The War On Bullshit

(or, “Why the RIAA is full of BS”)

The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) wants you to believe that unauthorized music downloads are responsible for the music industry’s recent decrease in sales and profits. It has two primary arguments (and since they made The War on Bullshit Blog, you can probably guess what I think of them…)

Individual Downloads

Its first argument runs as follows:

1. “The U.S. music industry loses more than $300 million per year to street piracy alone” (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php)
2. Peer-to-peer (P2P) downloading is way bigger than street piracy (http://www.riaa.com/faq.php)
3. Therefore, the U.S. music industry loses way more than $300 million per year to peer-to-peer downloading.

Whether this makes sense depends on how you calculate a loss. If, every time someone downloads a song, you write that up as a $1 loss, then the RIAA has a point… wait… something smells like bullshit!

A peer-to-peer download only represents a loss to the music industry if, were that download unavailable, the downloader would have made a music purchase. Furthermore, even if the downloader were to buy the song on iTunes for, say, $1, that doesn’t imply $1 profit for the music industry. Profit = Revenue - Expenses. A peer-to-peer download does not create any expenses for the music industry. Recording, manufacturing and marketing a CD does.

The RIAA is trying to hoodwink the public and lawmakers into thinking that it’s being victimized by downloading - that downloaders are stealing millions upon millions of dollars from the music industry each year. But it’s all bullshit. They can’t establish that P2P file sharing is causing their decrease in profits. This causal relationship constitutes a theory, one that can be studied scientifically. And guess what?

There is no scientifically defensible evidence that an individual P2P download affects the profits of the music industry.

At this point, individual downloaders are off the hook as far as tort law is concerned. If the RIAA cannot establish that the individual accused had the accused effect, and they can’t, there is no basis for a lawsuit. End of story. (I sure hope a few judges read this…)

File Sharing as a Social Phenomenon

However, it could be argued that while an individual downloader is not responsible for the music industry’s losses, the social phenomenon of P2P file sharing is. This could still form a basis to outlaw this fine pastime.

The argument the RIAA can draw on goes as follows:

1. Before P2P file sharing caught on, CD sales (or profits, or revenues, or whatever) were rising
2. After P2P file sharing caught on, CD sales (or profits, or revenues, or whatever) have been falling.
3. Therefore, P2P file sharing caused the fall of CD sales.

This isn’t really bullshit, it’s just false. More specifically, this is a classical logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc, a Latin phrase meaning, “after this, therefore because of this.” This is akin to saying, ‘I drank green tea before that big earthquake, therefore, drinking green tea causes earthquakes.’

There is no scientifically defensible evidence that P2P downloading as a social phenomena affects the profits of the music industry.

In fact, there is significant evidence to the contrary.

Economic study on the effect of music downloads

According to this new study: “the estimated effect of file sharing on sales is not statistically distinguishable from zero,” (p. 3). This is a formal way of saying that the authors found no causal link between P2P file sharing and industry losses.

To make this claim, the authors construct a variety of mathematical models to estimate the effect of downloading on music sales. They conclude: “Using detailed records of transfers of digital music files, we find that file sharing has had no statistically significant effect on purchases of the average album in our sample,” (p. 38) If you read the full paper, you will find that the authors cannot wholly reject a relationship between downloading and sales. This is a limitation of statistical reasoning - statistically, you can fail to find evidence of a relationship, but it’s much harder (potentially impossible) to show definitively that two variables are completely unrelated. Thus, conservatively speaking, this study indicates that, if there is an effect at all, it must be very small.

Thus, in the absence of scientifically defensible evidence to the contrary, the RIAA’s claim that music downloading is diminishing the music industry’s profits are bullshit.

On to Part 2 –>

In my previous two posts, I established first that the grades assigned to students are subjective, if not entirely arbitrary; and second, that grades are pragmatically important because admissions, scholarships and jobs hinge on them. In summary, the system of grading is horribly screwed up, and we can’t just ignore it because careers, self-esteem and wheelbarrows of money depend on grades. This drew an interesting objection.

