Slashdot Mirror
Millions Delete ALL Music Files?
Honig the Apothecary writes "CNN is reporting that millions of people have deleted all the music files from their computers in a story here.
My question is how the hell would they know? Are they substituting "deleted" for the words "disabled sharing with other users"?"
Hi, this is jim joebob from the NPD group. We're doing a little survey to find out how many households have thrown away their pot. Do you still have a stash over 1oz, or have you disposed of all your contraband since the current crackdown went into effect?
Either way, please give me your name and address, and the pattywagon will arrive in 15 minutes.
that downloaded the new britney cd. Coincidence?
Well Duh! Of course we are deleting all the music files from my computer. How else am I going to have enough disk space for all the pirated HD broadcasts I will be downloading?
As far as the RIAA is concered, deleting and 'unsharing' are same thing.
Their goal is to stop filesharing, not convince users to pay for what they already downloaded.
Take out deleted and add in burned. With cd writers being under $50, and with blank cds being damn near free, it makes a lot more sence to just burn all your mp3s instead of archiving them on your hard drive.
They're just like me, they burn them onto CDROM instead and then delete the files...TO MAKE ROOM FOR MORE PIRATED MUSIC! [Evil laugh...]
Linux O Muerte!
Also on the page (I'm not kidding, look yourself):
CNN: The Least Trusted Name In News.
sulli
RTFJ.
Thats right horribly evil RIAA lawyers, I deleted my mp3s, so please don't sue me. Its not like I just moved them out of the shared folder or anything. Wait....oh crap.
[Just Shut Up and Do What I say]
Its sad that modern american corporate media can be such obvious tools.
How can they publish such obvious self-serving corporate propaganda? Did CNN, or the author ever stop to think "hey, maybe they're assumptions are rigged in order for them to recieve some personal gain?" You'd think that they'd question the source of the information they'd base such a story on.
I took a couple of marketing classes and I understand the principals involed in calculating marketing data, but where are they getting their data?
In May, 606,000 households deleted ALL mp3's. 1,400,000 in August. Let's just say that 1mil/month for 4 months. 4,000,000 HOUSEHOLDS(not people) in 4 months. At that rate mp3's will be wiped from existence sometime next year. It just doesn't add up.
>> Millions Delete ALL Music Files?
I delete my thousand music files once a month when I reinstall Windows because the damn OS is so unstable. Over the past year I've deleted 12000 music files, the same ones twelve times.
Methodology Note: NPD MusicWatch Digital information is collected continuously from the PCs of 40,000 volunteer online panelists, balanced to represent the online population of PC users. NPD's MusicLab survey was fielded in September of 2003 to a representative sample of 5,000 respondents aged 13 and older.
Still, you have to believe their volunteer panelists wouldn't fess up to having any downloaded music given the current RIAA intimidation tactics.
Since when has been ok to post stories and articles without backing it up with proof?
Now, were this a link to The Weekly World News, that'd be different. ( I love that rag )
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
We asked 2 people if they had deleted all their files. 1 said yes, the other said no. We factored that in against the population of the US, # of computer users, # of estimated song downloaders, and then against a .5% factor of error...
Voila 1.4 million people have deleted their music drives. That'll be 5 cents please.
If you go to NPD Group's website and click on their press release, they had this to say: "Methodology Note: NPD MusicWatch Digital information is collected continuously from the PCs of 40,000 volunteer online panelists, balanced to represent the online population of PC users. NPD's MusicLab survey was fielded in September of 2003 to a representative sample of 5,000 respondents aged 13 and older." How were those volunteer panelists chosen? Perhaps they were provided by their client the RIAA from people who signed their on-line forgiveness document. It's hard to believe any of this information when their clients spend a lot of money to get the answer they want. I could probably produce a study showing that music-swapping is up 400% by monkeys in Nepal.
I deleted all the music files from my machine when I reinstalled the OS. Of course, then I loaded them on again from my backup, does that count?
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_031105.
it's done via telephone survey apparently
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Because even heavily compressed, they look so much better than anything I get via regular TV/cable.
Ya, they deleted it all...
There is no way they could know that.... but the RIAA probably loves them saying it... "Look ma, we're winning!"
Some probably have deleted everything our of fear... but those are the users who simply don't know the difference between a bark and a bite from the paper tiger.
I haven't deleted a single music file, and I doubt most have...
This is just another PR story for the RIAA.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
AFTER I burned them to CD
Technoli
My PC went beep beep beep and suddenly all my mp3's were gone!
