the info on the statistical data can undoubtedly be found in that original paper.

          So they decided to pick an invalid paper and base their conclusions on it?
          That’s not a smart thing to do

          What the author of THIS paper criticizes ISN’T the data itself, apparently he thinks it’s statistically valid.

          I know he doesn’t criticise the data. That’s what makes this paper utterly ridiculous.
          He assumes something is correct and pulls out an point based on wrong assumptions. For a supposedly official paper that’s some serious mistake.

          they chose to disregard the answers to question 4.4 which completely contradicts the results they got.

          Well that question’s results seem to show that without P2P the interest in purchasing music lowers by 5% to 8%. So they’re actually wrong in there.

          No, that’s an incorrect conclusion. There’s no indication general interest in purchasing music is dropping. The ONLY thing that’s shown is that 25% wouldn’t be interested in purchasing the material they previously downloaded illegally.

          Except that before, 80% of the sample was downloading some and purchasing some and afterwards, only 75% were purchasing, they weren’t downloading because supposedly P2P was removed so they consume 0.

          But at this point even the conclusions are irrelevand.
          The paper is wrong and void.
          End of argument.

        • SoundnuoS

          I’m still not quite following your reasoning here. It does look like you’re confusing the 0.02 result with 0.02% instead of 2% as it should be.

          The only way of getting a 0.02 margin of error using the 83% expected music listeners is by upping the sample size to 8400000 so you’ve gone wrong somewhere.

          So, with 83% music listeners, sample size 2092 and population 23800000 we get 95% confidence level and +- 1.61 margin of error.

          This should mean that the percentage of pirates is between 30.61 and 27.39 in the total population (in 2005), making it roughly between 7280000 and 6520000 people.

          Are you just trying to say that the sample size of 445 verified pirates that the calculations in this paper is based on is too small to get a 2% margin of error for the estimated population of pirates?

          In that case, yes, but that doesn’t mean statistically valid conclusions can’t be drawn. It just means that the margin of error for those answers will be slightly wider.

          Using the numbers in the paper, 445 verified pirates,
          7053251 estimated pirates and 75% expected to report buying some of their pirated music if p2p wasn’t available, we get 95% confidence level and +- 4.02 margin of error.

          So that should still mean we can be fairly sure that between 79.02 and 70.98% of the pirate population would report that piracy is displacing some sales for them.
          Correct me if I’m wrong.

          “Except that before, 80% of the sample was downloading some and purchasing some and afterwards, only 75% were purchasing, they weren’t downloading because supposedly P2P was removed so they consume 0.”

          No, it just means 25% wouldn’t purchase the music they previously downloaded illegally. It doesn’t mean they would stop getting music all together.
          This is the question as it was posed:
          Considering the songs that you downloaded for free through P2P networks during 2005
          a) what % would you have purchased as paid music sites if they were not available through P2P
          b) what % would you have purchased as part of a music CD if they were not available through P2P
          The answers to that question is what is tabulated in the last row.
          What, in the phrasing of that question supports your claim?

        • Ardvaark

          I’m still not quite following your reasoning here. It does look like
          you’re confusing the 0.02 result with 0.02% instead of 2% as it should
          be.

          I Calculated it right up there. The result doesn’t comes in percentage not in a subset so why should I turn 0.02% into 2% magically?
          I don’t

          This should mean that the percentage of pirates is between 30.61 and 27.39 in the total population (in 2005), making it roughly between 7280000 and 6520000 people.

          Should, but unfortunately that sample is too low to infer anything. Like I’ve told you it would need to be 3705.

          Furthermore you don’t get a 95% confidence level. That’s the only thing you can set yourself.

          Stop trying. You’re in the wrong here and your cluelessness is evident.

          Are you just trying to say that the sample size of 445 verified pirates that the calculations in this paper is based on is too small to get a 2% margin of error for the estimated population of pirates?

          I’m trying to say you wilfully ignored 17% of the population in hopes to get a result right when in the end it’s still statistically wrong. Yes, that sample is too small. Just like when you consider the total population you’re still too short of people.

          In that case, yes, but that doesn’t mean statistically valid conclusions can’t be drawn. It just means that the margin of error for those answers will be slightly wider.

          Except that, with the margin of error you have, the sample size would need to be bigger or you can’t draw statistically valid conclusions conclusions.

          No way you can twist this in your favor. It’s what it is.
          The sample is too low. If you don’t agree with my maths just because it shatters your worldview try your own noob-tools, they also shatter your world view.

          Using the numbers in the paper, 445 verified pirates, 7053251 estimated pirates and 75% expected to report buying some of their pirated music if p2p wasn’t available, we get 95% confidence level and +- 4.02 margin of error.

          WTF?

          HAhahahahahah that’s the most desperate move if yours right there.
          You tried with the whole population, failed. You tried with 83% of the population, failed. And now you try with 29% of the population?
          Ridiculous.
          Why, whenever you’re disproven do you keep twisting stuff back and forth in desperation instead of admitting you’re wrong.
          You just make yourself look more and more ridiculous!

          And yet you still fail. Because you don’t know proportions. If the full population is not enough for a statistically valid argument, then a proportionally smaller portion of the sample shares the same errors.

          Look

          29% of the population is 609. Those are the verified pirates.

          Using a 7053251 population and a 75% expectancy and a 95% LOC you get 3.44% sampling error.

          That accounts for a sample size of 811 needed instead of 609.

          And even if you use 445 people (21%). You’d still need 594 sample size instead of a 445.

          Correct me if I’m wrong.

          There you have it.
          You’ve been corrected four times.

          The paper is statistically invalid no matter how you try to spin it.

        • SoundnuoS

          Now I’m sure you’re getting confused by the 0.02 result. That means the sampling error is 2%, NOT 0.02%.

          “Just like when you consider the total population you’re still too short of people.”

          This makes no difference. The 2092 sample size will be just as valid and give the same margin of error for a population of 23800000 as it would be for a population double the size.

          That means this sample size, in a worst case scenario with an expectancy of 50% answer variation will return your 2.14% margin of error REGARDLESS of the size of the population. (Until you get down to a population of less than 300000, that is. Then the margin of error starts diminishing.)

          This sample size is obviously statistically valid. Increasing sample size will do nothing except slightly reducing the margin of error. As it is, the margin of error in this paper is pretty good.

          “And even if you use 445 people (21%). You’d still need 594 sample size instead of a 445.”

          445 is what the paper bases it’s answers in question 4.4 and its loss calculations on. That’s the amount of pirates who reported downloading a specific number of files.

          And for what do you need it to be 594? That will reduce the margin of error from 4.02 to 3.48.

          What, in your opinion, is the massive gain in that? We’ll still be fairly sure more than 70% of the pirates would report that piracy is displacing some sales.

          You are obviously bullshitting atm.

        • Ardvaark

          Now I’m sure you’re getting confused by the 0.02 result.

          You’re sure?

          You, who knows nothing of statistical mathematics are sure that it’s not 0.02 when I’ve calculated that value in front of you?

          Are you absolutely retarded or is it the truth hurting too much?

          This makes no difference. The 2092 sample size will be just as valid and give the same margin of error for a population of 23800000 as it would be for a population double the size.

          WTF?

          Did you just completely ignore all that you’ve read before and basic statistic maths concepts now?

          That’s next? Disobey the laws of physics?

          The sample is too low to be statistically invalid.

          Why do you keep insisting after you’ve been disproved. Is your ego that fragile?

          That means this sample size, in a worst case scenario with an expectancy of 50% answer variation will return your 2.14%

          “Expectancy of 50% answer variation”?
          Are you inventing measurements now? Hilarious.
          And you even managed to relate that with the sampling error somehow. Nice.

          It’s a basic statistical concept that the sample size and the statistical conclusions drawn from it always depend and are related with the total population you’re studying.

          This sample size is obviously statistically valid.

          I’ve proven you four times it isn’t.

          You’ve started now inventing stuff and pulling unjustified numbers out of your ass as a last resort to say it is. Guess who has the credibility in this argument?

          As it is, the margin of error in this paper is pretty good.

          Indeed 0.02% is a very good margin of error.

          And for what do you need it to be 594? That will reduce the margin of error from 4.02 to 3.48.

          You got it backwards. With a 445 sample, the margin of error shows that the sample is statistically invalid because the population needed should be 594.

          It’s pretty straight forward. The fact you’re even failing at such basic concepts is very revealing.

          You are obviously bullshitting atm.

          AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
          I’ve backed all my facts with maths.
          Even to gain more credibility I used the same tools you used, since you chose them so you trust them, to further confirm my claims.
          Then you start inventing imaginary measurements and throwing random conclusions without any evidence and I’m the one bullshiting?
          Hilarious.

          Admit you’re wrong and crawl back to your hole.
          At this point I’m just laughing at your lack of spine.

        • Vygil

          Dude, I’ve been following this connvo for a bit and you’ve got the patiense of a saint..
          I’d have told the guy to fuck off since he clearly is just trolling and doesnt get it.

          Just do one thing, please. I think you’ve actually mistaken the 0.02 for 2% since it makes more sense,but appart from that you’re absolutely right.
          Just confirm that part.

        • SoundnuoS

          He most certainly has done that mistake, as well as the mistake of assuming that the sample size isn’t enough to draw statistically valid conclusions.

        • Ardvaark

          You’ll be surprised with the second part of your sentence.

        • Ardvaark

          I’ve double checked.

          It indeed appears to be 2%. My bad for not spotting that before.

          I rounded it from 0.0163 to 0.02% and since it didn’t match SoundnuoS tool’s I assumed the tools were wrong. When indeed the 1.61% and the 0.0163 are very similar.

          It appears that now all’s proven and concluded

          Also thanks for the compliment ;)

        • SoundnuoS

          “You, who knows nothing of statistical mathematics are sure that it’s not 0.02 when I’ve calculated that value in front of you?”

          Basic explanation:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

          Getting the result as 0.02 means you’re getting the percentage. Nice try mate.
          Either you’re the one who is clueless, or then you just can’t accept that you failed interpreting your calculations.

          “Did you just completely ignore all that you’ve read before and basic statistic maths concepts now?”

          Quote from the same Wikipedia article:

          The margin of error for a particular sampling method is essentially the same regardless of whether the population of interest is the size of a school, city, state, or country, as long as the sampling fraction is less than 5%.

          And in this case the sampling fraction is 2092 / 238000000 which is fairly safely below 5%.

          Hilarious, indeed.

        • Ardvaark

          The margin of error for a particular sampling method is essentially the
          same regardless of whether the population of interest is the size of a school, city, state, or country, as long as the sampling fraction is less than 5%.

          How can you misinterpret this!?
          When have I said otherwise? What I’ve said is that the sampling error depends of the sample size. And this is a mathematical fact
          And that once a survey is done it is static.

          You see, that quote of yours is true, the sampling error doesn’t change with the population size. It’s intrinsically related with the sampling size. That’s why it’s called sampling error.
          I thought that was pretty obvious.

          But the population size was always 23800000 (by the way you put an extra zero there for no apparent reason).
          What we’ve been seeing is if this sample size is statistically valid to the population at hand or not. A static value.

          Now, I’ve revised my calculus and it indeed looks like 0.02 goes to 2%. Like you and Vygil pointed out.
          Next time don’t just say I’m wrong and actually justify yourself.
          You’ll gain some credibility.

          But here comes the fun part:

          this, actually proves I’m actually right! You see, when I got the final value, since I thought it was an incredibly low value I rounded it to .02 but, lets pick up on the calculus again?

          Sigma= 0.38
          z=1.96
          and a Sample size of 2100
          So the sampling error is actually 0.0163 or 1.63%

          So indeed it matches your tools’ results! (Almost, it gives 1.61 but meh)
          Now notice that the formula doesn’t depend on the population size.
          Exactly because of your quote before. The sampling error is dependent of the sample size and not the total population, unless said population is too small compared to the sample.

          Now using your tools you’ll find that with a 1.63% sampling error, the needed sample size is 3614 people for it to meaningfully represent a population of 23800000.

          So there we have it. The sample isn’t big enough. The paper is statistically invalid.
          End of argument.

          Word of the wise, it’s good you go read on stuff but don’t assume you can understand what takes years of study in just a few minutes. Unless you’re some genius which you clearly aren’t.