Jo writes: “So it is all bullshit. We know this. Give them what they want and move on to something better…”

I call this the “quityerbitchin” argument: yeah, you have a point, but unless you can tell us how to fix it, shut up already. With this I must agree, so let’s have at it then, shall we?

Two Alternatives to get the Bullshit out of Grading

If grades are subjective, but society pretends they’re objective, and this causes problems, we have two logical possibilities:

1. Embrace the Subjectivity of Evaluation

The first option is to simply accept that grading is subjective - to embrace the subjectivity of evaluation. While this may satisfy the social constructivists and interpretivists, it does cause some societal problems. If grades are just someone’s far-from-impartial opinion of a student, then basing job offers, admissions to schools and millions of dollars of scholarship money wholly or partially on grades smacks of incompetence and irresponsibility. Morality thus compels us to stop using grades as a primary selection criterion. However, it is presently unclear what could then serve as criteria on which to compare students.

While this option remains a possibility, it feels unsatisfying because one of the main functions of grading is to discriminate the good students from the bad.

2. Maximize Grade Objectivity

The other logical alternative is to try to make grades as objective as possible, with the understanding that a measure will always have some degree of error. This can be achieved by applying the same rigorous standard for instrument development that social scientists employ. Since a complete elucidation of the research surrounding the theory of measurement would occupy several volumes, I’ll stick to a few of the major points:

• The instructor must know what construct (e.g. knowledge of geography, or arithmetic proficiency) he or she is trying to measure. Said construct must be clearly and specifically defined.
• The constructs instructors are supposed to measure must be standardized nationally, or better, globally.
• Essays, projects, reports, papers, presentations, etc. must always be graded by several graders. Lack of agreement among graders indicates a problem with the assignment.
• “Objective” tests (multiple choice, etc.) must be pretested and validated. You have to test the test to make sure it measures what it’s supposed to measure and has no confusing questions.
• Students should be graded against a standard (not on a bell curve) and the standard must be a bona fide national, or preferably global, standard, designed by an objective process.
• The 1 to 100 grading scale must be replaced by a coarser scale (no larger than 1 to 5) wherein differences are meaningful enough to achieve reliable scoring.
• Due to the difficulty of creating good measures, schools should share tests that work.

Please note that I am not advocating an academic dystopia of endless public exams filled with countless multiple choice and fill-ins. I suspect that those sorts of tests are incapable of measuring most of the variables that grades should reflect. To me, this list screams out for problem-based learning and a revolution toward educational post-modernism, but that is a topic for another day.

And so dies the “quityerbitchin” argument.

In my last post, I established that grades are subjectively, if not arbitrarily, assigned. This inevitably draws the ‘pure learner’ argument.

Cynthia writes: “Why don’t you try being a pure learner, whose objective is knowledge, not grades??”

This is another way of asking, what does it matter if grades are subjective? Why do grades even matter in the grand scheme of things? By itself, arbitrary grading is inconsequential, but combined with admissions, scholarship granting and hiring practices, arbitrary grading promotes bias, prejudice, macroeconomic ineptitude and a culture of ignorance.

1. Admissions criteria

Admissions to college, grad school and other post secondary institutions are based primarily on grades. If you don’t believe me, try applying to MIT for a Ph. D. in Computer Science with a C average and see how far you get. Leadership skills and volunteer work won’t mean dick.

2. Scholarships

Ever wonder how that ditz got a full scholarship and you’re working two jobs to keep your student loans under control? Scholarships are mostly distributed primarily on the basis of marks.

3. Hiring practices

When you’ve got 20 years experience or a Ph. D., your transcript might not matter to employers, but for your first job out of college, plenty of them will have a look. It may not be the only criteria, but it counts. More importantly, plenty of jobs require a minimum education level, which you won’t have if you’re arbitrarily flunked out be teachers who don’t like you or don’t know how to evaluate you.

To summarize, unless you are so wealthy that you can bribe your way into the school you want, don’t care about scholarships, and don’t need a job after, you have to worry about marks!

Therefore, the ‘pure learner’ argument is bullshit.

on to the exciting conclusion –>