Slashdot Mirror
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."
Where's the database which shows what customers would have bought if they hadn't downloaded it?
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.
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.
- 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.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.
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?
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).
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
CDs and DVDs break, games go missing etc. You shouldn't have to pay for it twice just because the cheapy medium broke.
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.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
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."
.nfo file "Buy it if you like it!" just isn't going to cut it.
/my 2 cents
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
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
...stuff they might have bought, but after downloading a sample, decided not to -- because it sucked ass.
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.