*ducks*
Threadkilling since 1992
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
GEEZ!!!! Will you shut up!? We're counting on the fact that the RIAA doesn't know the difference. ;P
Un-news
Anyone else reminded of the communist "Cultural Revolution" in China?
Nothing like reading a RIAA paid INFO-tisement.
and I really love how they still paint ANY music file as illigitimate and EVIL.
I'm educating my daughter and her friends, they spend at least 2 days a week surfing on www.iuma.org for new indie bands to download and they have cince stopped listening to RIAA music on the radio. My daughter has asked if I could buy her a few of the CD of artists she likes, they ALL are unsigned bands from IUMA.
when you discover that there is an alternative source that only takes a bit of effort to get better quality music.... I can see why the RIAA is extremely afraid of music files.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Suuuuuurrree now...I can just picture it:
SurveyGuy: Yes, hello. I'm calling in regards to a survey we are conducting. We would like to know if you have deleted all the illegal music files from your computer since the recent RIAA legal proceedings started?
HipHopFreak: Uh...YEAH! I deleted them all, because I really want to pay for all the music I listen too. Really...believe me. I don't have any more illegal music files. REALLY! You don't have to send the cops here...
SurveyGuy: Sir, we're an independent survey company. We will not be involving the police.
HipHopFreak: Uh huh, and that's what the guy who tried to buy my TV said...
The RIAA represents big record labels such as Bertelsmann's BMG Entertainment, Vivendi's Universal Music and Time Warner's Warner Music. Time-Warner is the parent company of CNN.com.
So one of the companies underneath the RIAA is reporting something they find favorable. Its not surprising. I'm sure if some 10 person company came out with a survey that people loved the RIAA's new tactics they would publish that too.
Journalistic integrity is not always held to a high standard. This comes up when they can pass the credibility to another company. This time its the "research company NPD Group" or whoever the fuck they are.
Yeah, this reminds me of "surveys" we would take in high school.
Half the kids (the 'good' ones) would never admit to having done drugs, or had sex, even if they had. They were worried that the school would tell their parents somehow, that it wasn't truly anonymous.
The other half of us.. well let's just say that at 14 I was having sex at least twice a day, drinking probably 40 ounces of alcohol a night, and had done crack twice in the past week alone. Oh, and I was also a gay transvestite horse-buggerer (for the surveys that had write-on options).
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I need space for my divx screener collection dammit !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
"If you buy CDs you're paying the RIAA to sic lawyers on 12 year old girls."
If you don't buy CDs the RIAA sics lawyers on 12 year old girls.
Wanna get their attention? Buy a CD then return it unopened and in re-sellable shape. When a million dollars materializes one day and disappears the next, they'll have to notice.
"Derp de derp."
"I felt a great disturbance in the kazaa, it was like millions of files cried out at once and then were silent..."
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I like how they mention the decline occurred during college summer vacation but the tone seems to say that the measured decline is an indicator of people not sharing due to RIAA junk, but they said it themselves -during the college summer vacation- meaning, no one has bandwidth anymore.
I personally deleted all of my mp3's as well as all traces of said mp3's in the registry because I didn't want to chance being harassed. However, I also have not purchased a CD since then nor will I ever purchase one in the future.
The music industry stifles musical creativity by picking up the latest britney clones and telling the masses that they are popular. Even the artists that are lucky enough to be chosen don't make anything from the CD sales. It's all about some old man somewhere making 90% profit from each CD sold, just because a group of those guys controls what gets sold to stores, what plays on the radio, and what is seen on MTV.
I can safely say that I've given up on the music industry and the only time I am exposed is when I'm in the car and the radio happens to be on. Good riddance Recording Industry Ass. of America. You can take your pop music and shove it up your ass.
Meh, you just renamed them, didn't you?
I'm sorry about all the confusion. I deleted millions of songs off my computer. I work for Time Warner, so I guess some of my coworkers might have noticed. Sorry about that.
Um...millions of hot cheerleaders have had sex with ME! They obviously had a good reason, and you would hate to upset the status quo, right? In fact, many cheerleaders that have refused to have sex with me have been sued by large faceless corporate conglomerates.
(whoo-hoo!)
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
How does the RIAA or the studio care about that? They've already made the sale to the music store who will the one seeing the apparent profit disappear.
----
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
The RIAA is a political organization, looking to ban technology to save their business model.
The recording industry fatcats want their money, and are scared of new technology. No one wants to split from the group and try selling music in any other fashion than the current model. They feel threatened. The industry is behaving exactly like they did during the cassette tape scare, just like the motion picture industry was scared of the VCR and video tape. Remember movie rentals? VHS videos were frequently $100 or more until used movies became available... and movie houses started dropping their retail prices down to the current prices.
