The torrents have been made available today and they are conveniently hosted by Mininova.
Now _that_ is going to get a lot of attention on CBC soon enough:)
Seriously, if you can spend thousands boozing yourself up each year, you can't make the excuse that you're too poor to buy DVDs. Of course you can. Booze can't be downloaded.
You really have to be careful where you get the wording from. The actual result page states:
For an increase in the average number of P2P downloads per month of 2.718282, the number of CD purchases per year will increase by 1.212. For an increase in the average number of P2P downloads per month of 1 (ie., 2.718282/2.718282), the number of CD purchases per year will increase by (1.212/2.718282 =) 0.44. This suggests that there is some form of music creation effect derived from P2P file-sharing, discussed below. This does not describe any causation link, even though it looks that way because the P2P number comes first. It could easily be read as the number of CD purchases increase by 1.212, the number of P2P downloads per months increase by 2.718282.
The only part that implies causation is: "This suggests that there is some form of music creation effect derived from P2P file-sharing".
Here, the size of the estimate evaluated at its mean of 40 percent (see Appendix 3) suggests that individuals who increased P2P file-sharing (i.e. Downloading from P2P networks) by 1 percent because they considered an 'album too expensive' purchased 3.2 percent fewer CDs.
H2b. People who engage in music downloading and P2P file-sharing do so partly because they wish to hear a soundtrack or an artist before buying. Thus, there is a positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and music purchasing.
First, this is poorly worded. Are they asking whether everyone engages in P2P filesharing has a partial desire to preview music? Or rather that some P2P filesharers have such a desire? Second, the conclusion does not logically follow. Whether some people use P2P to preview music, it may or may not be enough to offset the number of potential people who use P2P in lieu of buying music. Therefore, proving that some people do use P2P to preview before buying does not prove that "there is a positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and music purchasing." "Thus, there is a positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and music purchasing."
This doesn't mean that there is a correlation found, nor that the relationship is found. It just says what is needed to fail to reject the hypothesis.
I really encourage you to read
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01461e.html, which is the results page of the study.
Hypothesis 2b, which you are quoting, results in a positive correlation with a "market creation" effect, however there is no correlation with the "hear before buying" action. The effect that works with Hypothesis 2b is the "not available elsewhere", which is one of rarity. Basically this means that there is a chunk of the P2P population who can't find certain music elsewhere who also buy more CDs.
The other effect found, being one of "album too expensive" correlates negatively amongst the P2P population, meaning that P2P users who uses it because of pricing are less likely to buy CDs.
At the end of the day, with the P2P population as a whole, more CDs are bought.
Basically this means that P2P user, on the balance sheet, results in more CD buying activity
I actually opted out of touch tone on my fax line.
As for the "Network Charge 5.95" this is because you are on a Bell's LD plan.
First Rate TM Worldwide is the plan that you have.
If you don't have a LD plan, this are the rates for LD Calls:
http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpPns_Lng_Base.page
(Remember the time where it was cheaper in the evening? This is it...)
If you check their 15c a month plan, which allegedly doesn't have a monthly fee, they will charge 5.95$ of "Network Charge"
http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpPns_Lng_Detail.page?wlcs_catalog_item_sku=10001
You can either signup with another LD carrier that has no montly fee or get Bell to disconnect your plan.
I've signed up with StarTec.ca recently, but I haven't gotten a bill or a credit card charge yet. They say that there is no montly fee at all if everything is done electronically (eg cc billing, and email invoice).
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but there are countless buggy C/C++ program which can be used as prior art. Including some of mine.
The torrents have been made available today and they are conveniently hosted by Mininova. Now _that_ is going to get a lot of attention on CBC soon enough :)
I'd like to point out that the RCMP is not the government.
The only part that implies causation is: "This suggests that there is some form of music creation effect derived from P2P file-sharing".
Here, the size of the estimate evaluated at its mean of 40 percent (see Appendix 3) suggests that individuals who increased P2P file-sharing (i.e. Downloading from P2P networks) by 1 percent because they considered an 'album too expensive' purchased 3.2 percent fewer CDs.First, this is poorly worded. Are they asking whether everyone engages in P2P filesharing has a partial desire to preview music? Or rather that some P2P filesharers have such a desire? Second, the conclusion does not logically follow. Whether some people use P2P to preview music, it may or may not be enough to offset the number of potential people who use P2P in lieu of buying music. Therefore, proving that some people do use P2P to preview before buying does not prove that "there is a positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and music purchasing." "Thus, there is a positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and music purchasing." This doesn't mean that there is a correlation found, nor that the relationship is found. It just says what is needed to fail to reject the hypothesis. I really encourage you to read http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/ip01461e.html, which is the results page of the study. Hypothesis 2b, which you are quoting, results in a positive correlation with a "market creation" effect, however there is no correlation with the "hear before buying" action. The effect that works with Hypothesis 2b is the "not available elsewhere", which is one of rarity. Basically this means that there is a chunk of the P2P population who can't find certain music elsewhere who also buy more CDs. The other effect found, being one of "album too expensive" correlates negatively amongst the P2P population, meaning that P2P users who uses it because of pricing are less likely to buy CDs. At the end of the day, with the P2P population as a whole, more CDs are bought. Basically this means that P2P user, on the balance sheet, results in more CD buying activity
And from what I understand the drives have also had to been bought as a standalone product. Does that mean that OEM drives are out of the settlement?
Of course now we now where that idea came from http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/24/2252210
n/t
I actually opted out of touch tone on my fax line. As for the "Network Charge 5.95" this is because you are on a Bell's LD plan. First Rate TM Worldwide is the plan that you have. If you don't have a LD plan, this are the rates for LD Calls: http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpPns_Lng_Base.page (Remember the time where it was cheaper in the evening? This is it...) If you check their 15c a month plan, which allegedly doesn't have a monthly fee, they will charge 5.95$ of "Network Charge" http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpPns_Lng_Detail.page?wlcs_catalog_item_sku=10001 You can either signup with another LD carrier that has no montly fee or get Bell to disconnect your plan. I've signed up with StarTec.ca recently, but I haven't gotten a bill or a credit card charge yet. They say that there is no montly fee at all if everything is done electronically (eg cc billing, and email invoice).
(n/t)