The IPI recently released a piracy study, which was criticized on TLF and TechDirt . I could not help but find these attacks rather odd.

The TLF writer, a free culture/FOSS fanatic, wants to do away with IPRs because he does not believe commercial incentives are necessary for innovation and feels a natural right to tinker with others' software. In the current market where the success of FOSS is marked by news of IPOs and market share, the TLF writer does not even know whats good for the proletariat revolution. The Tech Dirt critic, a marketing intelligence consultant who wants firms to use their new products/services as advertisements to sell t-shirts, would do away with IPRs so he can get more marketing clients. While marketing is important, it is not a substitute for innovation.

Thus, you have two opposing views, one anti-commercial and one pro-commercial, attempting to downplay intellectual property rights and piracy enforcement. If one wanted to witness the madness of crowds, here it is.

Update- Mr. Masnick from Tech Dirt commented to this post, and made some good points that deserve highlighting.

On the independence of Masnick's business and IP views- "...my positions on IP have nothing to do with our corporate efforts. We don't do any work in the IP space at all. It's a personal interest, not a professional one."

OK, thats reasonable, but without Masnick emphasizing this point, it would be otherwise difficult to discern.

On the importance of marketing, Masnick writes- "Indeed, it [innovation] often does have a marketing bent, because innovation is the combination of invention and marketing. So why wouldn't it? Innovation is about bringing a new offering to market successfully."

Right, marketing is a part of innovation. Marketing is a way for entities to communicate with the consumer market, and differentiate themselves from the competition. However, I still find that Masnick over-emphasizes the role of marketing in innovation. Few organizations have so neglected marketing that they need to give away more new products/services as advertisements; it is also arguable that the advertisement value of piracy (spillovers) is limited, thus piracy should not be seen as added benefit for firms' marketing over that already undertaken.

On Masnick's take on innovation- "I already clarified why your characterization of my position is laughably wrong. It has nothing to do with weakening the commercial sector."

Great, but this misses the point of my post, which is that Masnick's arguments, intended to support industry, align with those who would weaken it in the name of free culture and the freedom to tinker.