Movie rentals threatened the movie industry, until they realized that it actually developed new markets for their material.
The RIAA is not filled with innovative, bright individuals. The RIAA throws money at weak-minded, spineless senators and congresspeople like Conyer, Fritz Hollings, and any politician from California (Berman, Feinstein, etc.). The recording industry sees technology as the end of their business. They are in denial. The emperor has no clothes.
What's really funny is that they also profit from the downloaders. They research what the downloaders' are trading, and call the radio stations to increase air time, which sells more CDs. Hypocrites! They profit from the very process they're trying to stop.
I don't fault them for researching the downloaders' behavior. That's the bright people helping the record biz survive.
The political side of the biz is what I can't stand. This is why most people can't stand politicians or the courts.
Politicians choose not to understand the technology, they choose to listen to those with the biggest pocketbooks. Ostriches... with their heads in sand.
With the RIAA and Fritz Hollings' old method of thinking, the school systems should only be using chalkboards and chalk. The police will be stopping by later to pick up your VCR, computer, and cassette tape recorder.
"No new technology, it ruins our business."
-- No sig for you!
If im counted in the 'millions' statistic, they are wrong... i, and many people i know have stopped publicly sharing, and started sharing to people we download from and know :)
I know of more than a few non-technical people who still were able to figure out Napster/Kazaa/etc and download songs who deleted EVERY .mp3 the second they heard about RIAA lawsuits/etc. They didn't understand that the RIAA was going after sharers--they heard 'mp3' and 'lawsuit' in the same sentence and freaked out. Granted, this is just anecdotal and not representative of the whole population, but I think it's an attitude more than just a few people had.
I have a feeling a good number of other people did the same thing, even if they did just rip the music from their purchased CDs. To the uninformed, it must look really scary.
sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
To quote the original release:
...
The music industry's success in reducing file-sharing activity has been impressive, but now the real work of winning back the hearts and minds of consumers must begin," Crupnick said. "To capitalize on this success, the industry must re-double efforts to educate the file-sharing public about how illegal file sharing affects not just the industry's bottom line, but also the artists themselves and the ability of the industry to continue to offer a wide range of new music to consumers. New legal ways to purchase digital music on the Web can work hand-in-glove with these education efforts and help to improve the public's perception of the music industry."
Not a single mention about winning our hearts and minds with better content, fairer prices, or better treatment of artists. No. They want to reemphasize how BAD the public has been. Yes, the floggings will continue until morale improves!
The RIAA so profoundly does not get it
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Yeah, the sample size isn't the problem here, it's the fact that the population agreeing to be monitored by the music industry is, by definition, dramatically different from the population on the net as a whole.
;) and close to 100% compliance from the drivers that putz down the road at 5mph under. The two populations are essentially independant, and any extrapolation is going to be dead wrong.
It's as if the highway patrol had a voluntary program to install speed recorders/transmitters in your car, and got one in every 2500 drivers to agree to the installation-- they're going to get 0% compliance from drivers like me
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
I have 15GB to fill on my iPod and that frees up a heck of a lotta room on my hard drive for more games!
-growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional
I quit looking at pr0n too. You have my word on it.
If 1.4 million deleted all their MP3s and we assume the average P2Pirate had 100 illegal MP3s with the well-known value of $2,500 per track, this means RIAA member companies just made a net profit of:
1.4 * 10^6 * 100 * 2500 = 350 billion USD
I think CNN's interpretation of "Deleted" is actually just wishful thing. Although I bet a lot of kids have been yelled at by Mom and Dad and probably grounded from "web use" for having kazaa installed.
On a side note (sorta related) I saw the Matrix Revo- last night and before the movie was this ad about software piracy and why it's wrong because lot's of people work hard to make good movies. This was laughed at, booed, and general flaming comments shouted by the audiance at the ad.
Ave Molech Setting
This happens every 6 months as we all reinstall windows...
;)
On a less serious note, these stories are very important for helping us to understand the credability of the agancies that report them.
I read this is the wall street journal the other day.
A company has got 10,000 people to install monitoring softward on their computers, and they use that to gague internet behavior.
How many pirates would volenteer to have monitoring software on their computer?