          Using your own words now:

          Hilarious, indeed.

        • SoundnuoS

          Ok, so we agree on all but this:

          “Now using your tools you’ll find that with a 1.63% sampling error, the needed sample size is 3614 people for it to meaningfully represent a population of 23800000.”

          No, the sample size of 2092 still meaningfully represents the population. The sample error just tells us how wide the interval will be where the true percentage of any answer is likely to be located.

        • Ardvaark

          No, the sample size of 2092 still meaningfully represents the population.

          It seems there’s more we don’t agree then because for you to say that you still don’t understand that the sampling error relates with the sample size.

          In this case the paper’s sampling error is 1.63% and static. That doesn’t change. And that means that this paper’s sample is too small to be meaningful

          The sample error just tells us how wide the interval will be where the true percentage of any answer is likely to be located.

          Quoting wikipedia alone won’t get you far if you don’t understand what’s actually written.
          What you mean is that the sampling error shows how spread across the confidence interval the random variable’s results are.

          What you said is indeed true but that’s all pointless to your argument because you forgot the second part of it.
          The distribution is always a Gaussian function. The sampling error essentially means how “cluttered” the results are together, but that also means that a the sample must be bigger to be meaningful. Essentially this means that the sampling error is directly related with the validity of the sample. You can see this on one of the images of the wiki by the way.

          So effectively, since the this sample is 2100 and it’s not going to change anymore. The sampling error is also static and isn’t going to change anymore.

          So from those we can infer that this sample’s sampling error is too low to be statistically meaningful, and that an appropriate value would be a higher sample (3614 in this case).

          The only thing upping the sample size to 3614 would accomplish is a very slight reduction of the sample error.

          It would achieve validity.

        • SoundnuoS

          “It would achieve validity.”

          No, it would reduce margin of error. That’s what the sample error is. There’s no magical threshold of validity.

          The Gaussian curve visually shows the probability that the real percentage will be within a certain distance of the reported percentage.

          Applied on the percentage of pirates in the population reported in this paper the current margin of error (1.63) says we can be 95% sure that the true percentage of pirates in the population is somewhere between 30.63 and 27.37. We have a degree of uncertainty, but the distribution is fairly tight.

          If we up the sample size to 3614 but retain the percentage we’ll get a sample error of 1.22.
          Applied on the same percentage of pirates we’ll be 95% certain that the true percentage is between 30.22 and 27.78. The curve will be slightly tighter, but the expected variation in the results isn’t that much smaller.

          If we want to reduce all uncertainty we’d have to poll everyone in the population. That means the sample error would be reduced to zero. We’d have no Gaussian curve anymore.

          What’s does reducing the margin of error from 1.63 to 1.22 do, that in your opinion would suddenly turn this from invalid to valid?

        • Ardvaark

          No, it would reduce margin of error.

          The margin of error depends on the sample.
          The sample is static since the survey is done. So it’s an accurate measurement of the validity of the paper.
          Why of all things are you arguing against what I’ve mathematically proven to you beyond shadow of doubt when all you can do is quote wikipedia and hope you understand what in the end is beyond your comprehension?

          There’s no magical threshold of validity.

          There are factors for validity. One of them is to have a meaningful sample.

          The Gaussian curve visually shows the probability that the real percentage will be within a certain distance of the reported percentage.

          See? This is why you’re clueless. You just have no clue of what you said. You’re completely wrong.
          The Gaussian curve shows the distribution of the values that the random variable can have across the spectrum of possible answers.

          Applied on the percentage of pirates in the population reported in this paper the current margin of error (1.63) says we can be 95% sure that the true percentage of pirates in the population is somewhere between 30.63 and 27.37. We have a degree of uncertainty, but the distribution is fairly tight.

          And your point is?
          You’re just saying stuff but you’re not proving anything. That’s like me saying “That car is blue” in a discussion about which car is the fastest.
          Again you’re just throwing random stuff you find and hope it magically solves anything.
          Now you’ve definitely hit the wall. The numbers are proven, the calculus are confirmed, the conclusions are backed up.
          You’ve lost it. Don’t lose your self-worth with it also.

          If we up the sample size to 3614 but retain the percentage we’ll get a sample error of 1.22.

          But why the hell do you retain the percentage? Are you a magician now?
          See this is where you’re just making stuff up to the point you can’t even see the one-way property of the problem.
          Ridiculous.

          Applied on the same percentage of pirates we’ll be 95% certain that the true percentage is between 30.22 and 27.78. The curve will be slightly tighter, but the expected variation in the results isn’t that much smaller.

          Again throwing random stuff hoping it sticks? What does the shape of the graph prove? How can you predict that which can’t be predicted?
          And much more important, how do you know that the variation is much smaller? Do you even know what variation is?
          Spoilers: Of course you don’t! You’re just using terms loosely.
          If you’d be doing this as a doctor you’d probably have killed someone by now.

          If we want to reduce all uncertainty we’d have to poll everyone in the population.

          Now you’re just being ridiculous. All I’m asking is a statistically valid sample. This one falls 44% short.

          hat means the sample error would be reduced to zero. We’d have no Gaussian curve anymore.

          AHAHAHHAHAHAHA
          THAT
          BOLDED
          PART

          Do you have any clue of what you said? The magnitude of that error??
          There is always a Gaussian curve. It’s the essence of a random variable applied to a sample (being it a portion of a population or a total population!)
          You’ve just failed at the first thing you learn when studying statistics. Not even joking! You essentially said that the whole Canadian population is, in a kind of macabre way, a clone of a single person.
          Congratulations, this is pure comedic gold.

          What’s does reducing the margin of error from 1.63 to 1.22 do, that in your opinion would suddenly turn this from invalid to valid?

          And I ask you again, how do you know that the margin of error becomes 1.22? Did you suddenly develop magical powers? Or maybe you bough a crystal ball.
          That’s nice, but I rather stick to science, maths and physics than metaphysics and the occult.

        • Vygil

          You’re welcome
          So in the end your conclusions were right and you just missed that number.

          Im 100% with you now, its clear that his whole argument fell now.
          good job,
          I admire all that effort

        • SoundnuoS

          Please, explain to the rest of the world how his conclusions were right?

        • SoundnuoS

          You’re not really arguing in any meaningful way here. I’ve already asked you to justify why you think you’d need the specific numbers you claim would be needed, but you keep dodging the issue.

          “The margin of error depends on the sample.”

          Hey, thank you, that’s what I’ve been saying these past 10 posts. Changing the sample will affect absolutely nothing but the margin of error. It’s the margin of error in this paper you keep complaing about, despite the fact that we’ve already proven that it’s fairly accurate.
          So, what’s your point?

          “There is always a Gaussian curve. It’s the essence of a random variable applied to a sample (being it a portion of a population or a total population!)”

          Do you have any idea what I wrote? If your sample IS the total population then your margin of error is reduced to zero, because you’ve asked every single person the sample is supposed to cover. If the margin of error is zero, then there is no longer any curve to describe the distribution of the margin of error. Or can you magically produce a curve describing the distribution of zero?

          “And I ask you again, how do you know that the margin of error becomes 1.22?”

          IF, repeating IF, we retain the expected 83% THEN the margin of error with the sample size you demanded becomes 1.22.

          But, hey, lets return to the drawing board and ignore what the numbers in this paper already tell us that we can expect.

          You do know that we can calculate the absolute worst case margin of error for any given sample, right?

          That’s when the distribution of answers is exactly 50/50. We’ll get 50% music listeners and 50% non-music listeners. That’s the percentage you’d use when you decide how large of a sample you’ll need, but you have no idea how people will answer.

          So let’s see what the margins of error would be in that case both for the original 2092 sample and your 3614 sample.

          2092: margin of error +-2.14.
          3614: margin of error +-1.63.

          That’s as bad as the error will ever become with these sample sizes for ANY population size.

          Now lets see, once again what the error is for this paper:

          2092, with 83%: +-1.61.

          Hey, looks like it’s less than the worst case scenario with the 3614 sample size. Great!

          So, now explain what makes you willing to accept the paper with a 3614 sample size while dismissing it with a 2092 sample size. WHAT would be changed apart from the the margin of error?

        • Ardvaark

          You’re not really arguing in any meaningful way here. I’ve already asked you to justify why you think you’d need the specific numbers you claim would be needed, but you keep dodging the issue.

          What the fuck? Are you for real now?
          I’ve justified my numbers with maths. That’s as meaningful as it gets! I even wrote the formulas I’ve used!
          Unless you’re some maths genius who can now discover a new formula, you’ll have to accept that my claims are right because they’re backed by maths.
          In fact, I’ve pointed those very clearly and you’ve been dodging the issue by quoting random pointless unrelated stuff and saying nonsense!

          Hey, thank you, that’s what I’ve been saying these past 10 posts.

          Actually I‘ve been saying that since the first post. Your point being?
          I hope you’re aware that the sample, at this point, doesn’t change because the interviews are done. We can only assume what it should be.
          You’re confusing the sample (the actual sample), with the sample size.

          Changing the sample will affect absolutely nothing but the margin of error. It’s the margin of error in this paper you keep complaing about, despite the fact that we’ve already proven that it’s fairly accurate.

          Are you imagining things now?
          I’m not changing the sample because the sample can’t change any more. Can you go back in time and redo the interviews? No? Then the sample can’t change.
          I’m not arguing that the sampling error should change either because, I’ve only calculated this paper’s sample rate. Never, in any of my replies have I said it should change. It can’t.
          Your comprehension skills are so sub par and you’re so confused in this that you’re just saying things that didn’t even happen! Ridiculous!

          What I’m doing is seeing what, according to this sample, the sampling error is. And with that I’m seeing if the actual sample is correct or, in case that it isn’t what size should it be.
          Simple as that. I’ve calculated the sampling error 1.63% and I’ve then proven you that for this sample, with this margin of error, the sample size should be about 3700 for it to be meaningful, and that therefore, this paper is invalid.

          It’s not rocket science, it’s just your ego desperately trying to protect itself by throwing random rubbish and being disproven, then you throwing the paper only to be found there’s a billion flaws in it, then you making the colossal error of bringing statistics into the equation when you knew nothing about the subject only to be found that the paper is completely flawed.

          Do you have any idea what I wrote?

          Oh I do. Apparently you don’t know what you wrote. Before I answer on this I’m actually curious, what would be the shape of the graphic then?
          Once again it’s very clear you’re clueless about the whole topic when you say this:

          If the margin of error is zero, then there is no longer any curve to describe the distribution of the margin of error.

          The Gaussian curve does not represent the distribution of the margin of error. The Gaussian curve shows the concentration of the values of the random variable.
          I wrote this on the previous reply! You missed it!
          The higher number of occurrences of a certain value of the random variable, the higher the curve will be in that place.
          Usually these occurrences clutter together in a central point (the mean) and the further from the mean, the less common the occurrence of a certain value is, hence a closer to 0 Y-axis value, and that’s why the graph is a Gaussian.

          Now here’s the nice thing.
          If you interviewed the whole population you’d still get different answers, some more common than the others, and therefore you would still have a Gaussian curve! Because there’s always a Gaussian curve.
          What you’d also have is a 0 margin of error because the confidence interval would be 100% meaning that the Gaussian wouldn’t be “cut-off” at the extremes.
          The only way for it not to be a Gaussian would be for each random variable value to happen exactly the same amount of times, in which case it would be a straight line parallel to the X-Axis. And even that can be considered an “odd shaped Gaussian” if you will.
          So you’d have essentially a number of clones equal to the number of possible answers, where each type clone would always answer the same thing.
          And before you mention it, if every one answered the same thing you’d still have a Gaussian with an incredibly huge spike in the middle.

          The sampling error is the width/2 of the Gaussian. So in essence with a margin of error of 0, you would have a Gaussian describing the distribution perfectly only.

          So so far in your reply you’ve: misunderstood what the Gaussian represents, misunderstood what the margin of error is, misunderstood the problem in itself. 3 Mistakes.

          So, since you’re arguing that I’m not justifying what I say, prepare to be bombarded with every single piece of information.
          You wanna get a headache, you’ll get a headache.

          Moving on…

          Or can you magically produce a curve describing the distribution of zero?

