I wanted to know: how? How does Big Brother know such things?
And I'm soup-rised to find that Big Brother doesn't know as much as he claims.;) See excerpt from the NPD Group's press release on the subject:
"Methodology Note: NPD MusicWatch Digital information is collected continuously from the PCs of 40,000 volunteer online panelists, balanced to represent the online population of PC users. NPD's MusicLab survey was fielded in September of 2003 to a representative sample of 5,000 respondents aged 13 and older."
Apparently this means they used a statistical model to create this fictitious one million number, most likely as a ratio-based equation based on 40,000 real users. Not so impressive after finding the real poop, eh? "Balanced," riiiight...
To turn the perspective around a bit, we can see that it would be profitable just to have a copyright - despite whether the album has ever even sold a single copy. Which brings up an interesting question: how the hell do they propose to divy up the tax? Based on the number of albums sold? If they sold sooo many albums then they aren't really hurting, are they? But the corolary would be give all the tax-money to the copyright holders who never sold anything....whatever. Piss-poor logic if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanted to know: how? How does Big Brother know such things?
;) See excerpt from the NPD Group's press release on the subject:
m
And I'm soup-rised to find that Big Brother doesn't know as much as he claims.
"Methodology Note: NPD MusicWatch Digital information is collected continuously from the PCs of 40,000 volunteer online panelists, balanced to represent the online population of PC users. NPD's MusicLab survey was fielded in September of 2003 to a representative sample of 5,000 respondents aged 13 and older."
Apparently this means they used a statistical model to create this fictitious one million number, most likely as a ratio-based equation based on 40,000 real users. Not so impressive after finding the real poop, eh? "Balanced," riiiight...
Bibliography: http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_031105.ht
To turn the perspective around a bit, we can see that it would be profitable just to have a copyright - despite whether the album has ever even sold a single copy. Which brings up an interesting question: how the hell do they propose to divy up the tax? Based on the number of albums sold? If they sold sooo many albums then they aren't really hurting, are they? But the corolary would be give all the tax-money to the copyright holders who never sold anything....whatever. Piss-poor logic if you ask me.