Heck it was probebly a spyware tool used to check for this... Most of the people only had a few
songs that stoped shareing, hardly cutting down on the masses
come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
The study measures deletion of songs off users' hard drives, not pirated music only. I have an actual social conscience, and an aversion to lawsuits. Yet, I have several gigs of music on my harddrive. Every song on the machine is from a CD that I have stacked in my closet, from which I've ripped the song as per my court-approved fair use rights. On a regular basis, I space-shift those songs off the HD onto a memory card to listen to in flight. None of this is even a little illegal, despite the RIAAs telling me so.
I will, however, agree that there are, in fact, millions of rather naive users that probably believe the RIAA can see into their harddrives and will sue them any day now. Kinda sad, if you ask me.
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Kazaa Lite has a feature that allows you to block listing of your files, but not sharing. So, if someone it trying to download a file, your computer would oblighe them if it has it. However, if someone tries to get a list of what you have, it reports nothing. I guess the reasoning is you can still share, but the RIAA et al can't find a list of all the shit you have to go after you with.
Which makes sense. But it misses some subtle and interesting points highlighted by NPD's press release:
It should not be a shock to anyone that file traders might find the RIAA's actions distastefull. After all - they're the ones either directly affected or threatned by it. But what's interesting is that it appears that the same negative reaction is being expressed by those who are either casual traders or not involved in file trading at all.
This aludes to the often-expressed opinion that it is dangerous to sue one's customer base. It will be interesting to see if the Industry is able to manage this increasingly negative opinion and, if not, if it will affect the bottom line.
RIAA has used the argument that file sharing has reduced sales of music CDs over the past several years. If this is correct, then there should be a direct correlation between file deletions and CD sales (assuming folks who listed to their music files will continue to listen to something). It will be interesting to track CD sales and see if there is a turn-around in the record market. If there is no turn-around, it suggests that excessive price is the culprit, not file sharing - a quiet victory for our community.
Editors ask writers to create content on subjects that they think will be picked up by other news services. The union rules state that the writer retains the right to withold their name on a story if they feel the story is inaccurate or if they disagree with what they've been asked to write. Editors hate when writers do this because those in the industry know what a authorless article implies. This is why you will sometimes see stories from the AP or Reuters that do reference the author:
Move Over Beauty Queens, Italy Seeks Miss Digital
And others that don't:
Dog Shoots Man
So what does this mean to you, the critical consumer of news? If an article carries the author's name, it means they endorse it's content - they believe in the validity of it. If it does not, it means the writer was either forced to create content that they didn't agree with or believe was accurate or that the writer was up against a deadline and failed to provide content that they were proud of.
The cnn article, interestingly, does not provide an author. Any thoughts on why? The question of how they know content was deleted is awfully vital to getting the point of this article across. It really doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny.
Yeah, that's my point-- I'm pretty well familiar with sampling, given it's my job. And a truly random 40,000 sample would be plenty to give you 95% conf. in a 1e8 population (actually, it'd give you well over 99% for a yes/no question, probably with a margin of 1-2% depending on where the responses landed). IF the sample was properly selected.
The technique is called random sampling, and it hasn't been applied here. This is a self-selecting (or at least voluntary response, they didn't indicate how they got their panelists), non-random sample, asking for information on behaviour that's widely believed to be illegal, or at least has the potential for negative consequences. The sample isn't just not representative of the population, it's virtually guarenteed to be exclusive of the population you're trying to extrapolate into.
And they didn't ask a question, they're continuously monitoring the computers of their voluntary panelists (stated in their press release). How may people with good MP3 collections do you know that'll let the RIAA install monitoring software? Thought so.
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Kudos to you for actually going to the NPD site and finding out the basis of their claims before bitching on /. :p
:Eighty percent of the consumers who deleted files had fewer than 50 files saved; just 10 percent had more than 200 files.
And to answer your question:
Hmm I wonder if people who know their computers are being monitored are more likely to delete their digital music files... Maybe that would affect the validity of this study, you think?
Yes; this is called voluntary response bias in statistics. People with large collections of illegal files are much less likely to volunteer to have their PC watched, as you implied. Note from the official press release
I think most people will agree that 80% having less than 50 songs is not an accurate representation of the file-sharing population.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
40,000 volunteers....yet the press release title says "Millions of households". And then, the survey itself was fielded by only 5,000 respondents.
I may be a little behind the bell curve here, but how does that add up then to "millions" of households. I can understand maybe millions of files deleted...but I checked and rechecked the release and it plainly states "More than a million households deleted all the digital music files they had saved on their PCs in August".
Or is NPD MusicWatch Digital just a puppet of the RIAA? Spreading around a little FUD and dis-information...kinda like the inflated enemy body counts of Vietnam.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
/C:
what the hell is that????
...we are from the government - we are here to help...