The File Sharing Database

Nuclear Elephant writes "The File Sharing Database is an online record of things users wouldn't have bought if they hadn't downloaded it (or part of it) first, and therefore tracks sales as a direct result of file sharing. The RIAA and MPAA claim that file sharing hurts sales, but some recent figures show that file sharing works FOR the industry. This database sets out to prove it once and for all. So if you've ever bought something you downloaded, roll on over and add it to the database."

Comments

Where's the other way round?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the database which shows what customers would have bought if they hadn't downloaded it?

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to own a bunch of albums on Audio Tape. Those tapes wore out long ago. I'm talking about 100 audio tapes at $8 a pop.

As far as I am concerned, I still have a license to that music, but I don't have a working copy anymore and deserve a replacement.

Where's THAT database Mr. RIAA?

Re:Where's the other way round?

[pHatidic]

I would guess that there is a very strong correlation between how many times each song is requested to be played on the radio and how many CDs are sold. If the formula suddenly changes wildly that would be a very good indication. But seriously, how could you possibly buy a song without listening to it first? Most radio stations only play the same one or two songs off a CD, is there even a legal way to listen to the other ten songs on the CD at all? Buying something without knowing what your paying for is just being an irresponsible consumer, period.

For me personally I admit to downloading my fair share of MP3s on Napster back when all the cool kids were doing it. But that the thrill of raping and plundering has worn off and P2P is widely looked down upon by the technologically elite who made it popular I buy all my songs off iTMS or just buy the CD. Five years ago this would have been a big deal because there was no way to legally download songs and listen to all the tracks on a CD legally. But now there is, so people caught downloading anything that can be legally purchased in the US for a reasonable amount of money get what they deserve. (Anime, films, and music not distributed in the US not included)

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Arathrael]

You sound confused.

First you say that buying something without knowing what you're paying for is being an irresponsible consumer.

But then you say that downloading them to listen to them via P2P is 'raping and plundering'.

And then you say you now buy all your songs off iTMS or just buy the CD. How do you know what you're buying?

Re:Where's the other way round?

[nkh]

I wait for the third version of the database: what customers have bought (without knowing it) and didn't wanted (like Microsoft Windows and all those free anti-viruses pre-installed on your computer).

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple he does what most people have been doing for ages, going into thier record store of choice and sampling things there. You know, so like everyone for the past 50+ years you know what you're buying.

Of course downloading has served a purpose for me, its turned me on to a large amount of music i never would have found or even heard about otherwise.

I've since bought about 10% of it and am continuing to buy as the opportunity arises to do so ($$$) and availibility as a used CD or whatnot.

I have an iPod and use iTMS sometimes, but mostly i prefer buying CD and ripping myself.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[racerxroot]

I have work on the honor system. I download every movie that comes out, that seems to interest me. I watch it myself, and judge if its worth paying 7 dollars for... I got fed up with going to see movies that just SUCKED... yes, this is purely subjective, but I believe I'm justified, and I truly do go and pay for every movie I feel is worth it... infact, sometimes I don't bother staying for the whole thing.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Veridium]

Personally, anything I download and continue to listen to I buy. If I had to buy things sound unheard like back in my teen age years, I'd be buying alot less than I do now. In fact, I had dropped down to about 4 CDs a year when I first started downloading MP3s. I had just been so burned so many times by paying 17 bucks for a CD with 1 okay song and 9 crappy ones that I simply stopped buying CDs altogether, unless I got to hear the whole thing from a friend first.

MP3s changed that. I probably buy about 30 CDs a year now. The last CD I bought sound unheard, was Van Halen III. Any Van Halen fans here will probably understand why that was the final straw. MP3s allow me to avoid wasting my money on crap and only buy the stuff worth owning. And believe me, if I don't buy music after downloading it, it means I think the music sucks and is not worth paying for.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[robochan]

I would guess that there is a very strong correlation between how many times each song is requested to be played on the radio and how many CDs are sold.

What in the world makes you think that anyone is requesting this stuff on the radio?
Other than the oddball local call-in show once in a while, 99.999999999999% of all comercial radio/mtv programming is done via marketers and machines based on who looks good enough to put a $XXX million dollar marketing campaign behind.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Arathrael]

You sound confused too!

I mean, if you can sample everything in your record store of choice, surely you could have found out about the music that way instead of illegally downloading it?

Or could it be that you can't sample everything in your record store of choice, making your whole reply largely pointless in context?

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of movies/series/software I download that I dont later buy, however, the common thing is that these movies/series/software sucked. Movies/series/software that is really good I buy without hesitation. So what does this lead to if this is true for other leechers as well?

* "Bad" culture will get less money - much less.
* "Good" culture will get money, probably even more money than today since more of peoples culture-budgets are spent on good culture.

This will make it harder for filmmakers to shell out 50 million dollars on PR to make a bad movie a blockbuster - and it will be easier for the little independant filmmaker to make money. Ie. It is good for the consumer and good for the overall quality of culture produced by humanity.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[billcopc]

You need to find a better record store. Oh you mean a CD store, that's different!

I find it humorous when they offer between 5 and 12 albums for preview on those little headphone jukebokes. Humorous because they will consistently pick out 11 rap or gaymetal albums, and one stunning non-pop album. There are litterally tens of thousands of albums in-store, but you only get to hear a dozen of the latest, most overhyped teen pukes.

Cross the street to the _record_ store, and shrinkwrap is nowhere to be seen. There are several SL1200 decks with decent headphones, and you can grab any record and have an earfull, for as long as you like.

Of course, you'll pay on average 20$ for a vinyl album, 5-10$ for a single, but by the time you've got your wallet out, you know you're going to love this music so it is worth every penny.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Brandybuck]

That's like claiming you deserve a new book because you spilled ink all over it. Stop whining and go buy a new book.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Arathrael]

Which is great, and very true. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the option only exists for people who live within convenient distance of a decent record store, and often then it's limited by whether they can visit outside of peak times and have a chance of getting a free deck.

Everyone else still has a problem. What's the answer? Downloading!

That's as much a comment on the lack of decent record stores, by the way, as it is a pro-filesharing argument. Which in itself is a comment on the nature of the music industry that leads to the prevalence of the shrinkwrapped cd store over the record store in the first place.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Crazy_MYKL]

No, it's like claiming you need a new book because reading it gradually deteriorated the ink...

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Planesdragon]

What in the world makes you think that anyone is requesting this stuff on the radio?

He didn't say that requests were played--rather, requests are tracked, and that data is used to deterine not only what songs to play, but how well the "buzz" is for a particular song.

Oh, and you DO realize that there aren't 100 trillion radio stations, right? If every radio station serves only 50,000 people, there are only room for about 5,000 radio stations in the country--and about three in every state will be the oddball college station--so, 150 out of 5000, for about 97% "corporate control."

In general, you're right that big-name stars are as much chosen as found. But that's not because they're utterly devoid of talent--it's because most folk want music as background, and background music doesn't require that high a level of artistic skill. (That, and artistic skill can hardly be called uncommon in American society. It's almost plebian how common some modicum of talent is.)

Re:Where's the other way round?

[ergo98]

No one force him to abandon tape for CD, just as no one forced him to replace his copy of "Porky's" with the Anniversary DVD edition.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Arathrael]

Here's a question: if you only had enough money to buy, say, 15 CDs instead of the 30 you think are worth paying for, what would you do?

I suspect most people would keep the MP3s they'd downloaded, on the grounds that they would buy them if they could, and given that they can't, there's no deprivation involved for the record companies or artists and hence it's ethically ok.

Hence, you'd arguably need to track three things to get something approaching a full picture - downloads which caused a direct increase in sales, downloads causing a direct decrease in sales, and downloads which didn't directly affect sales at all. Even that's simplified of course, aside from anything else, they can all affect future sales too.

So all the database here is going to do, by itself, is show that some downloads lead to sales. Well, duh. Without proportions, the numbers are totally meaningless (even disregarding the inherent unreliability of the figures). I'd be more interested in an attempt to get an indication of how downloads are split between the possible categories, but I also don't think it'd be possible to get that indication through any formal means - it's too subject to manipulation to get the desired result. Still, even given that, it could still be interesting to see.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[firephreek]

no, it's not. One of the reasonings for the high price of music is because you are purchasing a license for that artist to perform for you in your home. The BMC RIAA whatever consider any playing of an artist to be a performance of that artist. So if you bought a tape a long time back, you shouldn't need to repurchase the license, period. You should only need to pay for materials, and cd's are dirt cheap. If the music vendor is unable to supply the purchaser with a new format, then they (the purchaser) should be able to get their music from somewhere else and not have to pay the licensing all over again.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[halowolf]

What I see happening, with these arguments and many other arguments (while not necessary the same but have the same basic fundamentals) is that small parts of the overall problem and solution are examined and discussed but the broader social and economic issues surrounding it get ignored or considered irrelevant.

I'm trying to liken this (though not in anyway compare, so no flames please!) to like social policies implemented by governments and such. They usually attack a small limited problem without taking the broader social issues into account causing them to ultimately fail because other related problems are not being addressed. So what in itself is a good solution just falls by the wayside because its deemed a failure because related problems don't get fixed as well.

Hmmm now i'm just wondering if I make any sense whatsoever... *yawn* sleep time...

Re:Where's the other way round?

[JDevers]

He didn't say that he upgraded to CD, he said the tapes wore out which they eventually ALL will.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Veridium]

Here's a question: if you only had enough money to buy, say, 15 CDs instead of the 30 you think are worth paying for, what would you do?

That's a very valid question and a good one. I hadn't really thought of it as I haven't found myself in that kind of financial situation in many many many moons. What would I do? Honestly, I probably would keep those MP3s and buy the 15 CDs that contained the music I liked best. Which as you've pointed out, there is no deprivation to the artist...

So all the database here is going to do, by itself, is show that some downloads lead to sales.
You're right about needing proportions, but on the other side of the equation, you have the industry claiming downloading is pure piracy, only hurts sales, etc...

I definetly agree with what you're saying about needing more info. But I don't think the numbers would be *totally* meaningless. They will help on the small front of demonstrating that the downloads aren't ALL about piracy. Granted, it is a small aspect of the debate, doesn't empirically prove that downloads helps sales, but it does counter some of the more bizarre fud claims about downloads. So in that, I do think it is useful.

I will say this to those people out there who listen to music they download regularly and refuse to buy it: You're fucking it up for everyone. Those artists make music to make a living. Alot of work goes into it. When was the last time you worked for nothing? Why do you expect artists to work for nothing?

Seriously, people need to recognize when they're stealing. Artists deserve compensation if you're constantly listening to their work that has cost alot of money to produce, as well as their time and energy.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[shadowbearer]

Making backup copies of a book is considerably more difficult, tho - and making backup copies of music media for personal use was once a more or less solid right.

The RIAA would evidently prefer that instead of backing up my tape collection to CD - I have a rather massive tape collection yet which I am trying to get transferred - that I go out and buy it again, and again, and again, as the media dies and the formats change.

/rant

Well, fuck that. I don't particularly give a shit about the moral or legal aspects of it - I PAID for that music, and I'll be damned if I'll just let it go to hell. Besides, much of it simply isn't obtainable at any price anymore from "authorized" distributors anyway, and a lot of the stuff I see out there is not the same performance I have on tape (or LP) and so enjoyed then - it's rehashes or "Best Of" crap that simply isn't as good.

I do buy a lot of Indie stuff nowadays, mostly because their music is a helluva lot better than the crap the mainstream is pushing, but also because they have the moxie to do things for themselves.

I hate greedy corporate bastards who think that we are but cogs in their financial quests, and I wish quick death on their business models and their personal fortunes. If those idiots had woken up some years ago, they might have a clue as to why so many people are getting pissed off at them. Guess they were too blinded by the $$figures to actually ask their customers what they wanted. Too f'k bad.

SB

Re:Where's the other way round?

[shadowbearer]

Vinyl is better anyway.

*runs* :D

SB

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Brandybuck]

Copyrights for books and recordings are essentially the same. Go read the law if you don't believe me. If it's legitimate to replace a tape when it wears out, then it's legitimate to demand a new copy of a book when I thumb through it till it falls apart.

Oh, and music tapes were not licensed. Just like CDs are not licensed today. You only obligations and rights are those conferred by copyright law.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[JamesOfTheDesert]

But that the thrill of raping ...

Shit, asshole, do you have any idea what rape is? Here's a fucking clue: it is not at all like copyright violation.

Say whatever you like about P2P, but maybe try to pretend that you understand that, for too many people, rape is real and it's more than some cool-shock analogy for ill-expressed opinions.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Technician]

Another database would be the list of stuff that you wouldn't consider buying because of legal threats.

I found some stuff as MIDI files which gave credit to the author and songwriter. I liked the MIDI file. I looked to see if they had more than one good song. I found a bunch of take down notices where the label had sent cease and desist letters (the websites displayed the letters). Since this was the only contact I had with the artist (MIDI file only, not original performance) I had no idea whether their performance was any good. I've never heard him on the radio. Lawyers of the label shut down their free advertising.

I figured out they didn't want me to hear it. I never was exposed to it other than as a MIDI. (Original is a French artist on Griffin label) Their legal action killed any interest in persuing finding the artist's material. Sorry you felt that way about MIDI files.. The music might have been worth looking into, but not after the way the fan's promoting the music were treated. I now no longer care if your album has more than 2 tracks, one good one and the other one.

To this day, I still no longer buy any Griffin label.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Scarblac]

There are litterally tens of thousands of albums in-store, but you only get to hear a dozen of the latest, most overhyped teen pukes.

That's interesting, I never realized that. In the Netherlands it's perfectly normal in a CD store to ask at the counter if you can listen to a CD, then they put it in a CD player for you and you can use some headphones to listen to it. There are some big department stores that do have a few CDs, and it's probably not possible there, but then nobody buys CDs there...

Re:Where's the other way round?

[FlopEJoe]

I feel your pain. I've owned specific albums as LP, tape, CD and will probably get the quantum memory thumbnail version when it comes out. I hate re-buying stuff I "own" (whatever that means) but I want the better tech. Should I expect my LPs or tapes to last forever? We knew every playing degraded the media a tiny bit. Does that give me the right to the new media for free?