          I cannot. Too bad you misunderstood what the graphic actually represents. A distribution of 0 means nobody was interviewed.

          IF, repeating IF, we retain the expected 83% THEN the margin of error with the sample size you demanded becomes 1.22.

          HOW, repeating HOW do you know that the margin of error will be 1.22?
          Can you predict that it will be 83% if you interview more people? Of course you cannot.
          The paper needs a sample size of 3705 to be valid. So the paper is invalid and a closed point. We’re now arguing on suppositions. I hope you’re aware of that.

          And again, you cannot know that when interviewing 3705 people the distribution will be the same. Most likely it wont.
          Picking the characteristics of a sample and applying it to a different sample is a serious statistical mistake.
          So unless you can predict the future, you’re just pulling numbers out of your ass.

          So now there’s the 4th mistake, you assume that applying the results backwards (Sample size that should be, with the remaining parameters of what the sample was) will be backwards compatible
          Essentially meaning you don’t understand the one-way properties of the problem.

          But, hey, lets return to the drawing board and ignore what the numbers in this paper already tell us that we can expect.

          So are you as a last resort ignoring all the points against you?
          Need I remind you that the paper was proven invalid already.

          You do know that we can calculate the absolute worst case margin of error for any given sample, right?

          You can?? You’re just considering the worst case scenario there. But ok… sure… that’s a way to view it.

          That’s when the distribution of answers is exactly 50/50.

          That’s nice, but we already know what the actual distribution is so that’s a mute, desperate point.
          So what are you arguing here? that the paper is invalid but it could be valid if the conditions were right? Well, true, but that won’t magically fix this paper.
          Sorry.

          But at this point I’ll read on just to see what you’re trying to say…

          We’ll get 50% music listeners and 50% non-music listeners. That’s the percentage you’d use when you decide how large of a sample you’ll need, but you have no idea how people will answer.

          First mistake, you actually know what people will answer. 50% will say they pirate, and another 50% will say they don’t.

          That’s as bad as the error will ever become with these sample sizes for ANY population size.

          Of course, you’ve calculated the maximum sample error for both population sizes. So that’s very much excepted. I’m getting really curious now…

          Hey, looks like it’s less than the worst case scenario with the 3614 sample size. Great!

          Well, what did you expect? That it would magically be above the possible maximum, basically saying that my calculations were wrong along with my whole argument? Of course not…
          So before I answer your ultimate question and end this argument let’s sum this last part of yours up ok?

          So, you’ve found out the maximum possible sampling error for the original sample. You’ve confirmed my calculus are correct because they’re within the margin. And, based on that, you claim that I’m wrong?
          Sorry to disappoint you but you simply wasted all that time stating the obvious and proving nothing….

          So, now explain what makes you willing to accept the paper with a 3614 sample size while dismissing it with a 2092 sample size. WHAT would be changed apart from the the margin of error?

          Most certainly I will.
          The reason is simple and I’ve mentioned it before: statistical validity.

          There are several reasons for this.
          First of all, yes, increasing the sample changes the sampling error. That’s very obvious and very logical. I believe I even said a couple of replies ago that they’re related to each other so It’s very expected for it to change to a value at most, of 2.14%.
          That however says nothing about the conclusion. In fact, the change in what the sampling error is in itself means nothing for this argument, I don’t even know why you’re so obsessed with it.

          Secondly, notice the words I said, “at most 2.14%”. This will be important in a second. The problem is that we had a sample of about 2100 people with a certain result.
          For that sample we found out what the sampling error was. You’ve agreed that those values don’t change since they’re related with the current sample and the results obtained from it. So far so good.
          The issue is that the sample is too low to be valid since, for the results taken from it to be valid and with its current margin of error, the actual size should be 3705 like I’ve calculated to you.

          That’s all I’m arguing. I’m not saying the sampling error should change or not. What I’m saying is that this sample isn’t meaningful, and I’ve proven you with calculus why that is so. Just like that.

          Now let’s look at the 3705 sample size. What this means is that the margin of error will change. That’s expected and obvious, but it’s beyond the point or any interest. It’s just a consequence, like throwing something in the air and it falling due to gravity.
          Why does the sampling error change however? Well because more people will be answering, so the distribution might be different. For example the percentage of music consumers might lower from 83% to 72%, or it might rise.
          The fact of the matter is we can’t predict what these results will yield until we do them. We can, however, be sure that they’ll be valid if we don’t commit any errors in the process.

          And this is where the “at most” part comes into hand.
          Like you’ve said, the margin of error for this population can be, at most 2.14%. But it certainly doesn’t mean it is or will ever be that. Like I’ve said above, when you interview more people the results will obviously change.
          Even if we maintain the 2100 interviews already done and just do an extra 1605 (and this isn’t a good idea because of the age of the data). imagine if all those new people answer “No, I don’t listen to music”. That extreme, highly unlikely, but possible, situation would make it so that the non-consuming population would change from 17% to 53%, or to 10% of they all said they consume music.
          That kind of change in the distribution of the answers of the sample is what changes the sampling error, but that’s not a problem per see, it’s a consequence. Do you understand?
          What needs to happen is that more data must be gathered, so that the distribution of answers will be closer to reality to be meaningful. This will also mean that the conclusions might change.
          Now obviously in those extreme cases, the sample would also not be statistically valid either and you’d probably start over or interview more people (this doesn’t mean, however that this only happens with very extreme cases by the way, but it’s the most visible example to show the reasons that lead to invalidity).

          The thing with the sampling error is that it was the thing I was missing. I obviously had the sample size so all I was missing to verify the validity of the sample was the sampling error, so I calculated it. But that’s about it.

          And that’s all I’ve been arguing about. This sample is statistically invalid with its current size and data, the solution is to either increase it or simply re-do the interviews.

          I sincerely hope you’re clarified now because now I’m getting tired of playing the teaching role to someone who doesn’t seem to be too eager to learn.

        • SoundnuoS

          “The issue is that the sample is too low to be valid since, for the results taken from it to be valid and with its current margin of error, the actual size should be 3705 like I’ve calculated to you.”

          Are you sure you understand what confidence level and margin of error means?

          “That extreme, highly unlikely, but possible, situation would make it so that the non-consuming population would change from 17% to 53%, or to 10% of they all said they consume music.”

          And you do understand that the more extreme percentages you get in your sample, the more the margin of error will be reduced? This means that getting 83% of music listeners with a sample size of 2092 means that the probability that it’s actually correct is increased.

          “If you interviewed the whole population you’d still get different answers, some more common than the others, and therefore you would still have a Gaussian curve!”

          That’s the Gaussian for the distribution of real answers, not the Gaussian for the margin of error. Two different things.

          “The issue is that the sample is too low to be valid since, for the results taken from it to be valid and with its current margin of error, the actual size should be 3705 like I’ve calculated to you.”

          Still no explanation for this. Links to some page explaining your calculation and the theory behind it would be great, until then I’m going to assume you don’t really know what you’re talking about. You’ve already mixed up 2% and 0.02%.

          Look, by now we KNOW how statistically valid this paper is. We can be 95% sure that the results for Canada will fall within the results of this paper by a margin of +-1.61. That’s it.

          It’s possible that getting another 1605 people to sample would radically change all percentages and give completely new results, but we’re 95% sure that it WON’T.

          You’re looking to increase confidence level beyond what is commonly used in statistical research. This won’t happen with the small increase of 1605 people in the sample. We’ll still just be 95% sure we’re getting results that are representative for the whole population.

        • Ardvaark

          Are you sure you understand what confidence level and margin of error means?

          Seriously?
          You didn’t know what a simple gaussian graph represents and you’re asking me this?
          What’s the confidence level have to do with my statement besides it being a variable in the calculus? Nothing.
          My statement is as true as it gets.

          In fact it doesn’t get more concrete that the whole explanation before it leading to that specific conclusion from me that you quoted!
          If after reading all that you cannot understand then I have bad news for you.

          And you do understand that the more extreme percentages you get in your sample, the more the margin of error will be reduced?

          Actually this is not true at all. It can decrease or it can increase. It depends pretty much of where the percentage tends to.
          And again. Why are you so obsessed with the margin of error?

          The more times I read your comment the more I suspect you didn’t read my reply at all.
          I’ve spent an extensive amount of text explaining how what the margin of error represents and how it is meaningless to the problem beyond the calculus of the validity and yet you still obsess with the tendency of it to lower or increase. When that says nothing.

          This means that getting 83% of music listeners with a sample size of 2092 means that the probability that it’s actually correct is increased.

          That’s not true at all!
          See you read the definition of sampling error but you completely failed at applying the concept because you don’t know anything beyond what I’ve told you.

          I’ll repeat myself one last time. Just because the sampling error is low, meaning that the results are close to reality, doesn’t magically make a sample statistically valid.
          It can be close to reality but, the sample might still not be big enough, or telling enough to accurately draw valid conclusions from it. That’s all that I’ve said. That’s all I’m arguing, and that’s all I’ve proven.

          Imagine you interview only 1000 people and 800 of them say yes and 200 says no. You have a 20% distribution. You have an acceptable sampling error as well but it’s pretty clear that the sample isn’t big enough to draw accurate conclusions of the population.
          The same problem applies to the paper’s sample. Simple as that.
          The results can be pretty accurate with the current snapshot but you can’t be sure that they correctly apply to the whole population because the sample is too small. Interviewing more people will change the sample and the results but, it will also make it more accurate.

          That’s the Gaussian for the distribution of real answers, not the Gaussian for the margin of error. Two different things.

          See?
          This is exactly what I mean. 6th time you misunderstand something but still blindly claim you know it when you know you’re diving into this thematic for the first time in this conversation.
          It’s two different things indeed, because what you described in your previous reply saying that it was the margin of error is in fact, like I’ve described very clearly, the Gaussian of the distribution of answers.
          You’re the one who said it was the margin of error’s gaussian and I corrected you saying there’s no such thing and that that what you’re unknowingly referring to is the answer’s gaussian.

          Yes, you read that right. There is no Gaussian of the margin of error! The margin of error is actually a graph with two asymptotes (one in y=0 and another in X=0).
          And it’s incredibly obvious why it is as such.

          Still no explanation for this. Links to some page explaining your calculation and the theory behind it would be great, until then I’m going to assume you don’t really know what you’re talking about. You’ve already mixed up 2% and 0.02%.

          AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
          You’ll assume I know nothing of what I’m talking about because I didn’t notice 0.02 wasn’t a percentage?
          What should I assume of you then?
          You who did much more severe mistakes like claiming there is a Gaussian for a margin of error. You who failed to calculate a simple percentage of a population in the beginning.
          Or maybe you who failed to understand what the actual graph for the problem was and the margin of error’s implication on it to the point of saying it wouldn’t even be a Gaussian.
          Or maybe we should focus on when you tried to cut the sample in half while keeping the remaining parameters intact without understanding the implications of such actions?

          Shall I keep going?
          Seriously, you’re saying that, because among all the calculations, definitions and explanations I’ve given you I’ve failed to spot that 0.02 = 2%, that I don’t know what I’m talking about, even when since we’ve started discussing statistics all I’ve been doing is correcting you and pointing out your mistakes and misunderstandings of the question at hand?
          Fucking incredible. There’s a name for what you just did: continuum fallacy.
          That’s some serious ego you got there.
          Glass ceiling much?

          But it’s incredibly simple.
          You go to your nice tools site which you’ve been using.
          Input the 2380000 total population and the sampling error we’ve calculated according to the paper’s sample and their answers given and you’ll see what the required sample size should be for the same answers in the paper and conclusions drawn from them to be considered valid.
          Pretty straight forward.

          Look, by now we KNOW how statistically valid this paper is

          Indeed, we know it’s zero valid.
          All that you say afterwards is just the statistical properties of the paper but that in no way or form proves the validity of the paper.
          Unless you give more importance to the semantics of the names of the variables instead of their actual use in maths.

          It’s possible that getting another 1605 people to sample would radically change all percentages and give completely new results, but we’re 95% sure that it WON’T.

          Actually, no. That’s another very serious mistake of yours. Is it the 7th or the 8th time in 2-3 comments that you completely misunderstand a statistical term.
          It means that 95% of the times the people represented by the margin of error will behave as the remaining population.
          That is, with a margin of error of, for example 1%, those 1% people can either behave differently from the remaining population or not. You’re saying you’re 95% sure they wont “misbehave”.
          That’s all. You’re not saying that the extra 1605 new people will behave like you’ve predicted they will with a subpar sample. That’s preposterous and illogical and most of all rather unpredictable.
          You’re actually gathering more people’s data because you think they will change the results and make the conclusions more trustworthy and valid. It’s the exact opposite!

          You’re looking to increase confidence level beyond what is commonly used in statistical research.

          For the 1000th time, I don’t care about the confidence level.
          Stop obsessing with something that’s not even important for the problem.
          I’ve told you that the increase in the confidence level is a consequence not a cause. What we’re interested is in having a statistically meaningful and valid sample so that the conclusions taken from it are actually valid, unlike this paper.
          The confidence level could actually lower to a 2% value and it wouldn’t matter. What would matter is that the paper is now valid.

          I’ve told you before that you’re using the calculations backwards and yet you’re still using what the sample should be to calculate what the sampling error will be without knowing what the distribution will be! (Because, once again, you can’t predict the future)
          That’s a serious mistake. I’ve corrected you on it, and you’re still doing it again and again. That’s insane…

          This won’t happen with the small increase of 1605 people in the sample.

          That “small” increase is a 44% increase in the sample size….

          We’ll still just be 95% sure we’re getting results that are representative for the whole population.

          And again you mistake what the confidence level means.
          Then I’m the one who knows nothing about this…. what a hypocrite.

        • SoundnuoS

          http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/samples/confidenceinterval.htm
          Confidence level and confidence interval (margin of error). From the link:
          —–
          The confidence interval is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a confidence interval of 4 and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer you can be “sure” that if you had asked the question of the entire relevant population between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked
          that answer.

          The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.

          When you put the confidence level and the confidence
          interval together, you can say that you are 95% sure that the true percentage of the population is between 43% and 51%.
          —–
          I thought we already agreed that the above was the definition of the terms.

          “You go to your nice tools site which you’ve been using.
          Input the 2380000 total population and the sampling error we’ve calculated according to the paper’s sample and their answers given and you’ll see what the required sample size should be for the same answers in the paper and conclusions drawn from them to be considered valid.”

          Wow, after all your explanations on how sample sizes work you are still complaining about the margin of error. Nothing else.

          1.61 for a sample size of 3705
          2.14 for a sample size of 2092

          What makes one valid and the other invalid? We can obviously see that one reduces the uncertainty by a small margin, but what makes one valid and the other invalid?

          “It means that 95% of the times the people represented by the margin of error will behave as the remaining population.
          That is, with a margin of error of, for example 1%, those 1% people can either behave differently from the remaining population or not. You’re saying you’re 95% sure they wont “misbehave”.”

          It means that you can be 95% sure that the average of answers for the whole population will be within +-1% of the result you’ve got.
          That’s what the quote from the link above says. That’s what every page you’ll be able to find on statistics says. That’s what every book on statistics says.

          That’s what the whole theory of random sampling is based on.

          You will always have a degree of uncertainty. The confidence level and the margin of error describe how large that uncertainty is.

          Now, let’s assume that we’d be the people starting this survey and are deciding on how large a sample we’d need.

          If we know that the population is 23800000 and we’d like to strive for a 95% confidence level with a 2.14 margin of error we find that we need a minimum sample of 2088 people to reach this.

          Why is this not a statistically valid sample size in your opinion? What difference will increasing the sample size to 3705 do APART from slightly reducing the margin of error? Nothing, that’s what.
          That’s the whole basis for using a small random sample to estimate results for a large population.

        • Ardvaark

          I thought we already agreed that the above was the definition of the terms.

          That sounds incredibly similar to what I’ve said.
          Not surprised however that you’d misunderstand what I said.

          Wow, after all your explanations on how sample sizes work you are still complaining about the margin of error. Nothing else.

          Are you fucking kidding me???
          Where am I complaining about the sampling error? Where did I even say that the sampling error was wrong or anything?
          I just said that you pick the sampling error that was calculated before and check what the sample size should be.
          Simple as that!

          That’s all I’m saying. I swear that now you’re just trolling and wasting my time and I’m not feeding you there.

          1.61 for a sample size of 3705

          Wrong.
          The function only goes one way!
          I’ve told this to you three times, and you instead of giving a proper reply or justification just copy-paste the same sentence, void of any reason.
          You can pin-point what the sample size should be when you have a sampling error to use as a base. You cannot find out what the sampling error is of a sample that you haven’t analysed.

          What makes one valid and the other invalid?

          So you’re now going to repeat the same questions over and over again?
          At least make an effort, I’ve explained why before. It’s not my fault you have the reading skills of a tree.

          One is valid because you have the sample size, the sampling error and the actual distribution.
          The other one isn’t because you don’t know what the distribution will be.
          And it’s not that it’s invalid, it’s just inaccurate.
          What’s invalid is the paper’s conclusions because they’re based on a sample’s data that is too small.
          You keep confusing this.

          You’ve still given absolutely no reason for this.

          Geez you’re definitely trolling.
          I’ve given evidence for it twice. But whenever you’re out of arguments you simply do the “oh please repeat yourself” or the “I’ve seen no evidence” trolling stunt.
          Typical.

          That’s what the whole theory of random sampling is based on.

          That’s funny coming from the one who’s absolutely clueless about statistics suddenly claiming to be knowledgeable about something he read on a few pages in a couple of hours.

          If we know that the population is 23800000 and we’d like to strive for a 95% confidence level with a 2.14 margin of error we find that we need a minimum sample of 2088 people to reach this.

          Except that it doesn’t go as you say.
          You don’t know how those people will answer, so you can’t strive to a margin of error that you can’t predict. You know it’ll be 2.14% at a maximum can’t say what it will be. The most likely situation is you’ll have to interview more people to achieve the margin of error that you want.
          And again, that is completely irrelevant to the point of validity of the paper.

          What difference will increasing the sample size to 3705 do APART from slightly reducing the margin of error? Nothing, that’s what.
          That’s the whole basis for using a small random sample to estimate results for a large population.

          I’ve answered this so many times before as well. You’re playing the fool card now.

          You’re subtly deviating the issue to other points where there’s no issue. I’m not wasting any more time with your trolling.
          I’ve explained and fundamented my points one after the other, clearly and concisely. All you’ve done is reply back with false assumptions, mistakes after mistakes and claims of errors based on misinterpretations and complete lack of knowledge form you.
          If you’re willing to learn you got it all there, if you’re willing to be ignorant just to protect your bubble, go ahead, just don’t waste my time.

        • SoundnuoS

          “You cannot find out what the sampling error is of a sample that you haven’t analysed.”

          You CAN however know what the worst case sample error will be, which is what anyone doing a survey will start with.

          “I’ve given evidence for it twice.”

          What evidence? You’ve calculated the margin of error with the percentage as it is for this sample, then you go back and calculate the sample size that would be needed to give the same margin of error given a worst case scenario of 50/50 split in music listeners vs non-music listeners.

          What does that prove, other than that increasing sample size will reduce margin of error?

          Remember that your first claim was that you’d need a sample size of close to 12 million in order to reach statistical validity?

          “You know it’ll be 2.14% at a maximum can’t say what it will be.”

          And that’s the whole point. You can be 95% sure that your results will not deviate from the total population by more than 2.14%.

          That’s what the people doing this survey considered an acceptable degree of uncertainty.

          You still haven’t been able to actually explain why that specific degree of uncertainty has to be improved in order to reach statistical validity and I have found no other information that would support your claim.

          “I’ve answered this so many times before as well.”

          No you haven’t. You have said “I’ve calculated it, look!”. There’s been no explanation for why the degree of uncertainty as it exists with the current sample size and percentages would need to be improved.

          And that’s the only thing that will happen by slightly increasing the sample size. You will reduce the degree of uncertainty by a small margin.

        • Ardvaark

          You CAN however know what the worst case sample error will be, which is what anyone doing a survey will start with.

          That’s a good measuring for how things will play out but it’s no guarantee however that you’ll have a meaningful sample. So it doesn’t matter for this argument at all.

          What evidence? You’ve calculated the margin of error with the percentage as it is for this sample, then you go back and calculate the sample size that would be needed to give the same margin of error given a worst case scenario of 50/50 split in music listeners vs non-music listeners.

          Maths is the purest form of evidence. It’s not my fault you can’t understand it.
          I’ve calculated what the margin of error of this sample is and then I’ve used it to check what an accurate sampling size should be. Simple as that.
          You’re still obsessing with what the margin of error will be for that future sample or the effects of it when those are completely irrelevant to the the topic.
          I’ve repeated this countless times and explained why, if you didn’t get it so far, it’s not my fault I’m not wasting my time repeating myself again for nothing.

          What does that prove, other than that increasing sample size will reduce margin of error?

          That’s not even a proof, that’s a consequence, if you just found out about that consequence now, I’ve got terrible news for you.

          Remember that your first claim was that you’d need a sample size of close to 12 million in order to reach statistical validity?

          Oh when I confused 0.02 with 2%, a honest mistake? The one that you keep bringing up when you yourself failed to understand and even made far more serious mistakes on fundamental concepts of statistics.
          Also you forget that in that very same reply I said that I then used your own tools to calculate the same value and it was 3705, which still validated my claim that the paper is invalid.
          So even with a rounding mistake I proved my point.

          You’re just being a terrible troll now.

          And that’s the whole point. You can be 95% sure that your results will not deviate from the total population by more than 2.14%.

          And thats beyond the point. You keep obsessing with that definition since the first time you read it like if you know nothing else! Oh wait, you don’t.
          What the results deviate from means nothing if the sample you have isn’t meaningful
          And it isn’t.

          You still haven’t been able to actually explain why that specific degree of uncertainty has to be improved in order to reach statistical validity

          I actually told you very clearly what I was looking for, and once thing I also stated: I don’t want to improve the margin of error, that’s a consequence.
          You get that into your head or fuck off.

          No you haven’t. You have said “I’ve calculated it, look!”. There’s been no explanation for why the degree of uncertainty as it exists with the current sample size and percentages would need to be improved.

          When you asked what the numbers were, I told you to look at the calculus, everything else I justified with the proper theory. Not my fault you’re ignorant and can’t comprehend an explanation.
          The fact that you keep insisting on the percentages being improved just shows how you’ve completely failed to understand the matter at hand.

          Don’t waste my time, you’ve had your chance.

        • SoundnuoS

          “I’ve calculated what the margin of error of this sample is and then I’ve used it to check what an accurate sampling size should be.”

          Yes, that’s what you did. We are still awaiting the reasoning behind your claim that 2.14 (or 1.61 as it actually turned out to be for this paper) is not an acceptable margin of error.

          ” everything else I justified with the proper theory.”

          No, you didn’t explain why 2.14 (or 1.61 as it actually turned out to be for this paper) is not an acceptable margin of error.

        • Ardvaark

          Yes, that’s what you did. We are still awaiting the reasoning behind your claim that 2.14 (or 1.61 as it actually turned out to be for this paper) is not an acceptable margin of error.

          Are you completely ignorant? Or is it that you have lack memory capabilities that rival that of a goldfish?
          I’ve told you that the issue is not the margin of error.
          All my claims are backed by maths and solid explanation that I’ve extensively written, I’m not rewriting it again only to have you repeat the same question because you keep missing the point.

          We still don’t know why that margin of error means a larger sample size is needed.

          Again? What proof more do you need beyond maths and the respective explanation? Is maths another topic you are completely clueless at? Even the tools you suggested output the same results, shouldn’t that be enough for you to gain some spine and admit you failed?

          What do you mean by the sampling error (margin of error) being to low to be statistically meaningful?

          My mistake, I clearly meant Sample size. Like in my previous statements

        • SoundnuoS

          “I’ve told you that the issue is not the margin of error.”

          The issues is the margin of error whether you realise it or not.

          You have a confidence level and a margin of error. That’s how you know how valid your sample size is.

          The confidence level is what it is, you can’t improve it to 100 without polling the whole population.

          There will always be that 5% chance your sample is completely off and not representative for the whole population.

