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."
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.
Something to think about. Maybe this list won't cause any problems, but I wouldn't anything past **AA and their lawyers.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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....
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.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
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?
New questionaire:
--
Power to the Peaceful
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.
Presently here, but not there.
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.
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.).
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?
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
Spine World