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.
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.
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.
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.
They can just go there, and start filing lawsuits.
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....
- 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.How much longer can the MPAA and RIAA ignore these staggering figures?
domain combinatorics
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.
I found this line interesting:
$700 | Software | Adobe Premiere | Downloaded it, loved it, cracked it.
iTunes. 100,000,000 songs sold in ~1 year. 'nuff said. Fuck you RIAA.
... have purchased well over 300 blank CD-Rs!
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).
The RIAA files a court order to obtain ip addresses of all those who conceded to downloading music.
For one thing, when it "sets out to prove it once and for all", it is obviously going to get a skewed sample.
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
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
It says that the totals are calculated at intervals, presumably to avoid overloading the web server.
New questionaire:
--
Power to the Peaceful
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.
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.
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.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
The artists are earning a lot of money by become more popular and well-known.
Yes, I am a
Total Items Recorded: 10
Total Dollar Amount: Infinity
Music (RIAA): Infinity
Movies (MPAA): 20
Software (SPA): 0
Other: 25
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.
CDs and DVDs break, games go missing etc. You shouldn't have to pay for it twice just because the cheapy medium broke.
...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.
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
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.).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
...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).
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
in the bottom right of the linked database page it says "Reproduction prohibited without permission"
lol...
look in the bottom right corner of the linked page (from the summary) :)
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?
There are always morons out there who lie. And post crap. Example:
$973 Music George W. Bush Sings John Kerry sucks
"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?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I can add about 500 albums to it.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
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.
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
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.
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.
I'm guessing that Black Metal is a subspecies of Metal that is totaly free of any melody?
http://www.freedb.org
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."
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?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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 =)
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.
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.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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 . .
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.
May we never see th
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?
Blogging because I can...
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?
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.
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.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
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.
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....
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
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.
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
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
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.
Yeah, right.
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.
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
Where are the studies showing how much money was lost performing studies into how much money was lost to file sharing?
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.
music lover since 1969
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
"Support Bacteria - Its the only culture some people have" - Circa 1985
... 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.
"[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
"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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This is not "Insightful", as it has nothing to do with legality to download copyrighted software.
It's legal here in Sweden too.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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."
"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.
"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?
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
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:
And finally, anyone in Australia, buy a Grannyflat cd.
I'm Gary Cherone you insensitive clod!
--------
"The first of many European imports consumed in New Zealand was a dead Dutchman" - James Belich
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.
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
"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?
"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?