          The margin of error, however, describes how much your results are likely to vary from the results for the whole population IF your sample is in the ballpark.

          If your margin of error is too wide, i.e. your sample size is too small, that will mean your essentially guessing.

          For this paper, with the sample size as it is, we’ve determined that the margin of error is fairly low.
          The sources I can find state that a margin of error below 3-5% is considered valid for social research.

          That means the sample size IS valid.

          “All my claims are backed by maths and solid explanation that I’ve extensively written”

          Quote the explanation for me. As far as I can see it consists of “the sample size is too small” without any more explanation or links to back you up.

        • Ardvaark

          Jesus fucking Christ you’re still going with this?

          The issues is the margin of error whether you realise it or not.

          The issue is not the margin of error because I’m not even arguing for or against it. You’re again bringing new issues where there aren’t, and to a days old, long gone discussion that you’ve long lost.

          You can copy past the definitions of all the terms used but you still can’t grasp the meaning or usage of them. That’s pretty obvious. So don’t even waste my time with your rubbish.

          The sources I can find state that a margin of error below 3-5% is considered valid for social research.

          Except I never claimed that the margin of error was wrong. What I prooved was that the sample was statistically invalid. I’ve repeated this far too many times and you still don’t understand that thats why you’re a lost case and I don’t even care if you remain in ignorance.

          As far as I can see it consists of “the sample size is too small” without any more explanation or links to back you up.

          As far as you can see indeed. I’ve calculated everything. Unless you magically find my calculus wrong, it stands as solid proof.

          Now, kindly piss off and stop being an ignorant and wasting everyone’s time

        • SoundnuoS

          “Jesus fucking Christ you’re still going with this?”

          Haven’t had much time for TF these past few days, but I’m picking up where I left off.

          The point is, your whole calculation and subsequent argument is an attempt at bullshitting. You calculate the sample error and that’s all. From that sample error you claim that the sample size is too small without providing any source for that argument.

          Meanwhile, the fact is, that any source you can find says that the sample error AND therefore the sample size is quite acceptable for social research.

        • Ardvaark

          The calculus are sound, the explanations are valid and the conclusions are backed by the calculus.

          It’s not my fault your ego prevents you from admitting you failed, like it happened with all the previous threads with everyone else who completely gutted all your arguments.

          without providing any source for that argument.

          I even used your own tools to confirm the calculus. Are you now saying your argument was wrong from the start since you based it on tools you now claim are invalid?

          the sample error AND therefore the sample size is quite acceptable for social research.

          Acceptable values because they fit the margins don’t mean the sample was meaningful at all since it can’t accurately describe the population.
          Don’t make me repeat myself….

        • SoundnuoS

          “I even used your own tools to confirm the calculus.”

          The calculus and the tools both give us the same values. Those values are within what is considered acceptable for social research. That’s pretty much it, so unless you have something better to offer we’ll just leave it there.

          “Acceptable values because they fit the margins don’t mean the sample was meaningful at all since it can’t accurately describe the population.”
          It represents the population with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of at most 2.14%. That’s valid for any social research. Give it up already.

        • Ardvaark

          The calculus and the tools both give us the same values.

          Finally you accept the validity of the calculus? Good
          that’s it.

          You should be aware that those tools point out the population is too low. No need to bring the same copypasta you’ve said before I already told you what you’re missing.

        • SoundnuoS

          “You should be aware that those tools point out the population is too low.”
          No, they don’t. They give us the margin of error. Based on that we can then see if the sample size is too small. In this case, it’s not.

        • Ardvaark

          Actually it says that the sample is too small because it’s not 3705.

          You seem to be confused.

        • SoundnuoS

          Nope, it says that a sample size of 3705 gives you a sample error of 1.61.

          One single external link that would validate this pet theory of yours as to how statistical validity is determined in social research is too much to ask, I guess?

        • Ardvaark

          That would be true if you knew what the percentages would be.

          Besides the tool clearly outputs the sample size and not the other way around. Why the hell do you keep playing the dumb card?

          Oh wait… we’ve already found out why….

        • SoundnuoS

          The tool outputs the sample size if you decide on a confidence level and desired margin of error.

          You can also use it to check the margin of error of any sample size. In the case of 3705 it becomes 1.61.

          If you’re using the tool the way you describe, it means you’ve decided that a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 1.61 is necessary in order for the sample size to be valid.

          Still no link supporting that theory, and I suspect one won’t be seen very soon.

        • Ardvaark

          Still using the tools backwards

          As for any validity of my claims which by the way are in no way theory, you seem to be confusing facts with theories, go ahead and read by 3 paragraph long explanation on why you’re wrong.

          If you have any doubts on my calculus, feel free to look up any book on statistics and point out where I’ve failed.

          Until then shut up in your ignorance and stop shifting the blame to my side as if I’ve not explained myself enough.

        • MadAsASnake

          You can’t loose something you don’t have.

        • MadAsASnake

          No, the offense is not equal. France has some pretty weird laws – look up the laws for driving around a roundabout sometime.

        • bobmail

          I understand the difference, but do you?

          See, here’s your problem – your “innocent” file sharing generally comes with a commercial aspect. You know, everything from nagware torrent software and pay to download file lockers to torrent “index” sites packed with ads, misleading “download now” buttons, and the like. They are all commercial.

          Even your typical download includes (not shockingly) an enticement to visit a site or share group, which almost invariably has a commercial aspect on it to at least pay the hosting.

          So the problem is almost every civil case of sharing (infringement) also comes with being part of a larger commercial venture to profit from it.

          Kim Dotcom didn’t make 150 million from offering gardening tips. He made it the old fashioned way, offering access to pirated material.

        • Guest321

          And of course the servers and bandwidth needed for running a site serving tens of millions of visitors everyday is entirely free. So the torrent site owners get to keep every last penny they earn from those ads on their site.

          Kim Dotcom ran a fully legal file hosting service. He never urged or even encouraged anyone to upload copyrighted material. How users end up using his site is not his problem. He gave a popular service to the people and got rich off it. He didn’t get rich by scamming or suing his customers. Just because his business goes against your agenda, doesn’t mean he is doing anything wrong. If anything, the MAFIAA should probably learn a thing or two about how to do business on the Internet from him.

          You are starting to sound like a broken record Bobby. Take a sabbatical and ask the MAFIAA to send someone new.

        • bobmail

          Of course servers aren’t free. But there are plenty of torrent site owners out there making a pot full of money running their sites. They wouldn’t bother taking all the risks if it was just a break even or money losing deal.

          “Kim Dotcom ran a fully legal file hosting service. He never urged or even encouraged anyone to upload copyrighted material.”

          Incorrect. The basic system (pay per download commission) basically encourages people to put up files that are most likely to want to be downloaded. Since that isn’t going to be grandma’s holiday pictures, we can guess what it really was.

          Further, Kim’s own subsidiary companies were ranking in tons of money through the system, promoting access to the files of Mega. You need to read the case some more to understand how wrong your statement is.

          His business didn’t go against “my agenda”, I don’t have an agenda. I can see however how his business went against the law. That’s a different problem.

          “Take a sabbatical”

          if you are bored of reading me, perhaps it’s you that needs the time off. Honestly, you are a broken record of bad anti-copyright puns and strawmen. Do you actually add anything to the discussion, or do you just parrot the same crap over and over again?

        • UraPhake

          “…everything from nagware torrent software and pay to download file lockers to torrent “index” sites packed with ads, misleading “download now” buttons, and the like. They are all commercial.”

          Like none of those things are attached to everything else on the Internet these days?

          I don’t use nagware — only an idiot would.
          I use AdBlock, so I don’t see ads.
          Only idiots mistake those “download now” buttons for the actual download link.
          I don’t pay to download anything from anywhere — only an idiot would.

          Since you seem to think those things are problems, then you are an idiot as well.

        • frank098

          Welcome back Fredrika.

        • Jatillpirater

          No it’s not, it’s an infringement. You need to do a bit of reading instead of spouting nonsense.

        • Captain Rogers

          In this your are right Piracy (an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea) is a crime

          In other hand sharing could be at max Copyright infringement

      • ScrewEwe2

        That’s right, it’s caring, until that becomes a crime too, and if that happens people won’t care about the law. Oh wait, nobody cares about the law already.

    • Guest

      The only way that you will ever succeed with removing internet related criminality is by shutting down the whole entire internet so good luck with that lol

    • DannyUfonek

      Why? What’s the purpose of it? The cultural sector prospers despite rampant piracy which should’ve killed it at least three times already. Same situation when photocopying or VHS recorders were introduced – nothing happened, despite what they’ve been telling us so loudly.

    • icec0ld

      Not really.

      By this system, everyone and not just downloaders are being punished by having their taxes foot the bill for the copyright monopolists. I’m sure you’d love to foot the bill for piracy yourself though so get on it mate.

    • indiagrt

      necessary measures plz nej get to your senses .. wht ppl are unemployed and there is so much economy downturn……. you tell this this copyright is required…..may be European and American’s are spineless … we as Indians dont follow any shit which is not our own ……… so i say fuck off

    • Guest

      If filesharing ever gets to the level of “criminality” you so desire, you’re going to need a much higher standard of evidence than what your heroes at Prenda have to offer. But you don’t seem to like commenting when your enforcement has to break to law just to save copyright, no?

    • frank098

      There you are popped out of the sewer like a wet rat.
      Quick go help bobmail his piles are giving him hell.

  • Mexico

    Sounds like the U.s GO*erment is Bullying Spain.

  • Pingback: Spain to Crackdown on Pirate Sites and Outlaw File-Sharing | Best Seedbox

  • josh1073

    I swear if they put this much effort in to stopping pedos,theifs,drug dealers the world would be amazing.

    But of course making sure the fat cats get what they want is way more important as they dont live with commoners and live in gated communities.

    • Guest

      But haven’t you heard?
      They do put that much effort into stopping drug traffic, thousands of billions over decades of their war and they have still accomplished nothing except deaths, a market hole and burning money.
      The guys selling weed are still on business and thriving.

    • Soopa

      Heh, you’ve just forgotten to mention terrorists…
      in your PRE-MADE list.

  • Guest

    This is wrong on so many levels.
    Backwards US bullying another country to adopt its more useless, primitive and stone age policies.
    It’s a damn political agenda from the US and they might not be unleashing the CIA or sending drones to make spain burn but they are still threatening them to do as they say or suffer.

    Why are Americans so comfortable letting their Government act as the bully of the schoolyard ? It makes your country look like a mad empire.

  • Kiss your ass goodbye

    omg the MAFIAA dinosaurs is fucking up the world economy again. 2006′s “world” economic collapse is proof the dinosaurs have no clue what’s best 99% of people who live on this planet. Now the dinosaurs are simply trying to “double down” on their failed business models that don’t create any jobs and destroys everyone else’s economies.

    MAFIAA’s not the only one doing it. Insurance companies are just as bad, perhaps even worse, when it comes to destroying economies.

    But in the end, the #1 economy destroyer in the entire Universe is… politicians

  • MadAsASnake

    Wonder how long it will take the Spanish Govt to realise that these changes won’t stop sharing even a little, but declare success anyway.

  • Traveller

    Some people think this crap courtesy of MAFIAA and the most hated minister of the Goverment goes against EU laws, and even the content rights management entities have protested against it saying it causes damages to the users. In theory, they will not prosecute the users. In theory.
    Supposedly,the blank media levy has been removed and now everyone who pays taxes pays the compensation to the shareholders, so you can see another absurd of this law.
    Of course, it will not work; as most other people before, we’ll move to proxies and encryptions.

    • Violated0

      Paying an entertainment subsidy would indeed be crazy. A tax on media for infringement was at least understandable but when you buy a DVD or Bluray you sure don’t want to pay for the media multiple times over.

      Spain is having a really hard time in this recession and these idiots want to give away tax funds?

      • Traveller

        Correct. The worst would be if the goverment decided in the future to enter in France/US mode (HADOPI, etc), prosecuting everyone who downloaded “illegal” stuff and the subsidy continued. Knowing them and their incompentence, it’s highly likely that it would happen.