What's the proper analogy or business model? Honda wont give me a new model car when my '96 is gets too costly to maintain. Heller won't send me a free Catch-22 when mine is tattered. Is there something we buy and expect the creater/producer to keep us up to date, for free, forever, when the technology is improved? I can't think of one.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's like claiming you need a new book because reading it gradually deteriorated the ink...

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess you didn't get the memo. We're not BUYING things anymore ... we're LICENSING them. The medium is meaningless. You BUY a book; you LICENSE software/music/movies. My license is still good even if the medium is rotten. I have the right to always have a valid form of my fully LICENSED Intellectual Property.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[ultranova]

I have work on the honor system. I download every movie that comes out, that seems to interest me. I watch it myself, and judge if its worth paying 7 dollars for... I got fed up with going to see movies that just SUCKED...

Move to Finland; by the time the US movies come here, the IMDB has already determined the suck/rock ratio. Furthermore, the local movie theater has an excellent sound system and starts the movies exactly on time, there's only commercials before the start printed start time. Oh, and when our prime minister was caught lying, she was fired (greetings to Britain...).

On the other hand, the local movie theater wants 8 euros for a ticket, the trains are often late in winter and taxes are rivaled only by the unemployment rate :(.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's like claiming you need a new book because reading it gradually deteriorated the ink...

Such is the absurdity of copyright law and intellectual property in general.

Assigning material rights to something nonmaterial is simply against Nature. Information wants to be free!

Re:Where's the other way round?

[KnarfO]

I will say this to those people out there who listen to music they download regularly and refuse to buy it: You're fucking it up for everyone. Those artists make music to make a living. Alot of work goes into it. When was the last time you worked for nothing? Why do you expect artists to work for nothing?

Seriously, people need to recognize when they're stealing. Artists deserve compensation if you're constantly listening to their work that has cost alot of money to produce, as well as their time and energy.

Not Stealing
I disagree with your choice of words here in the context of copyright infringement. Stealing/theft is the act of removing something that an individual currently posesses, so that they no longer have access to or possession of it. Sharing music does not do this to the artist.

You can argue that it diminishes their future income potential, but I think you'll find even that argument has major obstacles to overcome.

I'm a big VH fan too, but never bought VH III, and burned a copy from a friend (I could have listened to the whole album at any record store, legally). After once through, the disc went in storage and stayed there for years. I never would have bought that album if I listened to it in the store, so I don't see how the RIAA could point to the copyright infringement of the bunrned disc as an example of lost revenue.

Now, recently, I got an ipod, and started loading all my mp3s on there, and listening to random shuffles of songs. I've caught myself liking songs I didn't recognize, and lo and behold, they're off of VH III. Here's an example of how an 'unauthorized' copy is actually helping the band.

It's not like any radio stations are playing songs from that disc. Without my copy of the album sitting in my collection, I'd still be walking around discouraging my friends from checking it out.

Deserved Compensation
Do Artists deserve to get paid for their music? Sure they do. But don't forget that when you're 'stealing' music/$ by not buying a disc, you're mostly stealing from the recording companies, not the artists (who only see a fraction of the money from each sale of CD). How do most artists make a living these days? Touring, live performances, merchandise, clinics, interviews, ... all things that are in fact aided and supported by people listening to their music, whether or not the music was paid for by the listener.

Anyway, from one VH fan to another, I agree with your original point that mp3s help you avoid wasting money on crap. I just take issue with the notion that sharing music hurts artists.

Peace!

Re:Where's the other way round?

[Veridium]

I see your viewpoint and respect it, but I stand by considering it theft. Yes, you are correct that most artists see very little of every CD sales(the bigger ones see more), but they still get some money. I'm not trying to knock people who burn CDs as you did, or for people who share some songs. But I know people who are big audiophiles, and they brag about how they don't have to buy music anymore. ALL they have are MP3s and whatever CDs they had before discovering MP3s. That's irresponsible, that is theft. I'm sorry. Music cost money to produce. It costs money to record, to put together, to polish, etc... They are put together operating under the law of our land, based upon the assumption that the law of the land will support them in realizing a return on their investment to produce the music. When people like I know take the attitude they take, they are violating the law of the land, they are stealing, they are taking that which does not belong to them. Specifically, the right to listen to music that other peoples hardwork and money produced. That's how I see it.

I have to ask you what music store in your area allows you to listen to an album before hand? There was only one where I used to live and it went out of business.

I only have a problem with people who take the attitude that other peoples work ought to be free for them. I personally believe that is a great minority of people. I think most of us, and I hope you included, do buy the music we listen to regularly. If not, you know, you're free to do what you want to do. But I think it's theft and I don't feel sorry for people like that who get popped.

Re:Where's the other way round?

[dinojemr]

Though many record stores have limited preview selections, some Barnes and Noble stores have a better method. They use touch screen computers that let a customer search for music and then preview it and read some reviews. These have a very large selection of music. This is definately an improvement.

I certainly...

[Anonymous Coward]

...wouldn't be using Debian GNU/Linux if I hadn't been able to y4rr it from the interweb!

how?

[LBArrettAnderson]

how would this database prove it once and for all? it doesn't account for all the things that people have downloaded and NOT purchased even if they liked it.

I'm not claiming either way, but this database isn't going to prove anything; it's just going to show a large amount of people who have bought stuff.. but guess what. there's also a large amount of people who don't buy stuff.

Re:how?

[TheGavster]

The idea is that if the sum of the 'sales' recorded here are approximately equal to the quoted losses, then the various copyright holders should be looking elsewhere. The thing is, those losses are really evidence of an economic recession (some people have even done the math and found that companies against filesharing were hit proportionaly LESS by the recession than other industries)

Re:how?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

A more important question: Why do people think that the RIAA is against filesharing because of diminished sales? Sure, they might say that, but do you think that the RIAA has no strategists? That's just a convenient excuse.

The reason they are against this, is because they realize that they'd gladly lose a few sales today, to own it all tomorrow. What good is a few filesharing-induced music sales compared to making you all music slaves for eternity, 20 years from now? That's why filesharing is bad, because it lets you start thinking you should have any control over music.

Duh.

Re:how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking from experience, those who download but don't buy probably were never going to buy in the first place. There is little chance I would ever spend the $200 for a piece of software at any time. And as for the arguement "well developers deserve to be compensated", speaking as a deveoper as well, I agree. But the outrageous dollar value that some companies place on their software is ridiculess. Especially companies like Macromedia, which monitors your network to make sure there are no more applications running then "seats" purchased. The actions by people like myself, while not condonable nor technically legal, is just the world balancing itself out.

Re:how?

[LegendLength]

That's why filesharing is bad, because it lets you start thinking you should have any control over music.

They are after money. If control gives them more of it, which it does because they are nearly a cartel, then they may be after control as well. But money is the root reason for their dislike of open file sharing.

Re:how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people generally aren't going to be buying stuff anyway, but the fact that they can download it means others can hear it who wouldn't have, and then buy it.

Interesting

[rDx666]

I'm not sure about this. If they also kept a running total of, say, the people who downloaded something, used it, and DIDN'T buy it, then this would be more useful. There would then be a net gain or loss because of file sharing. If it turns out to be a gain, then we need to all go over to RIAA and tell them to shove it. If it turns out to be a loss, then we need o all go over to RIAA and tell them to write off all Top 40 artists and emphasize independent bands.

Re:Interesting

[Hatta]

I'm not sure about this. If they also kept a running total of, say, the people who downloaded something, used it, and DIDN'T buy it, then this would be more useful. There would then be a net gain or loss because of file sharing.

Only if you assume the individual would have bought said product if he couldn't have downloaded it.

Personally I download a lot more music than I could possibly afford to buy. I still spend the same proportion (maybe more) of my disposable income on music though. No one is losing anything in this case.

Re:Interesting

[rDx666]

Hmm, that's an issue. Users who post to the database must police themselves, and give an honest answer as to whether they 100% will not buy the thing they downloaded. Or, to fix things up, they could just also have running totals, graphs and charts, etc of:

-People who downloaded it and think it sucks so they aren't buying it
-People who downloaded it and think it's good enough that they BOUGHT it
-People who downloaded it and think they would buy it if it wasn't available for download

Sort of keeping track of who likes what not only in terms of votes with dollars, but votes with downloads. Music bigwigs should pay up for this kind of data. They're lucky they're getting it through the community.

As for me, the problem is more...uh...parental. My parents would never buy Cradle of Filth, Marilyn Manson, or Slayer for me, so...

But now, I have disposable income, so I can get stuff like that.

And just as a side note, classical music is hard to find on file sharing services. I buy lots of classical music for its musical value, but it doesn't show up that much on Kazaa etc... iTunes helps, though.

Re:Interesting

[B747SP]

If they also kept a running total of, say, the people who downloaded something, used it, and DIDN'T buy it, then this would be more useful.

No, it wouldn't be more usefull. I dunno about you, but in those earlier days where getting any new game or software package to run on your DOS-based 286 or 386 PC was a week-long exercise that often ended up in a sub-standard result, or a game just out-right refusing to run on your hardware (nicely complimented by a vendor or retailer outright refusing to accept any responsibility for the fubar), I think it's safe to say that many many people go so thoroughly burned that they swore off ever paying money for software again. Not 'cos they want to be thieves, but because they'd already been robbed too many times.

To some extent, those times have returned (or perhaps they're just continuing). I've been burned a few times in recent years where, in particular, graphic subsystem requirements for games and other high-end software moved faster than the hardware upgrades I installed in my machines, and so I have often ended up with the same old story - expensive software that just won't run on my hardware unless I spend maybe 2-3 times of the price of the software, again, on new hardware. Now I set out to buy a $100 game, for example, if I get home and find it's gonna cost me $200-$300-$400 to get it running, then screw them. I'll bin the nice new game, learn from the lesson, and stop buying software all over again.

Now I've just made a couple of entries in this new database. They all cite the same reasoning. I downloaded full versions of late-model games that I really wanted to own/play. I tested them out for gameplay and outright functionality (you need full versions, because often the demo versions are coded to run on a much broader range of hardware, just to get the punters in). In all cases, once I was happy with the software, and its compatibility with me and my hardware, I turned right around abd bought full retail versions.

This argument that vendors are losing money to the people who didn't buy because they downloaded is pure and unmitigated hogwash in my book. Sure, there's a lot of stuff I downloaded and did not subsequently buy. Guess why? Becase it was CRAP. It either didn't run on my hardware, was just poorly thought out software with a gameplay life of five minutes, pushed out the door to grab some quick cash. The software vendor didn't lose in those situations, 'cos I didn't 'use' their software. They actually gained, 'cos I didn't pay a buttload of money for their crap, get bitten, then spend every change I coule slagging them out to anyone who would listen, and I didn't gain, 'cos I got nothing - I lost some hours wasted.

Downloading is win win win for everyone, any other POV is just plain flawed!

two sides to every story

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it doesn't keep track of all the things that people would have bought if they couldn't have downloaded them easily.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea. I'm just not sure if it's going to work.

Re:two sides to every story

[MikeCapone]

Yeah, and it doesn't keep track of all the crappy albums and movies that people avoided buying because they sampled first.

Anyway, I strongly suggest that people read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture book (available for from online).

Re:two sides to every story

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the other posts before being repetitive.

Isn't this illegal?

[Sheetrock]

I mean, if somebody registers that they downloaded a whole bunch of copyright protected content and bought it later, aren't they admitting to doing something illegal?

Something to think about. Maybe this list won't cause any problems, but I wouldn't anything past **AA and their lawyers.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[RPoet]

At least where I live (Norway), downloading music and movies is perfectly legal.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[baywulf]

Are there a lot of artists/musicians in Norway?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[gmhowell]

There are many fjords. And I think some mØØse.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

>And I think some mØØse.
A mØØse once bit my sister...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Soul-Burn666]

A LOT

I know about 30 norwiegen bands and i'm not from there.
All bands I know from there are metal, specifically Black Metal.
From the top of my head Emperor, Mayhem, Dark Funeral, Dark Throne, And Oceans, Dimmu Borgir and MANY MANY MANY more.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[eSavior]

Are you kidding me?!? One plane ticket to norway please...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Nurseman]

All bands I know from there are metal, specifically Black Metal.

I now have this vision of ABBA playing speed metal. LOL
(I know they are Swedish, but you get the point :-)

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[sparrow_hawk]

Well, downloading copyrighted, not-for-public-redistribution content *is* illegal, but if you bought it later, I don't see how the RIAA could complain. I mean, you gave them the money, so one way or the other, they and the artists got paid. It would seem a little wrong-headed to say, "You gave us the money we asked for, but you did it after breaking the law -- you need to give us *more* money."

Then again, I don't think suing your customers is a good idea either...

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[RPoet]

Sure is. Some of them are listed here.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[imogthe]

Would you believe that some of the "original" black/death (or something dark anyways) metal came from Norway? It's considered among these musicians to be almost like Graceland (but a lot darker I presume). Just my 0.02NOK :)

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[gmhowell]

Is she okay? MØØse bites can be pretty nasty.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[kyrre]

The thing is that one can download as much as one likes for personal use. The exception is illegal material like child porn, zoo porn, snuff etc. One can also share downloaded stuff with family and friends. It is however against the law to distribute material that without the correct lisences. Again, the execption is family and friends.

The police have done raids against so called pirates in Norway, and they get prosecuted. You just don't get fined or canned if you share with your loved ones. Makes sense doesn't it?

At least I think it does.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[dizzyduck]

Maybe. But I don't think that going after a downloader-purchaser would be very good PR for the IFPI/RIAA/BFI/MPAA.

The industry groups may be stupid, but they not that dumb. Or are they?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[azatht]

Why are you all so afraid of the law? Is your system so corrupted there?
Here where I'm living (sweden) belives if the law and the reality does not match, then we stick to reality.
They can only use you if you are afraid!

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[TeknoHog]

The thing is that one can download as much as one likes for personal use. The exception is illegal material like child porn, zoo porn, snuff etc. One can also share downloaded stuff with family and friends. It is however against the law to distribute material that without the correct lisences. Again, the execption is family and friends.

