The 2007 Digital Economy Fact Book is a 200 page PDF of statistics and data about the internet and usage; as the Hill Library Blog writes, “a tightwad researcherís dream: In-depth, statistic-heavy, well-cited, and freely-available online. One could hardly ask for more.” It’s published by The Progress and Freedom Foundation, which sounds a little scary – they’re “a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy”, according to their mission statement. Reading on, I see they want governments to “resist the temptation to regulate, tax and control”, and one of their goals is to “explain[..] the imperative to protect rich digital content and encourage innovation through the traditional legal notions of copyright and patent”. I imagine they don’t like open source, open access, the creative commons or Lawrence Lessig. Their sponsors include traditional big media industry names from Disney through Clear Channel, Microsoft and AT&T – and Google, for some reason.

So this is hardly objective research, or at least, it’s not research conducted to find out the truth: it’s research conducted to make the argument that we should retain traditional copyright and keep control in the hands of the big corporations rather than the government or the people.

And yet there are certainly lots of graphs, charts, figures and so on, all with sources given, and certainly this tightwad researcher may have a look at them next time she needs some info. But I’ll take them with a grain of salt.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “the 2007 digital economy fact book: 200 pages of (pro-copyright, anti-government regulation) statistics for free

  1. […] The Digital Economy Fact Book Posted mars 3, 2008 Jill Walker har en interessant omtale av The Digital Economy Fact Book. Denne studien er i f??lge Jill et bestillingsverk fra medieindustrien, og f??lgelig b??r en kanskje ta konklusjonene med en klype salt (eller noe lignende). Men uansett er det en samling av mye interessant statistikk. […]

  2. Dan Britton

    2007 and 2008 DEFB co-author here. Although I could understand why someone would be skeptical of the neutrality of this publication, it’s really not intended to be a political tool at all, or at least I never had that impression when I was working on it. It’s more of a “just-the-facts-ma’am” summary of all the information we could find on various Internet and communications-related topics. I admit there were some topics, such as the section on “Piracy,” where the one could interpret some data as being political in nature, but most of the content was merely restating what various (mostly politically neutral) groups and researchers had already found. Other than the two or three (out of about 60) sections that dealt with copyright, views on copyright law rarely entered into the writing of the book at all.

    FWIW, I no longer work at PFF, and though I generally agreed with most of the viewpoints taken by my former coworkers, as a lifelong left-leaner, I wouldn’t say that I have a great desire to keep power “in the hands of the big corporations rather than the government or the people.”

    But thanks for the mention anyway, no hard feelings! 🙂

  3. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Thanks for commenting, Dan – it’s very useful to hear this straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. The information you’ve compiled is certainly very useful, though I think it’s always useful to to be aware of how surveys can lean in one direction or another.

  4. […] Today I found a comment in my moderation queue from Dan Britton, a co-author of The 2007 digital economy fact book, a freely available collection of statistics on the digital economy which I had blogged a few months ago, calling it 200 pages of (pro-copyright, anti-government regulation) statistics. Dan Britton explains that while he can see how the section on piracy, for instance, might be interpretated as having a political agenda, “itís really not intended to be a political tool at all, or at least I never had that impression when I was working on it”. Interesting to have a bit of an insight into the process of making the book – though I still think there’s reason to be aware that even statistics may be skewed. Filed under:General — Jill @ 12:03 [ ] […]

  5. […] Today I found a comment in my moderation queue from Dan Britton, a co-author of The 2007 digital economy fact book, a freely available collection of statistics on the digital economy which I had blogged a few months ago, calling it 200 pages of (pro-copyright, anti-government regulation) statistics. Dan Britton explains that while he can see how the section on piracy, for instance, might be interpretated as having a political agenda, “itís really not intended to be a political tool at all, or at least I never had that impression when I was working on it”. Interesting to have a bit of an insight into the process of making the book – though I still think there’s reason to be aware that even statistics may be skewed. Filed under:General — Jill @ 12:03 [ ] […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.