  • Most governments are whores

    Why won’t these country’s tell the U.S that the trade agreements are not worth it? Just stop sucking Americn cock!!!!!!!!! You filthy whores!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ender-Wiggin/100000885624281 Ender Wiggin

      lmao. billions and billions in foreign aid as the carrot, and international blacklisting as a pirate haven as the stick.

    • Violated0

      Trade sanctions are only a lame excuse. Had the US imposed sanctions on Spain then it would not be long for the EU to notice and to impose their own trade sanctions. That would hurt the US a lot more than it would Spain.

      • Anyone

        exactly, people tend to forget that the EU is a bigger economy than the US

        • Violated0

          Yes the EU is an important market for American products.

        • Guest321

          America export products? News to me mate.

        • Violated0
        • Andrew me

          I laugh every time some talks about the big American economy and how being blocked from it would destroy any country, Spain probably only gets a very small amount of trade with America, most trade these days is through china where everything is manufactured, nobody needs the US any more there are far bigger markets around the world, and they are rather easy to enter with the internet making it easier than ever to communicate with them. Giving up fundamental rights to keep the trade going between Spain and America is just crazy.

        • stinky

          “most trade these days is through china where everything is manufactured”

          What you don’t seem to understand is that these manufacturing companies are not owned by Chinese companies but American corporations.

        • MadAsASnake

          Really?

        • Guest

          And European companies, god I really hate calling them corporations. Why do these Americanisms invade our language?

        • MadAsASnake

          Yes. US still has significant presence in many tech markets, though they are very busy selling that off because China and India do it cheaper, focussing on “Services”.. Funny thing is, anyone can do “Services”

  • Zumzum

    “However, in future it will be the general Spanish tax-payer footing the bill, rather than just those doing the copying.”

    That’s going to be popular with the general Spanish tax-payer, knowing that some their hard-earned is going straight into the pockets of US entertainment corporates, especially at a time when there’s so much economic hardship in the Euro zone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ender-Wiggin/100000885624281 Ender Wiggin

      if it makes you feel any better, the american entertainment corps are mostly owned by foreign investors.

  • Ardvaark

    What an incredibly spineless move.

    Take advantage of a country being economically bad to push laws that are completely evasive and aggressive to the general public or make their economic situation worse by blacklisting it. Corporate blackmail at its finest.
    A blacklist that countries like Iran, South Korea etc are part of.

    Because Spain and piracy are perfectly comparable to South Korea or Iran’s situation.

    Shameless, Spineless, corporate lobbying scum.

    • Violated0

      I guess they overlook in the doom and gloom of this double dip recession that a little free entertainment can keep the population happy.

  • dave

    if your still looking for a nzb site check out nzbplanet.net :)

  • tao54nyc

    Is this another reason why a lot of young Spaniards are expat-ing to Ecuador and Chile of late?? /s

  • dondilly

    The €300k fines for infringing spanish sites seems to be more an attempt to fill the government’s empty coffers. As for an attempted blanket ban on file sharing, with the country having 60% youth unemployment, the government should count themselves lucky they are sitting at home online rather than rioting in the street.

    It seems a futile waste of time and effort. Not only has the EU’s own research debunked the claim files haring harms the industry, it is not as if the industry’s target has any money anyway..

    • bobmail

      maybe the have 60% youth unemployment because nobody goes out for entertainment, nobody buy movies, and so on… you know, all those jobs that would be filled by youth.

      Cause, meet effect.

      • Anyone

        the entertainment industry is tiny, they cannot support any country on their own, much less get rid of that much unemployment

      • Traveller

        Maybe we have 60% youth unemployement due to the incompetence of corrupt politicians who only serve they and their cronies (it still amazes me there hasn’t been no major riots with so many people being expelled from their houses for being unable to pay the mortgage and/or scammed by unethical bankers -the same of those banks that have been helped with the EU bailout- that sold them preferred stocks without knowing the reality behind them, while they’re so corrupt and incompetent) and that have wasted money on countless and useless infrastructures such as airports in the middle of nowhere, high-velocity train lines that nobody uses, and many other examples.

        Politicians who have raised the VAT for cultural stuff from 8% to 21%, causing with it huge losses on theatres and the like -they, of course, do not blame the piracy-. Politicians who don’t let to flourish good streaming alternatives or allow the creation of companies. Politicians that, no matter the party, are sold to both Germany (Angela Merkel) and the US.

        Before writing, do some research. Bobfail.

        • bobmail

          “Before writing, do some research. Bobfail.”

          Done plenty of research… enough to know that you are pointing at an effect (VAT raise) and not a cause… as that happened way after the fact. That is a result of mismanagement, huge increases in social programs, huge increases in government payouts, and a shocking and sudden drop of income. All of this comes together and says “hey, we can’t keep doing this!” – which then leads to taxes going up. Effect, not cause.

          Spain has wasted tons of money on all sorts of things (as you indicated) but almost all of it at the demand of the population – build things, make our country great, blah blah blah… jobs for everyone, all paid for by the government.

          Crash, bang, smash… now they have to actually work on tax collection, on enforcing the law, and on rebuilding an economy, including IP. There is a reason for this stuff, it’s not just out of the blue.

        • Traveller

          “(…)government who have spent decades piling
          on the social programs, social spending, long paid bennies for the
          population,”

          Do you have any problems against the spanish SS system that, pensions apart that is failing due to an increasing life expectancy, is admired in most other countries?

        • bobmail

          Of course it’s “admired” because it so generous. It’s one of the reasons why Spain (and many other) countries are in deep shit – huge social spending commitments, with no real way to finance it.

          Increased life expectancy is only an issue if the planners had ignored the last few hundred years of history – or purposely underfunded it thinking that they could make it up later because the boom was never going to end.

          Boom indeed :)

        • IDIOCRACY

          I will just refer to other posts, you are so dumb in actually believing this nonsense. You should follow some economic classes before stating this crap that makes you look dumber than an Amoeba. hehe

        • bobmail

          If you don’t have anything to add, I am assuming that my posts are find and you are just a jealous asshole. You can join Mary in the line over there for near term loss of your Disqus account. :)

        • Traveller

          “(…) huge social spending commitments, with no real way to finance it.”

          Don’t make me laugh. Other countries have a much more developed welfare state that has persisted for decades at the price of high taxes, of course.
          Spain has high taxes, too. Taxes that go to pay a debt caused by greedy and corrupt politicians

        • bobmail

          Hmmm… I think this is part of the problem:

          http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/opinion/europe-shadow-economies

          See, it’s an indication of the mentality at play. Tax avoidance as a national pastime seems to be a real issue. It’s why I point at piracy, it’s a national pastime to avoid paying for entertainment.

          It all comes form the same place.

      • Rebel@Gov.

        You are either retarded with no clue what your talking about or your an US Media shill

        It’s almost impossible for the people that are being affected seriously by the so called European sovereign-debt crisis that is costing people their live-hoods and jobs to go out for entertainment and buy movies, also I’ll tell a little secret the Current Spanish is responsible for raising the Taxes on Culture (that applies to entertainment and movies) making it a no-no for people that are struggling to put food on the table

        So shut up and go swallow the Industry Cream you love so much

        • UraPhake

          “…US Media shill”

          BINGO!

        • bobmail

          Yawn.

          You missed my point entirely. The crisis comes as a result of societies who have chosen to be too socialist and to live beyond their means, giving the people everything they want without considering who will pay the bills. Spain had a huge boom during the early 2000s, with huge amounts of immigration, big income for the government, and of course, massive expansion of social programs and government handouts.

          When the economy crashed, their unemployment shot up, and the government payouts continued. Property values crashed, tax base eroded, and so on. There is a lot more too it than that, but it’s safe to say that the combination of an unrestricted property boom and crash, combined with out of control government spending has put them in a hole.

          My point only is that many younger people would work service industry jobs (such as movie ushers, ticket takers, whatever) but that it’s an industry that has been hurt by piracy. It’s a small thing, but a bigger indication of what happens when the government gives in to every public demand. The problems of Spain come from not being in control of their own situation.

          It’s just like anything… if a few more people go to work, a few more people have money… and so on. I am not suggesting that changing piracy suddenly will fix Spain, far from it. But it’s the mentality that has caused the problems to linger, the idea that it’s just better to stay home and enjoy the free lunch than even bothering to try.

        • dondilly

          What drugs are you on bob? Bet you don’t get them on prescription as there appears to be an issue with quality control.

        • Ardvaark

          The crisis comes as a result of societies who have chosen to be too socialist and to live beyond their means,

          Too socialist? Are you completely out of touch with reality? The social benefits in Spain are nothing compared to countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Nowway etc.

          To say Spain’s problems come from too many socialist measures is the ultimate insult to them.

          The whole crisis is spreading like plague through Europe regardless of economic power, look at France, Italy, sooner or later, Belgium. Each case is a slightly different case even!

          To link such a thing with mentality coming from piracy is the ultimate propaganda-filled chunder only you and your kind could do. It shows how far you will bend the subject just to pass a failed point.

          Only you could spew such garbage.

          Next you’re going to tell me every time a file is downloaded a kid in Africa dies?

          I bet pirates have donated more to charity than many of your kind will ever do, since you cling to your dollar bills like it’s your lifeblood.

          You disgust me.

        • bobmail

          “To say Spain’s problems come from too many socialist measures is the ultimate insult to them.”

          Go read a little history. The Spanish government (and many others, to be fair) used the boom periods of the late 90s and early 2000s to not only build up their countries, but also to boost government spending, social programs and the like. At the same time, as a whole, the countries with the biggest issues (Spain, Italy, Greece) turned a blind eye to illegal activities, the black market, tax avoidance, and a whole host of other things, all in the spirit of pleasing the people and getting re-elected.

          Well, when the real estate bubble burst, they hit the wall faster than a bug into a top fuel dragster. High social spending whacks solidly into a lack of tax revenue and overly costly borrowing, to create a cesspool of fail.

          Spain now has it’s hat in it’s hand, pretty much begging for some solution to their problems, and basically they have been told in the past to fix their issues at home (similar to Greece).

          In the end, all I was trying to suggest was the piracy and tolerance of it may have been yet another negative on their economy. I don’t think it’s the only cause, it’s dumb to think that. But I think it’s perhaps a good indication of the malaise in a country that is economically falling apart.

        • IDIOCRACY

          Bobby, bobby, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. the whole crisis in Europe started with the house and mortgage crises in USA, banks in USA lending to much money to people they knew that could not pay back, these loans were sold to European banks without mentioning how risky they were, or banks in USA were sold by the owners to European banks withholding these risky investments (bad mortgages). When the first banks started to fall in US, they took several European banks with them down, and then the stock fell due to these USA developments etc. etc.

          So we can fairly state that all economic downfall and all world wars (1&2) in the last 100 years is due to the (US) bankers controlling the flow of money and economy in the world. If you want to see some docu about this, you can watch it on Youtube for free or buy the DVD, it’s a docu of about 3 hours and a little more.

          Google on the masters of money…or similair. Look for the longest version, it is uncensored.

          Glad to be of service in showing you how dumb you are hehe

        • frank098

          “a country that is economically falling apart.”

          Like the USA is, they live on credit and printing money.

        • Ardvaark

          The Spanish government used the boom periods of the late 90s and early 2000s to not only build up their countries, but also to boost government spending, social programs and
          the like.

          Which pretty much happened with every other country. Your point being?

          Now when you mentioned Spain being too socialist you’re mentioning social benefits not government spending. Government spending is only part of the equation and not all government spending is translated into social benefits. Which leads to my point. The average citizen in Sweden, Norway, Germany, Switzerland and the richer countries has more social benefits than people in Spain. Just compare Sweden which actually pays their students to go to college with Spain where even public universities are paid by the students for example.

          So was Spain’s problem related with being too socialist? Not at all! People in Sweden are much more entitled to state-powered stuff than Spain.

          The only point you actually got right is the public spending on needless, overpriced structures.

          At the same time, as a whole, the countries with the biggest issues (Spain, Italy, Greece) turned a blind eye to illegal activities, the black market, tax avoidance,

          Again that might be true but not an insulated issue specific to those countries. Can you say the same thing happens in Ireland and Portugal? How about Cyprus now was that the cause for it? Not at all.
          And when it comes to shady business and tax evasion I’ve seen similar stuff going in France and Switzerland.