Same thing in Finland. The only problem with this is BitTorrent where downloading requires sharing. However, with BT you're rarely distributing an entire file to a single person, so it's less clear an issue.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

same with canada

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Toresica]

I know about 30 norwiegen bands and i'm not from there.
Have you bought any of their music?
I've downloaded a lot of things that I've tried unsuccessfully to find at record stores. Some european music, for instance, (I'm Canadian, and a lot of music that's easy to find in Europe is pretty hard to find here), and various other obscure things.
If I hadn't downloaded, I wouldn't have bought either, because I can't find them. However, I wouldn't have looked, either, because of not knowing about them.

Downloading's legal in Canada, anyway... just not uploading.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Soul-Burn666]

Yes!
And not only that, a lot of metal music imported here and sold for the equivelant of 11$ for full, original albums.
Note that in "standard" stores it still costs a full 14$, but when you buy through private importers that specialize in metal, it gets even cheaper than the 11$ figure I mentioned.
It's common that in metal concerts and events there are the importers stands there and they sell nicely.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Jugalator]

Are there a lot of artists/musicians in Norway?

This is an interesting question, since it's legal in Sweden too, and we are a rather large "music country" for our size (9 million people) with numerous successful music exports.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Jugalator]

More can be found here. ;-)
Yep, we also share Norway's laws in this regard.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[meringuoid]

numerous successful music exports

Note: the Swedish government has apologised on several occasions for Abba.

Handy for the RIAA

[BeneathTheVeil]

They can just go there, and start filing lawsuits.

Re:Handy for the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Their website says "No personal information will be logged". If you're paranoid, use a proxy.

Re:Handy for the RIAA

[Ianoo]

May sound stupid, but it somehow wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA/MPAA were stupid enough to subpoena that site to get a list of IPs for each submission. Of course, if INDUCE goes through, the site could be prosecuted directly for promoting/enabling copyright infringement...

Re:Handy for the RIAA

[DarkOx]

If I were running a site like that I would use systems I really did not care much about, which hosted nothing else and keep no logs. You could subpoena my zero-byte /var/log/syslog if you want and I would be more then happy to turn it over, its not like its gonna be differcult to transfer.

Re:Handy for the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, once the ISP gets a visit from the Department of HomeSec you can bet your ass that they will be doing the logging for you. Doesnt matter if you throw everything into the bitbucket if if has to go through their routters first.

Artificial Kept Low ---

[Dark Coder]

You will noticed that if you visit the website, enter in your data, that only the last 10 entries are shown.

AND that only the first 10 are tabulated, despite what they say are periodical.

It is suspicious tabulation so far....

Re:Artificial Kept Low ---

[Anonymous Coward]

AND that only the first 10 are tabulated, despite what they say are periodical.

How long have you been watching this site? All day? Do you understand what "updated periodically" means?

I'm currently looking at 10 entries which are worth more then $712, yet the website currently says "Total Dollar Amount: 712".

Re:Artificial Kept Low ---

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently looking at 10 entries which are worth more then $712, yet the website currently says "Total Dollar Amount: 712".

AND I'm currently looking at 10 entries which are worth more then $712, yet the website currently says "Total Dollar Amount: 712".

AND I'm currently looking at 10 entries which are worth more then $712, yet the website currently says "Total Dollar Amount: 712".

AND I'm currently looking at 10 entries which are worth more then $712, yet the website currently says "Total Dollar Amount: 712".

AND I'm currently looking at 10 entries which are worth more then $712, yet the website currently says "Total Dollar Amount: 712".

Oh welll...;. I give up....

Re:Artificial Kept Low ---

[Anonymous Coward]

Look now. It says "
Total Dollar Amount: 47477.2699999999"

It's Periodically updated, idiot. You're just being impatient.

Interesting, but pointless.

[sultanoslack]

• The RIAA and MPAA won't care at all about this -- they'll just claim it's lies.
• There's no reference point and no tracking of purchases not made; you can't make a comparison without a baseline.
• Demographically this is going to be very slanted; most consumers wouldn't fill out something like this.

When I read the description I thought, "hey, cool" as I really do buy quite a few of the things that I see or hear first via file sharing, but looking at how it's done this really won't accomplish anything or get anyone important's attention.

Re:Interesting, but pointless.

[eSavior]

How is this any more legit than the RIAA pointing to file sharing when they see a dip in sales? I never could figure out how they were tracking each download and could correlate that with sales records.

Re:Interesting, but pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is more legit because they've got the law on their side and the ears of congressmen.

Trying to get into a rhetorical argument with the Copyright Industrial Complex is illegitimate because it will never change anything. It may even make the government backlash hit that much harder.

If you want to pirate stuff, go right ahead and spare us the jackoff moral justifications.

Re:Interesting, but pointless.

[eSavior]

Yes because me questioning a statistic is both... A. Saying I download music and B. A moral justification for A Makes perfect sense.

Re:Interesting, but pointless.

[Tim C]

The RIAA and MPAA won't care at all about this -- they'll just claim it's lies.

And how do we know it isn't? All it would take would be a group of people with an agenda to push to inflate the figures well beyond the realm of reality.

Wow, $712 gained from file sharing!

[phpm0nkey]

How much longer can the MPAA and RIAA ignore these staggering figures?

Re:Wow, $712 gained from file sharing!

[orkysoft]

Wow, that's enough to purchase a SCO Linux license ($699) and a CD ($13)!

Re:Wow, $712 gained from file sharing!

[Anonymous Coward]

It just went over $170k.

Re:Wow, $712 gained from file sharing!

[LegendLength]

I find this whole argument...dishonest (that file sharing should be ok because it financially helps the RIAA). Because I see a lot of people using it on slashdot and I'm sure at least half of them don't believe it deep down.

In a way it hijacks any real arguments that we may have against the RIAA.

Anyway, nothing is going to change until the wider public realise that all media is a only collection of bits. Nearly every attempt to control it has been to the detriment of the general public.

No way i would post to this

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Admitting to copyright violations to some random website doesn't sound like a good idea. How do we know this isn't a honeypot for the ??AA to collect IP addresses?

Nice idea, but I would recommend not posting to it unless immunity were to be granted somehow.

Re:No way i would post to this

[rDx666]

There is always using public computers or proxies to post. Admittedly this is in the "pointless hack" stage and should be expanded greatly in order for us to see the statistical impacts of file sharing.

Re:No way i would post to this

[Anonymous Coward]

So let them prosecute and waste their time.

I downloaded the album on a file-sharing network, but then I bought the album. If they take me to court I'll just deny the charges and show the judge my album and they'll lose.

Not much different then posting to Slashdot or any other website, where your IP is logged and tied to every comment that you have made, even if you post as an AC.

Re:No way i would post to this

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Actually, AC, what we they're making is a handy database of IP addresses and specific IP violations. It's one thing for the occasional remark about piracy on /. or other web boards. These remarks are usually too general, vague, and scattered for the industry to bother with.

But if you have a handy web site that specializes in collecting very tangible confessions of piracy, it doesn't take a genius to realize this is either a honeypot or a very tempting target for subpeona for the IP industry. And if you think having bought the CD will grant immunity, think again. In a perfect world, it would work this way. But recent legal rulings have stated that even downloading copies of works you already own is infringemen.

Re:No way i would post to this

[dizzyduck]

Two words: PR disaster

Re:No way i would post to this

[stonedonkey]

Saying you did something on the Internet isn't *quite* the same as having an agent of the RIAA/MPAA logging and tracking the actual illegal files being transferred from IP to IP. Relax.

Re:No way i would post to this

[netsharc]

Wow IP and IP, one acronym for 2 different meanings in the same sentence, I wonder if there's a rule against it...

Re:No way i would post to this

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Ha, namespace conflict.. I didn't even notice.

Re:No way i would post to this

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Perhaps my tinfoil hat is a bit too snug today, but this database they're creating would at least give the ??AA a starting point for investigations. I agree they probably wouldn't be able to successfully sue just for something somebody wrote on a website.

Re:No way i would post to this

[Kwil]

I'm Canadian.
They can suck on my IP for all the good it'll do'em.

Re:No way i would post to this

[Eudial]

Well, since everyone signing up already has bought the stuff, and probably doesent still have the illegal copy laying around, it would be impossible to verify if he or she actually did have an illegal copy of it, and if he/she has, he/she can say it's a backup for personal usage (you're allowed to make those in most countries)

Re:No way i would post to this

[d3ad1ysp0rk]

And when they try to get the subpeona, you can argue that you were just trying to help the website out and didn't actual download what you said you did. You were lying for the good of the site.

Re:No way i would post to this

[Shadowlore]

Downloading a song for a trial listen it is not illegal. Many big commercial sites do this. The person offering MIGHT be in violation, but the person downloading it would not be. (US only, YLMV).

Kinda Empty, no?

[telstar]

"Total Items Recorded: 10"

• Big whoop.

Re:Kinda Empty, no?

[Neophytus]

It's blatently a new site. Submitter (the site's creator) probably wanted publicity. Nuff said.

Re:Kinda Empty, no?

[geekoid]

Those statistics are only update occasionally.
If you hit refresh, you can see the top ten change.

One interesting item:

[LBArrettAnderson]

I found this line interesting:

$700 | Software | Adobe Premiere | Downloaded it, loved it, cracked it.

Re:One interesting item:

[LBArrettAnderson]

And another one:

$650 | Software | Adobe Photoshop | Downloaded it, loved it, cracked it. Made $650 in the process

100,000,000

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

iTunes. 100,000,000 songs sold in ~1 year. 'nuff said. Fuck you RIAA.

Re:100,000,000

[Anonymous Coward]

100,000,000 songs = $50,000,000 in the RIAA's pockets. Fuck You indeed.

Re:100,000,000

[iammaxus]

maybe you missed the articles on /. about how much (err, little) of the money you spend on iTunes actually goes to artists (see here: http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/). Besides for that fact, if I'm not mistaken, Apple had to cut a deal with RIAA to create iTunes in the first place. You are a moron.

Re:100,000,000

[SteakandcheeseUm]

You know the RIAA gets a lot of money from Itunes?

Re:100,000,000

[gmhowell]

Screw you guys, he's going home.

Re:100,000,000

[foidulus]

Yeah, but guess what, iTunes proves that most artists no longer need the RIAA. Yeah, the RIAA still owns their old music, but now there is very little overhead to make a new release. You record it, and send it over to iTunes(yeah, it's a bit more complicated, but you get the point). Moby has already released some independent stuff on iTunes.

Re:100,000,000

[iammaxus]

congratulations on not RTFA. If you looked at that link I posted, you'd see that artists get approximatel 11% of the money, record gets 53% and Apple gets 35%. You can't jsut record and send it to iTunes. Of course you can just record and sell it online, but not through the RIAA strangled iTunes. Some independent labels do this type of thing and offer a 50% cut to artists. Of course they offer much less advertising and stuff like that, but I like that system better.

Re:100,000,000

[foidulus]

Um.......tell that stick up your ass congrats for being both wrong, and an asshole.
From wikipedia
and beginning with Moby on July 29, 2003, independent artists are now included.
If you are going to be a cocky bastard, at least be right about it. Your hate of the RIAA is so deep that it causes you to say very irrational things. Oh, and next time, please provide an article on a site without an agenda to push.... The stuff on that site means nothing to me because it is quite obvious they have an agenda, and will say anything regardless of whether it's true or not to promote that agenda. Just like the RIAA....hmmm.... I bet if you two got to know eachother, you could become real good buddies.

Re:100,000,000

[iammaxus]

Fair enough. Thank you for correcting me. Regardless, the other stuff I said about mainstream artists still stands. Anyway, I could easily respond to must of your comments the same way you did to me. You can't just destroy the credibility of my source without giving what you would say is a more credible one (and because i know you will misunderstand, I have already conceded on independent artists, I'm referring to the point about mainstream ones.).

Re:100,000,000

[MushMouth]

Tabulating where the money goes on a single track is completely meaningless, Not only that, but this particular break down does not take into account songwriter royalties, which are statutory, and come out of the record company cut.

Re:100,000,000

[glenstar]

artists get approximatel 11% of the money, record gets 53% and Apple gets 35%.

Horseshit. Apple pays a flat "wholesale" to the label from which it has licensed the work and it is up to the label to pay the artist and publisher. iTunes has nothing to do with how much the artist gets... and they shouldn't for the same reason that Amazon is not responsible for paying artist royalties on CDs they sell. I can only imagine that 11% royalty number coming from the fact that 10-14% is about right for an artist royalty, with 10-11% being closer to the norm for an unknown.

I have read that downhillbattle piece at least 10 times and each time I find more and more FUD. Trust me, I *hate* defending Apple on this, but feel I must. They are not the bad guys, but nor are they necessarily the good guys. More importantly, no one but the record label that an artist has an agreement with is in the position to pay royalties (with the exception of performance royalties) to said artist.

Re:100,000,000

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

This is very informative, but definitely not insightful at all. One independent artist signing with iTunes proves absolutely nothing.

You record it, and send it over to iTunes

You forgot the step "become famous enough that not only will iTunes give you special permission to upload mp3s, but they'll even set up booths at your concerts plugging iTunes and iPods." Which is what Moby did.

The parent may have gone off the handle, but you haven't posted anything to contradict his or her main point--iTunes, from what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) only distributes labeled artists or unlabeled artists that are important and famous enough enough to not really need to work with iTunes anyway. Apple makes no money except indirectly through iPod sales, the RIAA makes a ton of money, the vast, vast majority of artists able to sign with Apple make extremely little money per sale, downhillbattle is correct, and a huge portion of people have an extremely bizarre ego defense mechanism of blinding themselves to any fault by Apple.

Re:100,000,000

[MushMouth]

Don't forget the $.10 per song sold mechanical royalty that goes to the songwriter. This royalty comes from the record company cut and is paid even if the record does not recoup

I for one...

[nautical9]

... have purchased well over 300 blank CD-Rs!

Re:I for one...

