Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The File Sharing Database

Posted by timothy on from the self-selection-illustrated dept.

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."

12 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Where's the other way round? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Where's the other way round? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:Where's the other way round? by Veridium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    3. Re:Where's the other way round? by Crazy_MYKL · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --


      <jedi> There is something funny here. You laugh. </jedi>
  2. how? by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:how? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Isn't this illegal? by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  4. Interesting, but pointless. by sultanoslack · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • 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.
  5. Wow, $712 gained from file sharing! by phpm0nkey · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    domain combinatorics
  6. No way i would post to this by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. I for one... by nautical9 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. Re:100,000,000 by foidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.