          The thing is way waaay more complex than day-to-day crimes everyone does. And more importantly, this how issue didn’t even start in Europe it stared with the US when the mortgage bubble burst. Which in turn and with time did indeed make Spain’s real estate bubble burst.

          Spain now has it’s hat in it’s hand, pretty much begging for some solution to their problems, and basically they have been told in the past to fix their issues at home (similar to Greece).

          True, but those issues are all political and economic. It has zero to do with piracy, unlike you said.

          In the end, all I was trying to suggest was the piracy and tolerance of it may have been yet another negative on their economy.

          And that’s just picking two unrelated topics and linking them together. Typical thing your kind does in order to pass a flawed point across.

          There is no relation between piracy and a lower economy, otherwise China’s absolute disregard for any trademark and IP law would’ve put them in total shambles right now, and that the opposite of what’s happening.

        • Rebel@Gov.

          How can a person spew so much stupidity ?

          “service industry jobs (such as movie ushers, ticket takers, ”

          Ever heard of Taquilla | Canalplus.es this why people don’t go to cinemas and pay expensive ticket prices

          “But it’s the mentality that has caused the problems to linger, the idea
          that it’s just better to stay home and enjoy the free lunch than even
          bothering to try.”

          Go tell this to Copyright defenders they just stay home and demand solutions (paid by others of course) for a problem that they themselves in-part created

        • frank098

          @4cf38bd6ac1546139696f852bb3625ca:disqus
          The mafiaa must pay you by the word.
          OMG what a mountain of crap.

        • Who

          “retarded with no clue what your talking about”
          you just nailed it dude.

        • bobmail

          “So shut up and go swallow the Industry Cream you love so much”

          I love the level of discussion here. Obviously, you can join the Spanish people in general at not wanting to face up to the problems that they have.

          The debt crisis comes in part because you the people wanted to get fat and rich on real estate… boom, bust, enjoy the ride. Now you pay the price for out of control living for more than a decade.

          Apparently, you have been enjoying the government cream to long yourself to know when it’s time to put on your big boy pants and do something about your life, instead of blaming everyone else (such as the US).

        • SCP-914

          Just like they’re blaming everyone else for piracy when they also part of the problem?

        • Rebel@Gov.

          Yet again you presume it’s the peoples fault

          “The debt crisis comes in part because you the people wanted to get fat
          and rich on real estate… boom, bust, enjoy the ride. Now you pay the
          price for out of control living for more than a decade.”

          When in fact it the Politicians and Bankers that are responsible for all that

          Might I also remind you US is even worst them EU the only difference is they can print bucket loads of dollars but wait and see what will happen when the boom finally blasts

          “Apparently, you have been enjoying the government cream to long yourself
          to know when it’s time to put on your big boy pants and do something
          about your life, instead of blaming everyone else (such as the US).”

          Actually your wrong again Politicians are the ones that blames everyone and their grandmother for their failures

        • frank098

          “you have been enjoying the government cream to long yourself”

          And you enjoy mafiaa cream,don’t you shill.

        • MadAsASnake

          No Bobby. Greedy bankers, mostly. A lot in US. Why are none of those in Jail?

      • Ardvaark

        What the fuck man.
        You’ve gone full retard.

        Are you saying a country with 60% youth unemployed, of which the vast majority is freshly out of college students looking for a career as engineers, doctors etc are unemployed because of the lack of media consumption through paid venues? Even when that media is produced outside Spain?

        Seriously a worm as more spine than you.

      • Guest

        You’re a joke, bobmail.

        Youth unemployment is something affecting all industries in Spain. It’s useless expecting people with no money or employment to splurge on entertainment. But of course, this is the point where you go on full jackass mode and scream, “DO WITHOUT”.

        Well, guess what genius – they ARE doing without.

        • bobmail

          “Youth unemployment is something affecting all industries in Spain.”

          NO SHIT SHERLOCK!

          I am only making the point that the Spanish lax attitude to so many things (including piracy) that built up during the boom times means that their economy is ill prepared for what they face now. All those entry level jobs have disappeared, wiped out through various reasons. Piracy just happens to hit one or two industries harder, taking away entry level jobs from the economy.

          PIRACY ISN’T THE ONLY CAUSE

          In fact, piracy is super small in the scale of things, but I point to it (a) because it’s relevant to this site, and (b) because I think it shows the malaise and self-destructive nature of the Spanish economy and legal stands in the past.

          Can you please understand that not everything is an absolute?

      • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

        i hope you get bum sores from all that trolling

        • bobmail

          No, that would be Mary’s problem.

          I’m not trolling, just posting an alternate view that isn’t so popular, because it bursts so many bubbles.

        • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

          so you have them already, thought so

        • IDIOCRACY

          It is mainly bursting your own bubble bobby… hehe

        • frank098

          No a bad case of bloody piles would be a
          better idea.

      • IDIOCRACY

        Job adds for the entertainment industry: experienced sound technician wanted, at least 5 years experience with latest software and hardware (price over 100,000 dollars of software and hardware). yes a lot of jobless youth can apply for that one..

        Next: experienced movie color technician wanted for temporary job in may and june, at least 5 years experience with top editing equipment.

        yeah there will be a lot of youth finding a job too.

        Or maybe a more likely one American company searches for people to play the dead in walking of the dead, 200 positions, for a period of 2 weeks 2 hour a day for 3$ an hour…

        Location of filming Bulgaria / USA and New Zealand, yeah a lot of Spanish youth will go for that one….

        You are so incredible stupid bobby…. I could not believe that you actually posted this solution, you must actually must have a negative IQ to post something as that.

        hehe

        • frank098

          “You are so incredible stupid bobby….”

          Thats true,but he is a shill,and he gets paid to be stupid.

        • bobmail

          Wow, idiot indeed.

          What about “movie usher” or “store shelf stocker” or for that matter “popcorn delivery guy”? See the problem is you just went to look at PRODUCTION, but forgot that the movie industry also tends to drive local market entry level jobs.

          You must have an incredibly low IQ if you can’t understand that.

      • frank098

        WTF are you on about.Make sense troll.

      • xappstudio

        hey bob, don’t give a fuck about all this kids here. most of seem are just to borring to bother about something else.

        • frank098

          Now! say that again in English without the spelling mistakes.

  • jim

    Government is not for the people, its for big business and the rich. America was great once not so much anymore

    • Schmoe

      Actually, the USA ain’t great at all now, period. I should know, I live there. But you’re 99.999% correct.

      • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

        yeah..but that’s not 100% , is it?

    • SCP-914

      That’s what happens when special interest groups get involved and why the founding fathers tried to avoid having them play a in forming the constitution. Kind of a shame their hard work is going to waste now that these congressmen are being corrupted by them.

  • Mr_Joseph

    Caramba ! Mamma mia ! Speedy Gonzales ! :D
    Olé Torro ! USA control all countries sadly.

  • anonymous

    i wonder if i put Spain on my blacklist of countries that dont have the guts to stand up to the USA, whether they would change their minds over this? what a shame they are so gutless that betraying their own citizens and fundamental freedom to share is less important than being put on a fucking list that means absolutely nothing to anyone other than those that let it mean something to them! if the USA is so worried about people sharing their stuff, dont release it outside the USA, problem solved!!

  • Violated0

    I can’t believe how much Spain wants to give up even a tax funded subsidy to the entertainment industry. What next give tax funds to McDonalds for producing beef products?

    Then sure make unlawful something that millions of the Spanish currently lawfully enjoy sounds like a good general policy to annoy all those people where some then torch your cities.

    Let us also recall that BT uploading is already unlawful in most countries but the odds of a home user being punished is indeed negligable. So making such media unlawful will really have no effect.

    Since no one has been punished yet under Sinde Law then I guess the Government is simply out of touch with the people where this new proposed law would do just as well. Locals of course know that the US Embassy in Madrid forced Spain to adopt Sinde Law under threat of trade sanctions even after the public voted it down. Sure lets all uphold a law that violates out sovereignty and the democratic will of our people!

    Well removing whole artists at a time is an interesting idea but I can already see that it is one doomed to fail. Sites cannot identify all linked media by all entities all the time. It has always been up to the rights holder to identify media because no one else knows it as well. So this is simply a system crammed full of mistakes causing many services to die due to human error and lack of knowledge.

    To sum this all up then YouTube was once a hive of infringement on a huge scale and in some ways they still are today. My point is with such laws existing years ago then YouTube would have been snuffed out before they became a world leader. What this law means is that the next YouTube will be killed off early stifling innovation where such a site that currently springs to mind would be Imgur.

  • bobmail

    I hate to say I told you so… but I told you so.

    Countries don’t want to generally be known as safe havens for illegal activities. Spain had clearly become a great place to hide a file sharing / copyright infringing business, selling access to other people’s content certainly seems to be a cottage industry there.

    As I predicted a while back, countries don’t like to be in this position, especially when they are busy asking other people for handouts.

    You have to wonder what impact all this file sharing and free entertainment has had on employment. Maybe there will be an upswing when staying home isn’t the best alternative.

    • UraPhake

      “Countries don’t want to generally be known as safe havens for illegal activities.”

      But — it was mostly legal there prior to the U.S. threatening economic warfare against what I would see as an unarmed non-combatant.

      How would you like it if China threatened to stop providing cheap goods to the U.S. unless we passed a law mandating female children must endure foot-binding?

      Sure, that’s a ludicrous analogy but it makes as much sense from the standpoint of, “Why the fuck can’t we just mind our own business here and leave the rest of the world alone?”

      It’s the equivalent of an economic “Bush Doctrine.”

      It’s only the politicians who give a shit about what Hollywood wants — not the rest of the populace here (excluding you and your fascist ass-clown buddies).

    • Hater

      “Countries don’t want to generally be known as safe havens for illegal activities.”

      No Fucking Shit! -_-

      “Spain had clearly become a great place to hide a file sharing /
      copyright infringing business, selling access to other people’s content
      certainly seems to be a cottage industry there.”

      Oh really? seems like your “trolling” is a matter of selection, i’m surprised that you only attack with points that you can defend but when it comes to facts, what?

      haven’t you know UK proxy went down and popped up other two?
      Yeah, bitch nigga. go get your trolling ass out my face and find the motherfucking article for me.
      the article is in torrent fucking freak. so fuck

      “As I predicted a while back, countries don’t like to be in this
      position, especially when they are busy asking other people for
      handouts.”

      Bitch nigga, shut the fuck up and give me a handjob.
      sharing is caring, you little fucker
      what the fuck do you know?

      “You have to wonder what impact all this file sharing and free
      entertainment has had on employment. Maybe there will be an upswing
      when staying home isn’t the best alternative”

      motherfucking megaupload increased sales for media, bitch nigga

      i bet with a straight fucking face that you have no charts/data to prove the fuck you are talking about, bitch nigga

      why do you even exist?

      P.S. bitch fuck retard mail, here’s one for your rage:
      http://torrentfreak.com/online-piracy-is-not-hurting-music-revenues-european-commission-finds-130318/

      oh, since talkin about spain,
      adios, puta cabron. Jodese.

      • bobmail

        ” bitch nigga” : ” bitch fuck retard”

        Yup, like I would even both to answer you. I got 99 problems, but you ain’t one of them.

        • Guest

          “”Yup, like I would even both to answer you. I got 99 problems, but you ain’t one of them.”"

          You did answer him by giving him a response and you have 99 more problems than everyone on here and that’s no surprise with the way that you act lol

        • bobmail

          Trust me… we all have 99 problems… the rent is due, the car don’t run… whatever. It’s an expression (thanks to Jay-Z…) that covered a whole lot of bases.

          We all have problems – I just don’t let someone like Hater be one of them.

        • frank098

          “Yup, like I would even both to answer you”

          You just did answer,you’re so funny hahahahaha you’re always good for a laugh.

    • Typhoid Mary

      And this, coming from someone that only leaves TorrentFreak to sleep and stuff your fat blabbering Jello hole.

      But your a special case Bob, you don’t do any good for any organization or person inside or outside your dirty cubicle.

      And only you once again would try to link File-sharing to a serious issue like the Housing Market, the Global Financial Crisis and Spain’s extremely corrupt self serving government with whatever flimsy piece of nonsense that only makes sense to a medicated mental case.