[nfg05]

Just make sure they weren't labeled as "audio" or "music" CD-R's, otherwise the RIAA actually did take a cut of those sales in royalties.

Re:I for one...

[Inda]

...couldn't find the DVD I was after. So I bought it, ripped it and stuck it up for everyone else.

Am I as naughty as you?

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of definitive, unassailable scientific proof I've been looking for.
Ahhh, the glory of the scientific method.

Iv got a better DB

[RTPMatt]

How about we keep track of all the stuff that we would have never paid for had we been able to see just how crappy it was before ever shelling out the cash?

Re:Iv got a better DB

[RogerWiclo]

Amen! I've been burned so many times, I here a good song, buy the album and find out that the one song I like is completely different then the bands usually style. For example, besides the one hit song the rest of the CD by Cold Play sucks. From now on I don't buy unless I've heard more then a couple of songs. The last two albums I bought where from They Might Be Giants and Five for Fighting. Check out their websites, they have previews of the music. And this isn't a new thing. Back in the day for records you could go into a record store, pick out a record and listen to it in a sound booth before you decided to pay. With the internet we can do it in our own homes.

Re:Iv got a better DB

[Kris_J]

I can do better than that. How about we detail the situations were a string of crap made us give up on a whole class of products?

P2P is here to stay

[Anonymous Coward]

Download, watch, buy. It's just like, record from TV using your VCR, watch, buy. Same thing. The RIAA will never understand we just don't want to pay-to-watch, and then buy (so pay twice for the same thing). We are in control now because they don't want to adapt. That's why dinosaurs dissapeared. P2P is here to stay. They'd better get used to it or face extinction of their way of life (or doing business).

Hellboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Watched a pretty good DVD rip the other night. Hell, I've even got the cover art. After watching the movie (I never did get around to seeing it in the theatre), I felt *bad* that I had just watched a pirated copy. Why? 'Cause, goddammit, I *liked* that movie. It was *good*.

So, I went out and bought the dvd. Why, you ask? Becuase I'd like to see 'Hellboy 2'. You won't see me doing that with a shitty 'Brittney Spears' album. Basically, I use pirating to justify whether or not I should make a legitimate purchase. (Of course, there's stuff I wouldn't even consider pirating -- like 'Catwoman'. Whatever.) I own Braveheart, Gladiator, All LOTR extended dvds, etc. etc.

In related news...

[eSavior]

The RIAA files a court order to obtain ip addresses of all those who conceded to downloading music.

Will prove nothing

[catbutt]

For one thing, when it "sets out to prove it once and for all", it is obviously going to get a skewed sample.

Bull Shit!!!

[strike2867]

This is nearly as conclusive as a Slashdot poll. Just to prove it, I just added the Gladiator Soundtrack for $20.00. I listen to it all the time, and have never even seen it in a store. The thought of buying it has never even crossed my mind.

Mirror

[gmhowell]

Not much text on the page, so maybe it will survive a slashdotting. I'm 100% positive the amount spent will skyrocket.

Here it is:

The file sharing experiment is an attempt to catalog some financial figures about how much revenue the industries backing organizations such as the RIAA, MPAA, and software manufacturers have gained by file sharing. The file sharing database consists of a list of items and prices which contributing users have both purchased, and would not have purchased if they hadn't first downloaded/shared identical or related files.

It has always been my belief that various industries have actually earned more revenue as a direct result of file sharing, and that file sharing works FOR the industry. Recent figures such as the music industry's latest earnings report have proven this. So if you would like to contribute, click submit above. Post your merchandise, how much you paid, and why you wouldn't have bought it if you first hadn't downloaded something. No IP addresses or personal information is logged.

Statistics

These statistics are updated periodically throughout the day.

Total Items Recorded: 10
Total Dollar Amount: 712
Music (RIAA): 51
Movies (MPAA): 520
Software (SPA): 141
Other: 0

Last 10 Submissions:
Value Category Title Reason for Purchase
$17 Music E.S. Posthumus - Unearthed Listened to a few tracks, decided that it was worth it to support this group and their wonderful work.
$13 Music Alanis Morissette - So Called Chaos I downloaded the music, and then I wanted my own copy of the cd because I liked it.
$15.00 Music Howie Day - Australia loved the mp3s, loved the album even more
$16 Music evanescence I heard a snip of the song on the radio and downloaded the full mp3 - loved it and tried a couple more songs. Loved those and went out and bought the cd.
$140 Music A complete Stereolab CD collection I discovered Stereolab by downloading files on WinMX... The next week I bought all their CDs
$40 Movies Invader Zim finally realeased on DVD!
$40 Software OpenBSD firewall
$22.95 Other Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom Read the first chapter online. Liked the book.
$30 Software NAT32 Great product, better than MS ICS, it really was worth the money.
$15 Music Atmosphere - Overcast! I downloaded the album and was eventually forced to order it online because no retail outlets around here had it or would order it.

All Website Content © 2004 Jonathan A. Zdziarski. All Rights Reserved.

Re:Mirror

[akeyes]

you missed the last line:

Reproduction prohibited without permission

Periodic Updates

[XanC]

It says that the totals are calculated at intervals, presumably to avoid overloading the web server.

RIAA press releases.

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the last several years the RIAA has been periodically releasing "studies" showing that X amount of money was lost to file sharing.

These "studies" should provide adequate counterbalance.

Re:RIAA press releases.

[Anonymous Coward]

i am talking about databases, not "studies", my dear

Re:RIAA press releases.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see why it is the File Sharing Database project's fault that the RIAA does not have an equal degree of commitment to documentation that they do.

Re:RIAA press releases.

[Beale]

Where are the studies showing how much money was lost performing studies into how much money was lost to file sharing?

My favorite

[Anonymous Coward]

$60 Other
100 pack of DVD-Rs to make copies of recent movie releases to sell on canal st in downtown manhatten

What about the flipside database?

[Saeger]

There's some bits I WOULD have bought if I HADN'T been able to download a 'preview' first - where being a cheapass usually wasn't the main reason, but the low quality was. ("objective" 3rd party reviews aren't everything).

New questionaire:

What didn't you BUY because you downloaded it first?
__________________________

Reason?
(*) It sucked. (I *was* planning on buying the Gigli DVD! Honest!)
( ) I'm a rich, cheap-ass freeloader.
( ) I'm a poor, cheap-ass freeloader.
( ) I'm a Freedom Fighter for the Sensible Copyright Revolution!
( ) other: __________________
( ) All of the above.

--

Re:What about the flipside database?

[Space_Soldier]

Have you wasted bandwidth downloading Gigli? From now on, go to http://www.imdb.com. I never watch a film befor seeing its score. Gigli had about 2/10 last time I checked.

Re:What about the flipside database?

[Saeger]

No, I haven't seen Gigli- I just used it as an extreme crap-xample.

And I don't bother watching movies with very low scores either, but I prefer to use rottentomatoes over imdb as the ratings meter; more accurate in my experience. Anything less than 50% gets ignored.

I have a handy URL search too. I just type "rot moviename" to search rottentomatoes...

--

Re:What about the flipside database?

[Space_Soldier]

You are right; Rotten Tomatoes is better than IMDB since it uses professional movie critics. I am going to use RT from now on.

Ha ha ha, fools!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you see? This is a MPAA/RIAA ploy to gather your IP's and sue you.

Awesome idea ...

[jdkane]

Yes, I downloaded X and Y and Z and then bought one of them .... Wait one moment ... there's men in suits knocking at my door.

buying if its worth it

[emorphien]

There's a lot of things I've downloaded to try and realized not only do I not want to keep it, I don't want to buy it. When I was back in high school I downloaded a lot more stuff, since getting broadband/going to college, etc, I don't download music anymore. If I do it's because I want to see if something is worth buying. Everything I downloaded in high school was stuff I never would have bought anyway, so they never lost any money from me then. I've since outgrown the crap I've downloaded and tossed it all away.

Software is the same, you should be able to test things out before buying. The fact you can't generally return software sucks, so many people take it on themselves to try it out in advance.

that said...
$666 Music Foo Owned
who submitted that? Immature asshole, this website is a good concept. Whether it accomplishes anything or not, don't be a retard.

Foul can be claimed

[I-R-Baboon]

Not only from not showing what was downloaded and not purchased, but from the fact I could just decide to up and say I did this and that and bought this and that to try and shut them up and weigh the data in the direction I want.

Anything to show decisive proof eliminates most of the anonymous factor unless cash was paid. Even then, if a scapegoat was truly wanted I am sure the transaction ID could be used to pull up store camera footage and use the entry on the website as a confession. Not too paranoid, but enough to sway such a concept from being anything useful at all.

I don't support RIAA, MPAA, or SPA but I do want reality dished out when trying to throw mud back.

Show me the money!

[Anonymous Coward]

At the estimated rate of 340 posting/minute, there should be enough data to dispense with the initial lamerz "Oh that was a test" statistics figures of 10 entries.

POst it!

Someone's being naughty

[Anonymous Coward]

$666 | Other | injection |

I don't think filesharing had anything to do with that purchase...

Re:Someone's being naughty

[Anonymous Coward]

$666 | Other | injection | <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://www.slashdot.org">

$comment = htmlspecialchars(_REQUEST['comment']);

Re:Someone's being naughty

[Anonymous Coward]

hi. you have a bug in your code. try this $comment = addslashes(htmlspecialchars($_REQUEST['comment'])) ;

And...

[raquelita]

... in the other hand, we have to add all people that having download music and loving it, had bought another things of their new favourite bands (t-shirts, cups, concert tickets, etc.).

The artists are earning a lot of money by become more popular and well-known.

Re:And...

[LBArrettAnderson]

there's only so much room for fame and popularity. more accessiblity doesn't mean that more people will get famous/popular.

Re:And...

[name773]

they will, but to a lesser degree

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed that's data i've added. But its based on the same idea: If i didn't heard the music online i wouldn't have heard from the band i think. Because i don't look to MTV and such. I know that's true for several items i've bought.

I'm also not from USA while the site is talking about MPAA and RIAA. There's no such thing in Asia, Australia and Europe. There are similar organisations though. As a result since the whole world may add their data and since there's no control or kind notice non-USA people shouldn't contribute, the RIAA/MPAA/BSA statistics are misleading.

Re:And...

[Brandybuck]

Do the tee-shirt sales, popularity and name recognition outweigh the lost music sales? And if even if it somehow does in your universe, what about the poor studio musician who doesn't do live concerts or sell tee-shirts? Is he somehow a lesser artists?

Selling tee shirts is not a great incentive to get into the business...

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care, they are just throwing out these "solutions" as if they knew everything about that industry and how to make money.

To all those yelling about how the music industry should do XYZ, see how you would react in the same situation. How would you feel if someone who has no clue about what you do for a living or how things work suggests that you change it so that it is in their favor, at your expense, and is of little or no benefit for you?

For example if you do programming for a living, how would you take to the suggestion that we do away with paying for software, and you can make up your money providing tech support?

Re:And...

[Toresica]

what about the poor studio musician who doesn't do live concerts
IMO, he should do live concerts. Music is so much better live. But that's just my opinion.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about this side of the argument that I've always hated is that people who don't buy the music they download WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT ANYWAY! Either because they can't afford it, or are dirty pirates. But it's not a lost sale because... DING DING DING! They weren't getting the sale regardless! The real reason the industry (any of them that oppose it) abhors file-sharing is because it circumvents their 'control' of their medium. Hate to break it to you guys, but you are all TALENTLESS FUCKING ACCOUNTANTS. Artists are realizing this day after day and are shunning you penny pinching creeps. Control is an illusion, deal with it.

Re:And...

[Brandybuck]

Not all music is conducive to live concerts. And there are awesome musicians who are amazing in the studio but just can perform live.

Re:And...

[Chess_the_cat]

Then fuck 'em and their Pro-Tools enhanced bullshit.

Infinity

[rmcii]

Total Items Recorded: 10
Total Dollar Amount: Infinity
Music (RIAA): Infinity
Movies (MPAA): 20
Software (SPA): 0
Other: 25

What about?

[The Real Nem]

What about things users downloaded and didn't buy because they found out they were crap? Do they count?

I usually buy CDs and DVDs of tracks and movies that I download off the internet because (in the case of CDs) I want to support the artists and (in the case of DVDs) the quality is usually better. I don't, however, usually buy CDs from bands the media crams down my throat, I buy CDs from bands I probably never would have discovered in the first place if it wasn't for p2p networks. In this sense, at least from me, p2p networks don't necessarily take money from record companies and artists, they just redistribute the wealth.

What about downloading stuff you already bought

[foidulus]

CDs and DVDs break, games go missing etc. You shouldn't have to pay for it twice just because the cheapy medium broke.

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[glockme]

well, that's arguable. if you paid cheap you get cheap. but if it's standard issue, then i feel you've got the right to get another copy (free of additional charge of course).

but if it's old, you've received it's full value and don't deserve another

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Anonymous Coward]

"but if it's old, you've received it's full value and don't deserve another"

Bullshit. You paid for the information not the medium itself.

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Anonymous Coward]

It is legal to make "backups", you know.

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? If you wreck your car, GM doesn't have to give you another one for free. If the cat pees on your Sorry! game, Parker Brothers doesn't owe you a new one.

Slashdotters love to make the "I can do what I like, it's my PROPERTY, not a license, dammit" argument. But in that case, you and you alone are responsible for the care of your property. If you lose your game, too bad for you. ...especially since it's both practical and legal for you to make backup copies, and you chose not to do so. (For that matter, game companies used to issue replacement media to actual purchasers for a S&H fee; haven't looked recently to see if they still do.)

Neither of these is a reason to pirate. Your rationalization is showing through.

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah -- both my legal and my illegal CDs went broken. So i had to download them again. Shees i can't even play a lot of my old software because i moved to a different platform!

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's nowadays mostly not, more and more making "backups" of your software or movies is being forbiden by the legal disclaimers included with the material.

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[QAPete]

And let's not forget about copy protected CDs (which are more and more prevalent), that don't even PLAY in a Linux computer or let you burn them 'white noise free' to your computer from your data CD drive. I know several people who have purchased the latest Hoobastank, Norah Jones and Velvet Revolver CDs, to name three, only to be forced to go out and download the .mp3 files so they can listen to the music they purchased on their systems...

