EU-Backed Study Finds Counterfeits Pro-Consumer, Rejects Company Complaints
3 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
A masters paper I did 3 years ago had exactly the same results…
My two month research paper I completed back in 2008 found counterfeiting losses is HUGELY exaggerated similar to this study. That study found that those who would pay for a counterfeit item would never have purchased the original product in the first place. It would therefore be an incorrect assumption and a statistical error for any business entity to consider counterfeit goods as loss revenue.
The only losses I could statically prove were from consumers purchasing counterfeit items they thought were the ‘Real McCoy’ – meaning retailers selling counterfeit copies of brand-name clothing, electronic goods, and media, but at MSRP prices. This accounted for up to 10% of all clothing and goods purchased.
Using this information, I discovered reported losses from counterfeiting and piracy are over exaggerated by over 90%. Meaning, the data provided by special interest lobby groups including RIAA, MPAA, and clothing consortiums is grossly incorrect.
My study also showed that there are intangible benefits of selling counterfeit products and that the free advertising and brand awareness these goods create far outweigh losses sustained by ‘consumers who are not your customers.’ Furthermore, my study showed that software companies who’s products are pirated, reap huge rewards on a future product version releases – a large percentage those who liked the product were likely to purchase a new version. Users of pirated software also were more inclined to use it legitimately at work – meaning, use it for free at home and then purchase it for use at work.
ed reddy
Ed reddy, where do we find your paper?
Counterfeiting is an offence against the *purchaser*, not the *manufacturer*
This confirms that the intent of “counterfeiting” laws are exactly correct – as long as the purchaser hasn’t been misled, there’s no counterfeiting involved.