      • marvgoux1

        Were you free basing when you wrote that nonsense?

        • frank098

          i doubt it,but you were sniffing coke i think.

      • bobmail

        ” Spain’s extremely corrupt self serving government”

        Weren’t you the same class of idiot who was praising the Spanish government not long ago for being forward thinking (because they were permitting piracy)?

        Seriously the problems of the housing crisis are only part of the issue – it exposed the real issues of the Euro zone, which has much more to do with government who have spent decades piling on the social programs, social spending, long paid bennies for the population, permitted tax evasion, lax enforcement of every law, and pretty much sucked up to the people and gave them everything they wanted, without considering the long term price.

        When the bubble burst, Spain has fallen apart because everyone was so dependent on the government’s free buffet policies that once those were cut off, the real pain started. Now the government is faced with having to undo and change many of it’s post policies, otherwise they won’t make it another year without more massive bailouts – and those come with even bigger strings attached.

        File sharing isn’t the main cause (or even a big cause…), it’s a symptom of a greater ill in society. The people expect free entertainment, bread and circuses the Romans called it… and now that is no longer possible. My point was only that a certain amount of economic activity is lost due to piracy, and when it’s as wide spread as it is in Spain, you can imagine that it’s pretty harmful. That took away some jobs… and many other things have as well.

        Perhaps you might want to learn a little about economics, rather than just spending your time trying (and failing) to troll me. You might actually learn something.

        • Typhoid Mary

          The only lesson you could teach with complete expertize is how to be on TorrentFreak 24/7 against doctors orders.

        • SCP-682

          Maybe bobmail’s a bot aka botmail.

        • UraPhake

          Bots are much smarter than bobmail.

        • bobmail

          Mary, perhaps you might want to learn to think. Have you considered that I might make a living, say, perhaps, doing something with computers?

          Your limited ability to reason only shows you off more and more as a trolling idiot. Please go away before Disqus blocks you account for good.

        • frank098

          “Have you considered
          that I might make a living, say, perhaps, doing something with
          computers?”

          Yes you MIGHT be a mafiaa shill,you are so funny i nearly peed myself.

        • Ardvaark

          Have you considered that I might make a living, say, perhaps, doing something with computers?

          Didn’t you say you had an MBA 2-3 days ago?
          So either you’re a very incompetent technician with the wrong training or you’re not working with computers at all, besides maybe word or excel but that is hardly anything…

          This is further evidenced by your many basic mistakes at understanding simple technological concepts.

        • MadAsASnake

          Sure, to get paid by MAFIAA to tap out this crud. That requires use of a computer. No brains required.

    • Service

      Oh really? Tell me now how am I supposed to get a job in graphics design without firstly pirating illustrator and getting familiar with it? (remember I’ve got no job)

      • SCP-914

        Illustrator isn’t the only choice. Look into Gimp and Inkscape as a way to give the bird to the makers of illustrator.

    • TheyAreCorrupt

      “Countries don’t want to generally be known as safe havens for illegal activities.”

      Illegal in according to whose laws? The laws of the country or the laws of the USA?

      Let’s not forget Antigua has been given the right to sell digital copyrighted products online by the WTO so are they doing this illegally?

  • JG

    As I was reading the article, I was really curious how the Spanish MAFIAA would react when they lost the income from removing the levy along with the personal use exemption… Some how I’m not surprised they expect to still have it paid by the tax payers… I wonder how much more they’ll require the tax to be than what they made from the levy…

    I am surprised by the first objective though… Actually including in the law means to hold the right holders accountable for their actions…. The referenced case was about mishandling of funds, but I’d really love to see the required accountability extending to filing false take down notices and other similar actions… That’s something that really needs to be added to the US law… Though I’ll bet it’ll take the threat of one of the MAFIAA companies being sanctioned for them to bribe — er um, I mean contribute to re-election campaigns — law-makers to remove/not-enforce that particular section of the law…

    • Traveller

      They dislike the law, too. Believe it or not, they agree this law is a failure. Guess that’s because they’ll lose most of the money they got with the former levy.

  • Funny or Just Stupid

    The PP Spanish Goverment really whats Spanish people to go berserk and start the Spanish Revolution that will spread across many countries in EU

    • IDIOCRACY

      No….. very well thought,

      the reason…. think about the casualties that will fall in a (civil) war, 99% is the poor working man fighting for his existence and the under paid soldiers, the rich will just flee the country and come back as soon as all mess is cleaned up to take what is left of a country to their own.

      If you see how much people are added (born) every year to the amount of souls living on this planet, there must soon be a war to get rid of a big part of those to ensure the way of living of the few rich. Also to enlarge for the next time in succession their territories and possessions. This happens every war, and all wars are directed by the banks and the filthy rich and powerful few families on this earth.

      I do not want to start using names like used for a movement with a pyramid and an eye on top as their symbol, but I think it becomes pretty obvious what is in the mentioned families interests. More war..!!

      Thy only thing that can happen to their horror is a world wide revolution where money as a means to pay for labor and time is worthless and hold no value other than the paper it is printed on. Where everyones voice is valued the same and all recourses of this planet are evenly divided amongst its inhabitants. etc. etc.

      So who starts….arghhh

  • beauxq

    The cables released by Bradley Manning showed that the U.S. State Department along with the MAFIAA were working to get a hold of Spain.

    • Hater

      You looking like an easy come up, ya bish

      A silver spoon I know you come from, ya bish

      And that’s a lifestyle that we never knew

      Go at a reverend for the revenue

  • SCP-914

    Should have told America, “You want us to get stricter with copyright enforcement, we want you to pay back all the money you owe to other countries.” America is in no financial state to actually demand anything.

  • FenkZenk

    Im starting to lose a LOT of respect for good ole SPain!

    Anon-Today.tk

  • Milkshake Man

    Well, it’s one thing to pass a law, as we have seen in the past, quite another to implement it. Remember Russia making a big to-do about ‘cracking down on pirate websites’ a few months ago?

    http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-and-russia-announce-online-piracy-crackdown-agreement-121222/

    • bobmail

      5 million TBs? Wow… you must have a house full of hard drives to handle all that.

      • Guest

        Or he works for Google…

  • http://twitter.com/deadFreak781 Josué Vargas

    An then, the industry will be buried in his own grave dug.

  • Schmoe

    Yankee dollar talk, to the dictators of the world.
    In fact it’s giving orders, and they can’t afford to miss a word.
    I’m so bor-or-ored with the USA
    I’m so bor-or-ored with the USA
    But what can i do?

  • PirateSoldier

    Would love to see China saying to the United States of Greed about trade restrictions etc. Obama would surely brick it

  • joexxx

    Is that how Spain is planning to solve its fiscal crisis?

  • sukitmofos

    How to monetize the Internet:

    1) Name a city Hollywood
    2) Piss off that city by sharing content you bought from them
    3) Wait
    4) Regulatory laws get passed that were funded by the content you bought.
    5)Your ISP is now in business for organizations like the MPAA/RIAA.
    6)You are the MPAA/RIAA’s b*tch.

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    Dictatorship rears it’s ugly head again , Franco, you would be proud

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    let me name one thing that is illegal, and yet nearly everyone does it, or has done it, or knows someone who has done it. i don’t know where i am going with this so help me out., oh yes, my point is piracy, file sharing, torrents, whatever, they can all be made illegal and countries can remove their selves from the “safe haven” list, and yet, smoking a joint is illegal, using a mobile while driving is illegal, selling horse meat labelled as beef is illegal, and yet, wait a minute i’m thinking, here, oh teacakes it’s gone again, anyway, you get my point

  • fuck the mafiaa

    word to wise such as filesharers, continue to share, but don’t share on sites hosted in the offending country (spain) and use measures to protect yourself (vpn etc), do not give into mafiaa

  • FightBack

    The spanish government is using tax payers money to US media companies for….nothing? Tell me I have read that wrong.

    This kind of bullying and stupidness is enough to topple governments and radicalise people enough to go anbd blow the shit out of american interests

  • guess who

    america needs the world to sell crap too and buy from, the rest of us do not need america.

  • Andrew me

    Increase the taxes on the US media by 20%. I am sure this would stop them using the US government to blackmail the government into doing what they want them to do. And if anyone wants to complain then just let it be known that the extra tax is being used to enforce the laws to protect them. And at the same time Spain could start a huge investigation into Hollywood accounting, maybe even fining them billions for the avoidance of tax in the past. None could ever accept that the biggest grossing movies have never made a profit, and they are saying this, they are saying that star wars and ET never made a profit. Rubbish and something that the entertainment industry is going to have to pay for eventually.

  • wargamer1969

    VPN.

  • anon

    In spain we already pay for copies, we have been scammed during years. But nothing of it went to the copyright holders, only to a few political friends, why US doesn’t ask them for the money?, we have been paying extra taxes when buying CDs/DVDs HDDs, and printers…

    • MadAsASnake

      Printers???

      • Traveller

        Yes. As well as scanners and photocopy machines, because “they can be used to scan or copy books (and the printers to print them, of course)”. Even if the scanner will only be used to scan YOUR old pictures, the photocopier will be used for just office documents, or the printer for school works.

  • Pingback: Spain to Crackdown on Pirate Sites and Outlaw File-Sharing | TorrentFreak | American Spring

  • TheDoctour

    I have looked at this article and find it rather frightening that Spain is going to such lengths.

    You want to try to track down and fine those people infringing, good luck.

    You want to make it harder to get illegal content, good luck too.

    This is the part I find frightening:
    The reforms see the right to private copying only covering legally
    obtained media, meaning that in theory file-sharers could be prosecuted
    for their downloads from unauthorized sources. But that’s not all. Even
    though the blank media levy will be removed, compensation will still be
    paid to rightsholders. However, in future it will be the general Spanish
    tax-payer footing the bill, rather than just those doing the copying.

    Why is it that the general Spanish citizen (Or any citizen anywhere for point of fact.) should be essentially paying rightsholders with tax money? Why are the nameless and faceless masses, most of whom likely do not pirate/illegally obtain anything, paying for anything they are not involved in?

    In a way, this reminds me of an episode of the cartoon ‘DuckTales’. In it, Scrooge gets transported into a future where he did not have a chance to teach Huey, Dewey and Lewy about business. In that future, there is a tax on the right and privilege to own or do anything.

    Is that what is trying to be worked on here? A tax on the right to be able to buy entertainment, in addition to whatever VAT/sales tax there already is?

  • truth

    All that legislation and they still never addressed the question about finding infringes through proxies, Or a p2p virus that makes your computer into a small seedbox. Or using an open wifi… the list goes on as to how someone will be wrongly accused.

    • MadAsASnake

      Thats because they really have no idea how to catch people, even though most households will have someone doing this.

  • ataxpayer

    Removing the levy but still compensating through the tax-payer they must be smoking something strong

  • JohnGaspardo

    Fascists controlling your right to private copy? WTF do I need somebody to watch me drive a car cause I Might run over a crowd of people with it?

  • UScantcontrolus

    OUTRAGEOUS! How could Spain just give in to those fucking US companies. They only care about profits, not the culture or the artists.
    WE are the people! The laws are for US! If we don’t want US to control everything, we have to do something against it!
    By any means possible if we have to.

    • Anon

      Big internet tough guy. While they drive you to vpns. lol

  • JordanKratz

    Hope you guys in Spain will do some great Protests over this.

  • dasdasd

    MAFIAA just invaded Spain.

  • Oblong of Orange

    Someone’s been spending…

  • (((

    SOPA + DCMA, but then worse!

  • dcvs

    What kind of ego must you have to put your name on a bill, grandiosa imaginia, a buffon to boot, i will look back in history with contempt at these scum, not admiration, egotistical maniacs

  • Pingback: W Hiszpanii powstał pomysł zakazu umieszczania reklam na pirackich serwisach | Prawo autorskie. Co nas uwiera?

  • Pingback: España prepara nuevas medidas anti-piratería

  • Pingback: Spagna, terra bruciata per il copyright | SudTv Network

  • Canadian

    Dont know why people have to link to the content. Just have a nice review site about movies and and such that are posted via P2P. Then post a youtube video on how to use bittorrent with a VPN if the users are so inclined.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.