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Datasage]

When you purchase a cd or movie you purchase a license to view or listen to it. The medium is just how its delivered.

So if the medium gets destroyed or damnaged, you still have a license to the IP. So with that you could justify downloading or otherwise obtaining a new copy.

Re:What about downloading stuff you already bought

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's my property, then I have the right to copy it. What's mine is mine.

The RIAA Is So Evil...

[Shihar]

...that would rather make less money and piss you off rather then make more money, or at least that is what the claim is being made.

Look, I don't like copywriter laws the way they are written. I fucking hate the way music is distributed. I make liberal use of P2Ps. That said, dumb shit like this is counter productive propaganda. If you want to win a point, you need to throw the lies out the window, even the ones that serve your purpose. If the RIAA thought for a second they were making money off P2Ps, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop them. Even if it was making money off P2Ps, you would need an actual credible study to come out before they would bother to take notice. Right now there is no credible agreement that P2Ps are doing anything but harm to the RIAA. Like I said, the fact that RIAA is getting harmed doesn't cause me to stay awake at night, but we need to be honest with ourselves.

Stuff like this makes my blood boil. We need to be mature enough to address the opposition's points honestly and fairly. This is neither honest nor fair. It is a worthless database with no value at best and pure propaganda at worst. Propaganda that you agree with is still propaganda. I might want Bush out of office, but I still felt physically ill after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 because it was such a blatant piece of pure, unadulterated, one sided, vile propaganda that used every single trick in the propaganda book, and worse still, people at that shit up like it was a war rally from the book 1982 just because they agreed with the message. Yeah, that's irony.

People are too obsessed with 'winning' their point. Argue your damned point, but be honest with yourself and those you agree and disagree with. If you need to employ dishonest tactics to win, you need to reexamine your core beliefs and why exactly it is you feel so strongly. P2P, politics, everything needs to be looked at with a level head. So, want to argue for P2P? Great, I am with you. Just be honest about it and realize that there are gaping holes in both sides of the argument. The holes should be plugged with honest discourse and creative solutions, not propaganda with absolutely zero statistical meaning like this database.

Re:The RIAA Is So Evil...

[0x0d0a]

You know, most of what I've seen on both sides is full of propaganda. It's kind of depressing. There's no public (and would probably have to be anonymous) forum where content publishers talk to people and find out what's up. Some people claim "this music isn't worth the money, so I'm not going to pay for it to prove a point". Some peple can't afford products (especially true with professional software -- it's a sore blow for a fifteen year old kid to pay for a copy of Photoshop or Lightwave). Some people just plain aren't interested in paying -- the very deliberately can say "I have no reason to pay for this content when I can get it for free, so why don't I do so?" Some people feel that they aren't given a good enough opportunity to preview or evaluate the content before they have to throw money down for it. A couple of people just plain like cracking software.

There may not be solutions to the current problem, but there are better compromises than the existing situation. Currently, as far as I can tell:

* The MPAA is largely ignoring the situation (well, I'm sure they're monitoring online piracy, but they aren't losing enough sales to spend time going after anyone except the people releasing rips before people have seen the movie -- plot spoilers might discourage people from watching).

* The RIAA is currently trying a combination of technical attacks on P2P networks, legal shotgunning of lawsuits to help amp up the feeling people have of risk, and lobbying for stricter and easier-to-prosecute laws to be passed.

* The BSA largely ignores individual piracy, and goes after corporate piracy tooth and nail, requiring contractual agreements and the like.

I can think of a number of fixes off-the-cuff that could solve some problems.

* A common complaint I've heard about music is that singles are overpriced, and albums contain few tracks that people are interested in. There is no reason not to sell all tracks electronically individually. The album is an artifact of packaging, the fact that people used to sell physical objects that could store enough audio for several songs, and it was necessary to include several songs to drive the value up high enough to warrant distribution costs. Just sell singles cheaply electronically.

* People complain that they're "fighting the RIAA". Not much the RIAA can do about this but improve their public image -- not sure how much this will help, as some of it is probably just rationalization.

* Content providers (especially the *AAs) have no reason, aside from a small amount of cost in funding, to fund some developers to add in features (without negative privacy or technological implications, else they really won't catch on, lobby as one might) to spread license and other metainformation about files. If they're appealing, the P2P developers will incorporate them. Make damned certain that if someone is downloading a file, they (a) know that it's illegal for the person to be distributing it in the United States (or wherever is relevant), (b) have a link to buy a legal copy.

* The *IAAs (especially RIAA) should consider the idea of providing subscription access to a full library of their content. There is little reason for them not to do this, as they can take advantage of a number of econonmies (if they have to electronically store copies of all their content in each city, it's still one copy versus hundreds of thousands). Let people have music on demand -- *any music* -- as long as they pay a monthly fee. I'm sure that there is some price point that the RIAA will be comfortable providing content at. This is particularly promising when partnered with major hardware audio players. Calculate how much the average person spends on music, and price such a service so that the users of such a service pay as much or more for their subscription. Provide value-added services like "similar artists". This is a no-brainer for the *AAs -- only a large organization with lots of rights can pull this off (so they don't have to worry about losing artists going indie) -- so they still have market with a barrier to entry.

Someone already screwed it up

[glockme]

Total Items Recorded: 10
Total Dollar Amount: Infinity
Music (RIAA): Infinity
Movies (MPAA): 20
Software (SPA): 0
Other: 25

Here's the dirty bugger:
$Some large amount of 9's
Music Just fucking things up.
Because it was fucking awesome

Baby, I can drive your car...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stole a Camaro when I was 16. I firmly believe that if it hadn't been for that experience driving a Camaro, I would never have bought a Camaro when I was 25.

You don't have a problem with that, do you? It's exactly the same logic as what the file-sharing-database people are proposing.

Re:Baby, I can drive your car...

[AngelofDeath-02]

thats not actually true since the camero is a physical object and an mp3 is an intelectual object There can only be one Camero, the one you stole ... mp3's can be duplicated. It's not like because you downloaded an mp3, someone else just lost an mp3. And to argue that insurance will just pay for the loss. Bullcrap. Insurance companies in themselves are a ripoff *sigh* but anyways. they'll jack up the rates so there is a cost.

Re:Baby, I can drive your car...

[LauraScudder]

Who'd you steal the Camero from? Or do you really mean that you copied a Camero, liked the copy, even though it was lower quality, and then later bought a high quality original?

I don't really understand whose hands I'm taking music out of when I download a copy to see how good it is.

That was fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

Total Items Recorded: 863
Total Dollar Amount: 45990.84
Music (RIAA): 20360.81
Movies (MPAA): 7637.84
Software (SPA): 14511.78
Other: 3480.41

non-consumer until proven otherwise

[yagu]

It's good to keep at the music industry (the part that makes these claims downloading music is hurting the industry), but this brushes up against ludicrous! I for one REFUSE to add my purchasing habits to this database -- nice goal, but other-worldly misguided.

The evidence ALREADY exists! This isn't a problem whereby the music industry needs proof. It's a problem whereby the music industry can't interpret its business case out of a wet paper bag. They'll never get it, and while savvy new conduits for music spring up from those who do, maybe eventually, the music industry as we know it today will finally cease to exist, or at least cease to hold sway with heavy handed tactics.

However, just to add my $.02, I CAN say I've virtually stopped buying any new music anymore -- fortunately I'm old enough to have accumulated more than 1000 CD's from which I can create my own mp3 heaven, and use streaming wireless devices anywhere in my house to access my whole library. I've stopped buying because I'm so tired of tracking what the speed bumps may be (does this disc have copy protection?, etc.).

Re:non-consumer until proven otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

The evidence ALREADY exists! This isn't a problem whereby the music industry needs proof.

Actually there's very little evidence (by which I mean court-worthy) of copyright violations by downloaders. If there were you can bet there'd be a lot more lawsuits going on right now.

Re:non-consumer until proven otherwise

[yagu]

Hmmmm, I hope my post isn't misleading... I didn't mean evidence exists of copyright violations -- (even though that may exist). I meant the evidence exists that increased download activity directly correlates with higher CD and other media sales (the curve of CD sales compared to the emergence of Napster is scary identical.... as is the curve of the decline of CD sales and the shut down of Napster.) I also can add anecdotally this has been my experience, when I would surf and download freely what amounted to "illegal" songs, my buying volume spiked. When napster was shut down, and I lost my appetite to trade jabs with the RIAA juggernaut, my buying volume returned to very low levels.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Additionally, one needs to track

[einhverfr]

What one downloaded, tried out, decided they didn't want to buy and went to buy something else.

I.e. how many of the downloads result in:

1) Purchase
2) Extended use without Purchase
3) Discard

Re:Additionally, one needs to track

[rDx666]

Agreed.

However, there still needs to be some kind of policing system in place for users submitting to the dbase. You don't want people abusing the statistics.

Re:Additionally, one needs to track

[Anonymous Coward]

How about
4) Little or no use with Purchase.

I bought t-shirts which i just don't wear anymore, i bought CDs which i just don't listen anymore, and i've deleted loads of music and video because i simply don't like it anymore.

Second hand business costs loads of time, so ...

Needs Moderation

[PhuckFonix]

$1500 Movies A lot of XXX movies! w00t Cause pR0n rules. J/K, I steal my movies. Wasn't me!

I'm sorry.

[Rie Beam]

...but I'll be perfectly honest, is anyone really buying this (no pun intended)? The only things I've ever bought were because it was too huge to download on my dial-up connection, or the file(s) I got were damaged or of such a poor quality that it wasn't really worth it. If the RIAA wants to stay alive, they're going to have to lower prices to the point where it becomes pointless to download songs, as quality versions exist for mere pennies. As for the MPAA, they still have the advantage of the theatre release, since digital camera versions are a bit shoddy and aren't really in competition with the MPAA (although they like to think it is, as an excuse for why all of their movies suck).

Re:I'm sorry.

[dizzyduck]

Totally. I've bought CDs by bands whose tracks I've downloaded from P2P. I could've downloaded the whole album (in perfect quality) on my 600k cable connection, but I didn't. I also go to see my favourite bands play.

However, the only reason I paid for those CDs was because the bands were signed to relatively small labels. I wouldn't have paid if it were from a huge conglomerate. I suppose part of this because of their unfair practices wrt the artists and their vandalism of London.

I found it particularly funny that the record labels were slapped with anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), introduced by the Labour government primarily to deal with trouble-makers on the streets.

in other words

[borgdows]

the Internet has now a Hyprocrisy Database!

Re:in other words

[name773]

look in the bottom right corner of the linked page (from the summary) :)

It's control, not sales

[Sivar]

I think it is fairly apparent that the RIAA (and perhaps MPAA) aren't really concerned over P2P networks' effect on sales. It is a control issue. If they do not have control power over the distribution channel, they have less power.

P2P networks are decentralized and completely out of their sphere of influence. I am sure that the people running the RIAA are not morons--CD sales are up and there is greater and greater evidence that P2P networks slightly improve sales. However, this evidence is used to argue with a point that I think the RIAA is using to push anti-P2P legislation through, but not a point that the RIAA actually believes.

If it were purely a sales problem, the RIAA would be going after commercial CD pirates -- These are the real bad guys. They are commercially profiting from the work of others (not just sharing it), and have reportedly built an economy in and of themselves of 4.5 BILLION dollars .

Of course, this doesn't mean 4.5 billion in losses--that is a BSA/piracy argument which is quite absurd--but I am sure that they do lose some money.

irony

[name773]

in the bottom right of the linked database page it says "Reproduction prohibited without permission"
lol...

Useless and pointless!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. When gathering consumer data, any basic notion of survey methods require some level of randomness. This site has almost none.

2. Whatever people enter, this information has not been verified and has absolutely no value. And this is even if there were no bias, but as the sample is not random, there must be significant biases.

3. This is just a loss of time for everyone and can only convince people who already believe that file-sharing helps sales.

4. Conclusion: let's spend time doing something useful instead of useless, biased statistics.

What about the other side?

[BeerSlurpy]

What I really use p2p for! Read on.

We need a survey that lets people enter in stuff that they decided NOT to buy because they downloaded it and found out that it sucked. I'll start.

Alien vs Predator (PC). Single player was poorly designed and tedious, multiplayer was built on netcode that looks stolen from gnutella and doesnt scale well past 4 players. Similar things could be said about the slightly less crappy sequel. Natural Selection (free mod for half life) is about 10 billion times better than AvP if you rate solely on gameplay.

For every game that is released and well supported (think halflife/cs/etc) there are dozens of games that get released with maybe half a dozen multiplayer maps and then forgotten by the publishers. EA, are you listening? I will never buy your games again as long as you continue to release your bug fixes to old products as new 40 dollar games. When you hurt your customers, we stop paying for your products. And we remember for a long time. With games like Half life or quake that remain supported for years after their release, why should we tolerate a 3 month lifecycle for bug fixing and map making?

For every Spiderman that gets released in the theaters there are a dozen Daredevils, Catwomans and Chronicles of Riddick. Do you expect us to pay to see obviously bad movies?

Re:What about the other side?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you expect us to pay to see obviously bad movies?

Yes.

If you buy a bad product you can return it to the store, but if you watch a bad movie you can't UNREMEMBER IT!!! So pay up and take a chance. life is a gamble anyway

A good idea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are always morons out there who lie. And post crap. Example:

$973 Music George W. Bush Sings John Kerry sucks

-1, Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

These statistics are updated periodically throughout the day.

Total Items Recorded: 1261
Total Dollar Amount: 63264.76
Music (RIAA): 26559.51
Movies (MPAA): 11362.09
Software (SPA): 21032.75
Other: 4310.41

Re:-1, Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoopie -- I've pirated Windows and also been involved in decisions that sent way more than $100K off to Redmond. I could make that claim and double the site's numbers. In other words, your little DVD collection is statistical noise.

Re:-1, Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but that's a different discussion then this thread.

This guy was saying that the site wasn't being updated, when clearly it is being updated periodically.

It won't prove a thing...

