Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Does Piracy Harm Sales? | 197 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Does Piracy Harm Sales?

Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT

Yea but who is this guy and who is his sponsor?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Follow the numbers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT

Does Piracy Harm Sales?

Authored by: Wol on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT

From reading the paper, however, they DID do some REAL research. Which showed up
poor research in the original papers.

For those who haven't read the paper, what they found was ...

The paper they examined in detail excluded a load of data. In particular, they
excluded from the study, people who had *not* bought a CD during the study
period, on the assumption that they never bought CDs so they didn't represent an
actual loss. Despite the evidence available to the study that many of them had
bought CDs the year before.

So, to sum up, they have concluded that many studies "conveniently"
exclude inconvenient evidence, using assumptions that even the evidence the
researchers have available shows up those assumptions to be false.

Not good science.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )