Here we have yet another case of sensationalism. The researchers set out to prove their point, whether it was a good point or not, and then proved it. Whether the responses were verified or not is not the issue here. The issue here is that it's just another study that these "internet police" are going to use to argue their case.
But is it a good argument? Obviously, no it isn't. The internet doesn't belong to 2000 unnamed people they got over the phone, it belongs to the billions of people using the web across the globe. Whatever the hell 2000 people said in the United States should mean jack squat in the overall scheme of things, not just because of how arrogant it is to suggest that 2000 people and a few researchers have the right to dictate what's shown on the web, but because the sample is nowhere near being representative of anything.
Google would be insane to listen to a very tiny and select demographic of self-reports aimed at something that nobody wants, whether it's pirated or no. It's against every possible issue of freedom of speech out and censorship out there. Until I see reports that the majority of US citizens ACTUALLY want this type of censorship, I won't take even a scrap of an argument as proof.