[Eric Damron]

"This database sets out to prove it once and for all. "

As much as I would like this to be proven once and for all, I don't see how this database will prove anything. It is being assumed that everyone who adds data is telling the truth. Probably not a good assumtion.

If they could somehow weed out all of the bad data they still would need another database: How many people didn't buy an album because they could just download it?

Re:It won't prove a thing...

[Kwil]

How many people didn't buy an album because they could just download it?

Haven't you been keeping up with the news? The RIAA already has that database somewhere.. ..at least, I assume they do, because they keep coming out with how much they've lost to piracy and they wouldn't just pull those numbers out of their collective asses, now would they?
Would they?

Re:It won't prove a thing...

[Eric Damron]

hehe, yes, I think that they would.

Great idea!

[MikeCapone]

I can add about 500 albums to it.

Would have been better worded as...

[ironwill96]

I was just thinking about the wording in the post saying "if you've ever bought something you downloaded". As others have pointed out there are problems with not showing both sides, but I submit that many of the items recorded under that premise are wrong as well. It should have been worded "If you've ever bought something because you downloaded it."

Otherwise, you will be accounting for things people downloaded but were planning on buying anyway! I don't think a registry of items can accurately pick up consumer intent, which is what they seem to be trying to gauge.

I have many friends who like to argue that downloading is not stealing because their definition of steal is "to deprive someone of something". They say that if they steal a candy bar from the store they have deprived the store owner of it, but when they download something the original still exists on the game company's computers. It is sentiment like that that IS hurting the gaming industry.

It may not be easily measurable, but there is a significant amount of people downloading games/movies/apps and not buying them later. Saying in the crack .nfo file "Buy it if you like it!" just isn't going to cut it.

/my 2 cents

Or...

[Julian Morrison]

...stuff they might have bought, but after downloading a sample, decided not to -- because it sucked ass.

Black Metal

[glrotate]

I'm guessing that Black Metal is a subspecies of Metal that is totaly free of any melody?

Re:Black Metal

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former blackmetal listener who got sick of the nazis and other extreme right tendancies in the scene, i'd like to explain that:

There's no easy definition on it. No one is commonly accepted. But yours is off, except for some people who are whining about "true black metal".

First of all the black metal scene kinda got teared apart between a left and a right wing movement. Such things happened because of the murder of a Mayhem member, and because of its popularity and acceptance it gained in the 90's. Not to say every listener is either of these or by definition interested in either.

Satanic or related influences are common. As are misantropic lyrics and sounds. Sometimes there are influences from the gothic scene. Personally, i'd say its a crossover between gothic (but not electro) and death metal.

Than regarding the music: There are basically 2 forms,
1) Melodic black metal (example: Dimmu Borgir and many more).
2) Raw black metal (example: Burzum and many more). With "raw" they basically mean monotone. My perception is that the raw movement is much more hateful, less good quality (amateur equipment?), and much more extreme tendancies.

There is no such thing as "death metal is raw". There's melodic death metal as well (Children of bodom for example).

Oh well, in the end God saved my life and got me to goa. I'm not depressed anymore either : )

Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't everything legal in Norway?

Re:Yeah, but...

[fewnorms]

no, that would be The Netherlands, where even when something's not legal, they just turn the other cheek... (drugs for instance)
Not that I approve of this....

Here?

[Rai]

http://www.freedb.org

Pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

I only watch about 5 minutes of each pr0n movie I download ... do those count?

Interesting

[quarrelinastraw]

I think the database idea is interesting, but it can't logically prove anything. To say that either I would have or wouldn't have bought a CD after downloading music is a counterfactual. I would like to see music listeners take more of a stand and instead of saying "downloading music doesn't hurt sales" say "for the love of Jebus, find a way to incorporate filesharing in your business plan, because it's the best thing that's happened to small musicians and music lovers."

I download

[Anonymous Coward]

I download a lot of movies.. and keep them..

Dvd's are getting cheaper and cheaper but I really don't want to go throught the hassle of ripping a dvd that I bought to add it to my movie home server.. Better to just download it (700mb rip if the movie is ok, 4,7gb rip if its really good).

Don't really like swapping dvds all the time.. better to just select the one you want to watch with myHTPC or something similar.

If I could buy a 700mb quality rip online I would do so.. honest!

and the followup database...

[v1]

that lists all the ppl that didn't download, went out and bought, and got PISSED OFF because they found out it was CRAP and couldn't return it like they could have with most other products?

Re:and the followup database...

[eofpi]

The enormous load keeps bringing that one down.

I brought more expensive items because of P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

I upgraded my home network and brought a bigger pipe connection to the um.. *ahem* internet.

Oops.

my buying preferences

[v1]

I download movies. Quite a lot actually. Most of it I glance at, or if it's a series, watch the first ep or two and chuck it because it's not anything I like. A few though I watch and really enjoy. Those are the ones I go out and buy, so I can see them at full res on my bigscreen. As it is I have four stacks of DVDs about 3ft high each, and a good chunk of that is due to my being able to "preview", or if you prefer, "try before you buy".

As for software, I don't download as much, and I have to say that the majority of things out there fall squarely into the "crap" category. (the free software often has better odds of being decent) But when I find a good app or game that I want to see more of, I support the authors and buy it. If it's shareware, I register it. If it's freeware, I send a paypal to the author. (have you paypal'd Brahm Cohen yet? I hear he's running low on pizza) I patiently await the day the RIAA/MPAA drop their BS and they (and the govt) acknowledge the right to try before you buy.

Re:my buying preferences

[DissidentHere]

While I fully agree with you in spirit, I have take arguement with one point: the right to try before you buy,

There is no such right, check the Constitution. 'Try before you buy' is something brought about by market forces to sell more product (RIAA take note), not an inaliable right.

Being pedantic aside, you are 100% correct, there have been studies showing that file sharing is actually increasing music sales (where's that link?!), its the shitty music that is hurting the record industry. If they'd just stop pouring $ in to Britteny Spears et. al., send them to the porn industry where they'd actually excel, and make good music, the profits will not fail.

Database is Functional

[Nuclear Elephant]

Hi,

Sorry about any initial problems with the numbers - the catalog was working, but the script to tabulate totals had a couple minor bugs. Everything has been corrected and the logs are being totaled properly now. I've added a few filters to filter out the bogus entries, and had to put in a 2 minute delay between submissions to spearhead flooding. Anyway, all is now up and running =)

Re:Database is Functional

[r.jimenezz]

Cool.

Would you care to share with us some ideas about this statement? (from the site):

The catalog will be analyzed by multiple individuals before any final numbers are made available, so it's only a waste of time to post bogus entries.

That is, of course, unless doing so ruins the trick :)

Re:Database is Functional

[Nuclear Elephant]

Naturally, the results are only as useful as the honesty of the individuals reporting the information. There will obviously be a small "troll margin" of people who put subtle entries in the database and no way to identify their authenticity. This will be mentioned in any final results posted. The obvious bogus entries will be removed after human review.

While I'm certain there are some trolls among us, I doubt they are more than a small percentage.

Re:Database is Functional

[shadowbearer]

While I'm certain there are some trolls among us, I doubt they are more than a small percentage.

With all due respect, there is no way whatsoever that you can determine that short of validated proof thru investigation of each submitter.

Personally - and especially at this point in time - I'd bet that the ratio is at least 50/50, and likely to rise after the slashdot exposure.

The obvious bogus entries will be removed after human review.

I think you underestimate the creativity, motivation, and intelligence of trolls :)

Cheers and good luck, but again, with all respect for your attempt, I wouldn't treat your results as statistically valid. Problem is mainly that you have no control - nothing to compare your results to that can put them in perspective. Of course, that is often the problem with new approaches to analysis...

SB

Re:Database is Functional

[Nuclear Elephant]

Personally - and especially at this point in time - I'd bet that the ratio is at least 50/50, and likely to rise after the slashdot exposure.

You're not from the recording industry by any chance, are you? I think we'll be able to sort a lot of it out in our analysis. Give us a little credit in the creative ways we can filter trolls. =) Even if it were as bad as 50/50, I've seen almost $200,000 in the past 6 hours. I suspect within a month's time, we'll see quite a bit more - even if you cut it in half, it's significant. But like I said, there are plenty of ways to filter out trolls.

Re:Database is Functional

[shadowbearer]

Recording industry? Not even, read some of my other posts today :D

I do know something about statistical analysis WRT to polls, however - and I've been prowling usenet, slashdot, and many other places for a long, long time - and know a fair amount about how to spot a troll.

What you are gathering doesn't provide you with enough information to spot an effective troll - even consecutive entries by the same user can't do so. Come on, now - there are slashdot trolls who are extremely effective, even with the mindpool available here. :)

I realize that I don't know what methods you are using to filter trolls - but they are probably the same ones I use. Problem is, as I see it, you've just challenged what is probably the most creative group of lusers on the internet (short of the usenet assholes, anyway :)

I've seen almost $200,000 in the past 6 hours.

Bog help you :)

Good luck; but so far there is nothing I've seen that shows me that your results will be significant. You're going to have to outline your methods here on slashdot (and listen to the criticism) for it to be taken seriously. Yeah, I'm serious.

Cheers,
SB

Re:Database is Functional

[Anonymous Coward]

like this one?

$20 Other "Your mom" I took her out for a quickie, enjoyed it, and bought a second go-round for $20. Your mom's an animal is bed, kiddo!

Re:Database is Functional

[Eudial]

About No IP addresses or personal information is logged. The complete catalog will be made available when the experiment is over.

Does that include apache/success_log? Wouldn't be that nice if you got subpoenad and *AA got their hands on that baby.

Re:Database is Functional

[Eudial]

*typo* that would be access_log

Good Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Money lost on downloading is made up in part by employment and profits for CD writers, DVD writers and the writable media.

Re:Good Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yepp but that money goes to people who actually DO something. And we can't have that, now can we...

Americans only need apply...

[Kris_J]

...unless you particularly feel like converting all your purchases into US$.

think about hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Would I have bought my PowerBook G4 (EUR 4000 in 2002) if I hadn't known I would have been able to get great software (think video editing) for free?

I don't think so.

Would I be interested in computers at all if there hadn't been the culture of sharing software in the 80s?

I can't tell.

This isn't intended to justify anything.

Just think about it.

Plus...

[t_allardyce]

Also there are things you wouldnt have bought anyway either because you just couldnt afford them or would have taken them back because you hated them - for example, how many students would you honestly say would pay for 3D Max (~£500/£1000) or something like PSpice (~£50,000)?? Same goes for allot of CDs and DVDs too. Lots of people just cant afford many CDs/DVDs. People have got to stop this bullshit about IP theft being the same thing as physical theft, its not, it might not be moral but its certainly is different. Another thing thats got to stop is this idiotic thinking that filesharing is going to go away and we will all go back to normal. Filesharing has been around long before the internet and generally societies dont go backwards they go forwards - filesharing will never ever stop, it will only get bigger, faster and less trackable, get over it.

All Website Content © 2004 Jonathan A. Zdziar

[StateOfTheUnion]

Is this site for real or is this just a great big troll topic from the editors of /.? If it was April 1st I would assume that this was a joke . . . What does a one sided voluntary non-fact-checked database prove about anything? Absolutely nothing at all . . .

But perhaps the funniest statement is that

All Website Content © 2004 Jonathan A. Zdziarski. All Rights Reserved.

The submission window doesn't say anything about this fella absconding your copyright on the writing that you submit. Isn't this guy claiming copyright on material written by the submitters? He does not make the assertion that he is merely copyrighting the "collection" of works by a variety of authors . . . he is claiming a copyright on all the content. Not respecting copyrights of submitters himself undermines any shred of credibility his site may have had . .

"Try before you buy" -- counterpoint

[0x0d0a]

We need a survey that lets people enter in stuff that they decided NOT to buy because they downloaded it and found out that it sucked. I'll start.

Yes, but while not buying poor products is a good idea for the consumer, it's a bad thing for publishers. It's hardly going to convince the RIAA/MPAA.

Also, keep in mind that publishers complaining about "illegal try before you buy" (even if done with the best intentions) do have at least some points in their favor:

1) It is possible (it's quite overused though) that the software being pirated gives a poorer quality experience, and hence gives people a bad impression of the product. This is more of an issue with old rips, where warez groups would commonly remove content, especially cinematics or music, from games to facilitate transfer. This not only means that the user may not buy the software, he may propagate a bad impression on. This is also a complaint from developers and publishers when it comes to leaked pre-release content.

2) Some content may well be worth the purchase price, but significantly decreases in value after a short period of use (such as your "evaluation period"). This is true of things that have a good deal of novelty value. Movies may be fun to re-watch, especially the best of the best, but they really are best the first time, when the director has the ability to spring plot twists and surprises -- the set of mechanisms that can be used that work the second time and on is much smaller. A number of video games, even if entertaining the first time though, simply lack replay value. For instance, I own copies of Myst and Riven. Both are fun games, but lack replayability.

3) Many people just don't "get around" to paying for content that they already have a copy of, even if they have a good deal of respect for the creator. At that point, it takes effort that provides no or minimal user benefit.

4) Many people, once they enjoy the benefits of content that isn't copy-protected, are not willing to pay for a copy-protected version (and publishers *would* be willing to produce non-copy-protected versions if they hadn't found that the dissuasion factor of copy protection towards piracy produces more sales than the benefits in selling more usable copy-protection-free content.

I really think that one of the best things for game developers, at least, to do, is to become personally visible to the user. That means putting in clips saying to the user "hi, hope you enjoy our software, good luck!", and such things in the intro. Publishers work really hard to de-emphasize the developers when it comes to game image -- in my eyes, this is a mistake. The main reason people buy copies of music is not to fund the *publisher* -- it's to fund the artist. Few people say "gee, I'm really disturbed by the fact that Viviendi isn't making enough money -- I'll buy another piece of software". Slap developer names and faces on the software and you have someone who loses his job and can't make more games if the software isn't paid for.

Sorry, no go..

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't bought a CD in years, for two reasons.

1. I'm broke. No seriously, paying for tuition and housing/food is hard enough. I just don't have the money to buy CDs. (And no I don't waste a lot of money on other entertainment either).

