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.
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.
... 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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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 can add about 500 albums to it.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
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 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 =)
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?
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
Where are the studies showing how much money was lost performing studies into how much money was lost to file sharing?
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.