2. I don't want the CD. I play all my music from the computer, so I don't want to pay for a piece of plastic that I will use just once to rip the songs to my computer.

Right now I'm getting most of my music from www.allofmp3.com. $10/GB of music in any format you like. Sure the artists aren't getting much but that's all I can afford right now. Better than if I download it from Kazaa.

more like a poll

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a poll, with some numbers added to it and a haphazard promise to "weed out bogus entries".

Looking at the "last 20 entries", the numbers are rounded with plenty of creativity. Reasons seem unsurprising ("bought it 'cuz it's good"). Spoofing seems trivial, anonymous submissions are impossible to verify.

I think MPAA/RIAA/BSA would most likely use submissions (you forgot to use an anonymizing proxy when submitting, didn't you?) to map out more targets to sue. I mean, one way or another, you're admitting you've downloaded copyrighted material :-)

Who says it was illegal?

[PotatoHead]

There are plenty of places to sample music, who's to say that was not the source of the download?

Of course, this does sharply limit the potential of this database to defend p2p, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, pointless

[Pedrito]

This would have made for a good type of survey BEFORE the RIAA sued Napster. At least where I'm concerned. I've purchased exactly 1 CD since the RIAA sued Napster and that was for a gift. I refuse to purchase CDs because of the stance they've taken. Which is too bad for them because I was buying a lot of CDs because of Napster that I otherwise wouldn't have bought.

Also, as others have pointed out, this won't prove anything to the RIAA, MPAA or anyone else. There is a great deal missing from the questionaire to build any sort of meaningful statistics.

That said, I have no doubt that file sharing has made the RIAA and MPAA a great deal of money they otherwise wouldn't have made. Any serious reduction in sales would be due to two things that are glaringly obvious to me:

1: Some people, like me, have boycotted since the Napster lawsuit. Probably not enough to make a huge impact, but there are some of us out there.

2: The music industry, in particular, over the past couple of years hasn't put out much worth purchasing. Where have all the good musicians gone?

Downloading hurts Mafia pirates more than RIAA

[Simonetta]

Suppose that you live in a place where RIAA product costs $20-$25US a disk. Assume that there are also many pirates who sell the top 100 disks on the current Billboard list for $3-5 a disk. You love music and have $50 a month to spend on it. These are not unreasonable assumptions for many people outside the USA. In the USA people have more disposable income and less access to Mafia CDs.

If you get 2 'must have' CDs from RIAA sources a month you've blown your budget but you have what you want when you want it. If you buy all your CDs from outdoor stalls, you get 12 CDs a month but with questionable quality and the selection is not good. You may have to wait many weeks for the title that you specifically want if it is very popular.

Say you buy one RIAA CD and spend the rest of the music budget on Internet download time. All the money that would have gone to the Mafia pirates is now going to the ISP. Plus you have a wider selection (along with the marginal quality) than the Mafia street vendors provide.

Most of the money that would have been going to the Mafia pirates is now going to the Internet Service provider and the RIAA.

Therefore, downloading music hurts the large criminal pirate CD makers more than the RIAA. It helps the RIAA by allowing the consumer to have a wider range of available music. This increases the chances that new previously unknown titles will become part of the consumer's 'must have' list to buy from the RIAA.

This is easy

[Datasage]

I can attest to the first downloading then buying stuff. My is well over $2000 between movies, music, and software.

Right now i really like the free songs each week on itunes. Because of it, i have found new artists that i like and have gone back and purchased the full album.

Lost in Translation is the last movie i bought after viewing a dowloaded divx first. But i have done that with so many other movies. Musa, Hero, crouching tiger hidden dragon, firefly, To name a few.

THe reason why i purchase it is not nessarily so i will watch it again. But more to encourage distrubutors to invest into more of those types of movies.

Downloads versus Libraries

[jesterzog]

I've certainly downloaded music, and personally if I like it I usually end up buying the album... otherwise it doesn't last long. Usually I prefer the entire album over a couple of tracks, because I don't really listen much to the trashy radio music where artists apparently only have one or two good singles. If that's all that an artist can produce then they're probably not worth listening to anyway.

Having said that, I do often find downloading to be a hassle --- being stuck with a dialup isn't the entire cause but it doens't help. It's easier to be able to borrow the full album on an actual CD. With that in mind, my local library actually stocks quite a lot of music CD's, both of popular music and a lot of music that's rarely promoted or sold by local music stores. With perhaps a few exceptions, it's no more legal to keep or copy the CD's from the library than it is to download, but it's great for sampling albums and deciding if they're something I'd like to buy more permanently.

For those who rarely visit their library or who stay in the book sections, check to see if there's also a music section. You might find that borrowing music from the library to sample it is much more convenient than downloading.

Anime and niches

[PsiPsiStar]

Just look at Anime. Japanese companies don't enforce copyright. People make all kinds of derivative art, stories, etc. have anime conventions where they share this stuff. It builds a market for the product. Of course, this is a good strategy for any niche market. This may not be a good strategy for major establishments since it diminished their ability to pipe the products of their choice directly into your CD player.

The MPAA and RIAA represent a specific list of major artists. They don't represent the whole industry and more than the Christian Coalition represents all Christians.

I don't know how you'd actually measure it (voluntary reporting seems a bit inconclusive), but I'd be interested in how downloading altered the distribution of music sales. Who is helpedmost, and who is hurt most.

*spasm*

[Anonymous Coward]

So now there's a database of people admitting that they downloaded songs. The RIAA lawyers must be orgasmic at this point.

On the topic of evidence and beliefs

[paylett]

Ok, it's off topic. While looking though other project by the author of this site, I found a well thought through essay on what he personally believes:

Abstract: I've often been asked why an intellectual type guy such as myself would believe in Jesus - a figure most Americans equate to a good bedtime story, or a religious symbol for people who need that sort of thing. Read essay

Dead customer service

[Safety Cap]

A local (chain) music store used to allow customers to preview any CD at their listening stations. Their prices were generally higher, but I would go there first when looking for new music.

If the price was reasonable, or if no other stores in the area carried the item I was interested in (like a special German import), then I'd buy it.

Sadly, the store stopped allowing previews and shortly thereafter closed for good. Coincidence? Probably not, but when they sh~t-canned the previewing I stopped going there---and I suspect so did many other folks.

Re:Dead customer service

[Veridium]

I remember that, that was nice. Block Buster music used to do that in my area. My only complaint was greasy headphones on occasion... :) That and the cost, but I'm one of those guys who'll spend an extra buck if there is added value...

What I don't get, and maybe this has been done and I'm just ignorant, but why hasn't the music industry come up with a website I can go to, select the songs I want on a CD, then let me order that custom CD? Maybe offer 30 second previews on the songs, in the hopes that I might get hooked on extra songs? I know this technically feasible, I refuse to hear bullshit the contrary.

I think that would get a following and generate some good revenue. It just seems like the middle men are fighting change through FUD, the victim context, legal threats, and legislation, instead of embracing change and finding a new niche to fulfill. And they're hurting the artists in the process.

Oh come on

[bluesnowmonkey]

The RIAA and MPAA claim that file sharing hurts sales, but some recent figures show that file sharing works FOR the industry.

Yeah, go on, keep repeating that and people will start to actually believe it.

Maybe, somehow, file sharing DOES currently help the music and movie industries. (I doubt it.) It would not stay they way if file sharing became morally and legally acceptable. People would stop buying faster than you can say "Napster." I mean, think about it. You're counting on the altruism of human beings. Human beings are STINGY.

Of course it won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can put stuff in the database, whether or not they downloaded it, and whether or not they even bought it.

The information gathered is not reliable, and hence will be ignored.

Concerts?

[Kristoffer Lunden]

I looked at the site but am not sure if it would be ok to submit concerts as paying for the music. I've been to several concerts, paying for tickets for no other reason than that I've heard the music via the net one way or the other. I fell that is an excellent way to support the artists *and* get a great experience.

Personally, I much rather put my money into concerts than CDs - a CD is something the band has recorded once and then can be copied ad finitum - this is what people talk about when they discuss copyright violation versus stealing. However, a live performance is something that the artist are doing right there, right now - and I feel very comfortable paying for that. CDs are way overpriced, and it doesn't seem I'm paying the band that way.

A big case in point is the Metallica concert I went to this summer - I really, really disapprove of their stand when it comes to record sales, up to the point where I'd don't wanna pay out of spite - but I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is and pay for a performance by the artists themselves. After all, every performance is one time only as such, and this is where I feel artists should make their money. And hopefully, that money does not to 95% end up with the record labels.

Simple Minds

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe some buy what they heard, but like the adage goes (somewhat re-arranged),

If you get the COW for free, why buy the milk ?

The vast majority, as in nearly all, that download for "free" will not in a 1000 years pay for it later. It's ridiculous to think or purport that they would.

I burn all my NetFlix videos

[Anonymous Coward]

I burn every Netflix video I get and never buy them retail.

Re:I've got a better DB

[Anonymous Coward]

And one for me: stuff I would've bought if RIAA and MPAA weren't such assholes and I wouldn't have felt the need to boycott them.

I know about another more eviol form of file shari

[djdavetrouble]

It is increbidle, you go to the library and you can "check out" VIDEOS, DVD's, CD's, even BOOKS ~!~!!! and it is FREE. This has been going on for quite some time, evidently and it MUST BE STOPED !!! Even the government itself is involved in this conspiracy of free stuff, and it is the biggest collection ever, it is called the library of congress.

Out of the norm response to downloading...

[eruanno]

OK, I admit I have different views than the majority (I'd say 99%) of Slashdot holds... But hear me out. Someone owns the copyright to that music, whether it be the artist, the record label... Whomever. Point is, someone owns that. It's theirs. Not yours. They've agreed, for a fee, to let you have a copy of it on a CD or what-have-you. They've agreed for you, realy, to listen to that music casually (in a non-commercial way). But you must PAY for that right. If you haven't paid for that right, then you do not have that right, nor the permission of the owner, to listen to that music (in CD or digital format, etc). If you do it anyways, without permission, you are breaking that nationally accepted and enforced LAW. I mean, you'd have a cow if your software was for sale, and some found it free online and tried it out, and then bought it, but some just used the illegal version without your permission. You want ALL of what you earned, not just part. Sure, downloading has helped sales out in some ways... That's why many many many artists have 30 second clips for preview to get you interested (or in case of software, a 30 day trial, etc). I mean, you have permission to use that, and if you are satisfied with that, then get the rest of it. THE POINT IS, it really IS illegal. You don't have permission to "borrow" it to see if you like it... That's like stealinga CD to see if you like it enough to pay for it. Think about it... How would you like it to happen to you!? It's more than just what you THINK should be right... You have laws set for a reason. Not everyone is honest enough to listen to it and then buy it. Be happy with the 30 second demo's and then buy the CDs. Geez, ya'll are all so intelligent... Fight for something worth fighting for. Matt

Re:Out of the norm response [Readable... Sorry]

[eruanno]

OK, I admit I have different views than the majority (I'd say 99%) of Slashdot holds... But hear me out.

Someone owns the copyright to that music, whether it be the artist, the record label... Whomever. Point is, someone owns that. It's theirs. Not yours. They've agreed, for a fee, to let you have a copy of it on a CD or what-have-you. They've agreed for you, realy, to listen to that music casually (in a non-commercial way). But you must PAY for that right. If you haven't paid for that right, then you do not have that right, nor the permission of the owner, to listen to that music (in CD or digital format, etc).

If you do it anyways, without permission, you are breaking that nationally accepted and enforced LAW. I mean, you'd have a cow if your software was for sale, and some found it free online and tried it out, and then bought it, but some just used the illegal version without your permission. You want ALL of what you earned, not just part.

Sure, downloading has helped sales out in some ways... That's why many many many artists have 30 second clips for preview to get you interested (or in case of software, a 30 day trial, etc). I mean, you have permission to use that, and if you are satisfied with that, then get the rest of it.

THE POINT IS, it really IS illegal. You don't have permission to "borrow" it to see if you like it... That's like stealinga CD to see if you like it enough to pay for it.

Think about it... How would you like it to happen to you!?

It's more than just what you THINK should be right... You have laws set for a reason. Not everyone is honest enough to listen to it and then buy it. Be happy with the 30 second demo's and then buy the CDs.

Geez, ya'll are all so intelligent... Fight for something worth fighting for.

Matt

According to the RIAA, it's everything...

[Ghostgate]

... and I think that's the point of that site.

The RIAA would have you believe that every single unauthorized download, in all circumstances, is LOST REVENUE. Think about that. They are saying that every single download is something the downloader would have DEFINITELY bought, in every single case. They would never consider scenarios like these:

1. People who download a song and then end up buying the CD of that song.
2. People who download a song, don't buy the CD, but wouldn't have bought it under any circumstance anyway.
3. People who download so many songs that there's no way they could reasonably buy the CDs of each and every one of them.
4. People who download a song that they already own in one format or another (for example: if you download a song to your office computer when you already own the CD at home... this is unauthorized, but it's CERTAINLY NOT lost revenue).

And probably others I'm not thinking of. The point is that the RIAA treats every single download as lost revenue, when some are actually revenue GAINED, and many others make no difference either way.

I will tell you right now that there are no radio stations in my area that play the kind of music I like, nor does MTV or any other available music sources play what I like. In fact, the ONLY ways I hear new artists that I like are through friends (but I don't share similar tastes with many of my friends) or, primarily, through downloaded MP3s. And I buy a LOT of CDs. If it weren't for the downloads though, I would hear very little I like, and buy much less as well. Is everyone like me? Of course not. But everyone is not like the miserable picture that the RIAA paints, either.

NOT news, DUPL, already proved at UNC+Harvard

[nusratt]

"[story submitted to slashdot editors 2004-07-23 12:25 UTC]

The Guardian reports on a study of file-sharing performed by two professors at UNC and Harvard Business School. The effect of file-sharing is 'statistically indistinguishable from zero' -- and in some cases may actually help sales ..."

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[nusratt]

"At least where I live (Norway), downloading music and movies is perfectly legal."

Just wait until you join the EU -- a move which unfortunately is supported by the majority of your misinformed countrymen.
This is not a troll or flame.
I can't begin to tell you how much I wish it weren't true.

theyve got it wrong.

[kaiborg]

i think the riaa has it all wrong, at least in my case. i rarely buy CDs. Why? is it because i have p2p apps and broadband? nope. i d/l lots of music (and trash most of it). its not that i dont buy the music because i have the option to get it for free--its because i dont have the personal spending money to buy the music! the RIAA says its LOSING money? how about, its NOT MAKING money. whether im d/ling music for free or not, that doesnt put money into my pocket so i can go and buy a cd i like. im a poor ass, minimum wage college student--d/ling music for free doesnt mean im stealing money or profit from anyone. music isnt a necessity, its a form of entertainment that i could easily live without. i figure there is no external harm from me d/ling it because i wasnt going to buy it in the first place. there was no money lost--BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER MONEY TO BE MADE!

What about stuff you wouldn't buy . . . period.

[bedouin]

I'm sure there's tons of people who would switch to OpenOffice, Gimp, or Linux if there was no way to pirate a copy of Office, Photoshop, or Windows.

The average person who pirates Photoshop uses it to crop pictures and some minor editing. They wouldn't pay for it if it couldn't be pirated, they'd just use something else.

How many mp3s have you downloaded just for background noise, but wouldn't waste even a dollar on? Probably lots.

Liking something is a lot different than liking something so much to spend hard earned money on it -- at least to me.

Re:What about stuff you wouldn't buy . . . period.

[Fuzzums]

> How many mp3s have you downloaded just for background noise, but wouldn't waste even a dollar on? Probably lots.

So what you're saying is filesharing is improving the quality of the music aswell by natural selection.

Good songs get payed for, bad ones not.
Good artists gets money, bad artists get broke.
Good music stays, bad music goes.

Uhmmm

[GoClick]

I'm pretty sure Norway signed the ICT some ago did they not? Hense the sales of american music? Could be wrong... This project seems like a bad idea, registering your IP that you broke copyright laws, sounds like an excuse for the *AA to get the courts to make NE turn over the whole list and all logs and then all the ISP logs :P

Re:Uhmmm

[Eudial]

This project seems like a bad idea, registering your IP that you broke copyright laws, sounds like an excuse for the *AA to get the courts to make NE turn over the whole list and all logs and then all the ISP logs :P

Not really. You don't see bittorrent trackers subpoenad for logs, and they would be a much better target then this experiment.

IANAL, but signing this list doesent mean you couldn't be lying to keep the statistics up. To actually get convicted of something you need more proof then that (just because i claim that i shot JFK doesent mean that i can't be sentenced to death row for 1st degree murder based on that statement), and since you've already got the stuff legally you most probably threw the illegal copy away a very long time ago.

And the database of media apartheid?

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, what about the database of citizens who would be social outcasts by wealth-based exclusion from access to culturally-important products?

It is my belief that every major film production, musical work, book, and other form of information constitutes a form of wealth-based apartheid. Those who cannot access it are excluded from a major cultural shift, and must essentially evolve at a delayed rate, after the evolution of others filters down to them.

This is ethically discriminatory, socially unjust, educationally ignorant, and it has no place in a modern economic system.

Re:NOT DUPL, news, not proven at UNC+Harvard

[Doppleganger]

This isn't a duplicate, because it's talking about a completely different site, and a completely different method of gathering data.

The UNC/Harvard thing also isn't proof.. studies that weigh in on one side or the other on this issue are a dime a dozen.

This is another way to add more evidence to the issue and more weight to the argument that the effects are minimal. I doubt it's even possible to prove it one way or another.. but every new effort to counter the RIAA/MPAA's paid "independent" studies is definitely news.

Having done the math...

[ajs]

I agree with the industry. Tax dollars should be handed out to corporations as a way to compensate them for their losses to P2P networks. I think that check comes to about -$2B... please make that check payable to "US Taxpayers". Thanks.

Residents of other countries should petition their governments to put the music companies on the same dole.

If anything..

[bmantz65]

this database just gives the RIAA et. all more sources to use in their releases about the number of people committing piracy. Valiant effort, though.

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until you join the EU

As a Finnish citizen (Finland is a member of the EU) I must inform you that it perfectly legal to download music and movies here too. EU hasn't (yet?) changed this.

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[Jugalator]

This is not "Insightful", as it has nothing to do with legality to download copyrighted software.

It's legal here in Sweden too.

Re:DUPL, proven at UNC+Harvard

[nusratt]

what i meant...
--it's a dupl in he sense that a story on this subject (of evidence for the effects of file-sharing) was submitted a week ago (and strangely rejected although more credible)
--The UNC/Harvard study is about as close as you can get, considering that it IS independent, which is NOT "a dime a dozen".

As the story said, "This is the first empirical study based on actual file-sharing behavior."

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[nusratt]

"EU hasn't (yet?) changed this."

Is the situation not considerably more restrictive in Netherlands?

Am I mistaken in understanding that there are already more restrictive conditions in progress in the EU parliament?
And wouldn't the result likely be stricter enforcement mandated to be uniform across all EU members?

Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?

Are we using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?

Educate me, please.

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[nusratt]

"It's legal here in Sweden too."

Am I mistaken in understanding that there are already more restrictive conditions in progress in the EU parliament?
And wouldn't the result likely be stricter enforcement mandated to be uniform across all EU members?

Is the situation not considerably more restrictive in Netherlands?

Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?

Educate me, please.

Perhaps we're using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?

I agree completely

[I(rispee_I(reme]

in fact, i don't think you go far enough. i think we should select certain works of art for mandatory viewing by all citizens, to ensure that everyone gets a chance to evolve. (no troglodyte left behind!) here are a few of my suggestions:

ICE-T, O.G. - Original Gangster
Cool Hand Luke - Directed by Stuart Rosenberg
Muppet Babies - Jim Henson Workshop
Super Mario Brothers, published by Nintendo, Inc
Crisis on Infinite Earths, by DC Comics
Eyes of the Dragon, by Stephen King

Re:I agree completely

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I might have been ingratiated, or insulted by your comment. But I haven't seen most of those, so I've no idea what you mean.

Which kind of illustrates my point ;)

Re:Out of the norm response [Readable... Sorry]

[lachlan76]

Well, it's not something that happens to me, but some of my friends have started a band, and have started selling CDs this year. Not a crippled, DRM encumbered, unusable-on-computer CD, but just a nice, shiny, disc with 44.1kHz WAVs on it, which I can play on anything.

And you know something? They're not going through an evil empire to sell CDs, they're happy to play it, and accept that some people will just get it from KaZaa. Don't pretend that it's the artists who are the ones complaining about P2P, because it's just the record company execs, worried that they can't control all music distribution. I find it refreshing to know that at least some record companies are willing to focus more on putting out good music than stripping away consumer rights.

You have laws set for a reason

And that reason is because the RIAA:

1. Says so
2. Gets Hatch to pass more laws under the guise of Protect the children/artists from the evil P2P
3. Makes people think "Well, it's the law, so it MUST be right, and we'll all just follow blindly"

And finally, anyone in Australia, buy a Grannyflat cd.

Van Halen III

[ShutUpJames]

The last CD I bought sound unheard, was Van Halen III. Any Van Halen fans here will probably understand why that was the final straw

I'm Gary Cherone you insensitive clod!

Re:Van Halen III

[Veridium]

Oh good. I would like you to refund me the portion of the album sale that went into your pocket. You didn't deserve it.

I'd also like a refund of the small amount that the album added to my garbage bill the day after buying it.

Re:DUPL, proven at UNC+Harvard

[Doppleganger]

Oh, you mean this story?

Your story's already been on Slashdot. This one may be about the same general subject, but it is about a completely different method.

People are always saying "prove it" when someone says that lots of things are bought due to file sharing... the subject of this article is trying to do precisely that. That's hardly a duplicate of an article about some researchers who statistically compared music sales against popularity on P2P networks.

Here it is

[Anonymous Coward]

<?xml>
<database>
<table>
<field>
<name>CDs customers would have bought if they hadn't downloaded them.</name>
<value type="integer">0</value>
</field>
</table>
</database>

Re:DUPL, proven at UNC+Harvard

[nusratt]

yes, you're absolutely right and I was wrong: I was genuinely unaware that the UNC story had been covered before, and hadn't checked because the place where I did see the story gave me the impression that it was new news.
mea media culpa

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you both (Finland & Sweden) sincerely believe that your current freedom-to-download, or to use p2p networks, isn't threatened?

Are we using different meanings of the word "legal"? Are there no lawsuits or prosecutions conducted for file-sharing in the EU? Is there no divulgement of customer records forced upon ISPs?

I think you are mixing two entirely different issues (in legal sense): sharing and downloading. In Finnish law it is prohibited to publish (=share) copyrighted material without copyright holder's permission, but it is perfectly legal to download as much such material as you wish. So practically, as some p2p programs force you to share even if all you want is leech, it becomes illegal to use such programs.

Worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

A database of liars. Who gives a shit?

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[nusratt]

"I think you are mixing two entirely different issues (in legal sense): sharing and downloading. In Finnish law it is prohibited to publish (=share) copyrighted material without copyright holder's permission, but it is perfectly legal to download as much such material as you wish."

This is so whack, I'm finding it hard to believe.
You're telling me that it's illegal for the owner of the machine where the file is stored.
But it's legal for the person who copies that very same file from that machine?

Or are you telling me that it depends on the TCP port number?!

How do you prove that the "sharer" was intentionally sharing?
What if he merely forgot to protect his FTP or telnet or rcp port?

Re:Out of the norm response [Readable... Sorry]

[eruanno]

I'm definitely all for non-crippled media, but you understand, they did that because the information is in danger of being put out over the web for free without the artists permission.

What makes an evil empire evil? Is it the impression that it's trying to keep us from stealing or allowing us to try that, or to make the most money it can? I see NOTHING wrong with them trying to protect their property to the fullest, especially if their rights to their property are being violated! Yes, they are also trying to make as much money as possible. you would too if you had some great product that would sell like crazy and could make you millions!

I know some artists that do like P2P, and have given their permission to the world to download their music... But I do know many more who would rather people listen to a clip and buy their CD. These guys are working hard and selling them themselves and need to earn the money back...

Listen, you can't tell me that most P2P users download one song, and if they like it, they buy the CD, and if not, they delete the music because they didn't pay for it. On the contrary, many people download WHOLE CDs and never pay for them. Either that or they just make copies of the CDs... If you like the band that much, buy the stinking CD!

I'm not stupid, I used to do the same thinsg and justified it the same way. Now I really do care whether it is illegal or not.

And by the way, the RIAA has good reasons to "Say so," if it protects the industries rights (they do represent the industry). Yeah, I'd say P2P were evil if it allows for blatantly illegal use! And following blindly is stupid. I never said to do that, and I sure hope you don't. I know the laws, and I can't say that they are all that great, but they are just trying to protect their good music from being stolen any more (a lot of the "crappy" stuff they are doing now is in retaliation to stealing online).

But, back to the laws... Noone ever said you had to agree to the laws... You just need to follow them until they are changed. If you don't, you put yourself at risk just for doing something so simple and stupid as downloading music that you don't own the rights to, without permission. Sometimes laws aren't perfect, but had good intentions (for whomever). Honestly, are they raping us trying to protect their goods? No, not really. Would it be so much to ask to just go to a CD shop and listen to the samples, or go to the bands website? Or listen to a friends CD (without burning it)? And THEN buy the CD? Heck, go to iTunes, etc... There are lots of samples there! Find places like MP3.com (RIP) that had tons of GREAT FREE music if you really so desire. The main pull of P2P is downloading stuff for free that would normally cost you money.

Now tell me, what's so HARD and WRONG with following the laws? You don't go killing anyone (I hope)... Speeding you might, but you shouldn't. Screw "grace period." Why is this whole generation about breaking the rules? You cry you have rights, but you screw the government that tries to uphold your rights so often, and protect others as well. Not everything is always even and clear.

Sincerely,
Matt

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[Anonymous Coward]

You're telling me that it's illegal for the owner of the machine where the file is stored.
But it's legal for the person who copies that very same file from that machine?

Yes.

Or are you telling me that it depends on the TCP port number?!

What? How is this related to port numbers?

How do you prove that the "sharer" was intentionally sharing?
What if he merely forgot to protect his FTP or telnet or rcp port?

Well, intention is generally quite hard to prove - not only in filesharing related cases. IANAL, so I can't tell, what the court would say about unintentional sharing. And it isn't the point here. The point is: it's legal to download but illegal to distribute.

Re: "legal in Norway" -- DREAM ON

[nusratt]

"How is this related to port numbers?"

You mentioned "legal to download", and then "illegal to use [p2p]".
So, since p2p uses specific ports, I thought that perhaps you were making a distinction of those ports versus ftp or http.

"I can't tell, what the court would say about unintentional sharing."

Seems like a very large loophole. Modify a p2p protocol, to announce an mp3's availability in an anonymous usenet post which says, "I'm a script-kiddy. I found an open ftp at [ip.address]. Here's a list of the files I found."
In fact, it might be a very smart thing for a sharer to do, because it transfers the legal liabiliy from the "innocent" weak-security machine, to the downloader who becomes "guilty" of accessing someone else's machine "without permission".

"And it isn't the point here. The point is: it's legal to download but illegal to distribute."

If you choose to the restrict the discussion to my original, apparently erroneous, belief that the copy-recipient is prosecutable in the EU, then you're correct in saying "it isn't the point".
I believe it's VERY much to the point, because I'm actually more interested in the broader issues of:
-- legal restraints on sharing, and
-- the growing hegemony of US interests, particularly through the cowardly cooperation of the EU bureaucrats.
Did the average EU resident actually anticipate and welcome this role of the EU legislators as an oppressive trans-national government?
Didn't most people envision the EU primarily as way to eliminate frictions in travel and trade, i.e. a means for *reducing* regulation?

And, again to raise my previous concern, do you sincerely believe that your current freedoms aren't threatened by EU standardization in these matters?