Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Internet Your Rights Online

The File Sharing Database 296

Posted by timothy 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The File Sharing Database More

The File Sharing Database

Comments Filter:

  • Where's the other way round? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:11PM (#9854288)
    Where's the database which shows what customers would have bought if they hadn't downloaded it?

    • Re:Where's the other way round? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:27PM (#9854379)
      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?
    • I wait for the third version of the database: what customers have bought (without knowing it) and didn't wanted (like Microsoft Windows and all those free anti-viruses pre-installed on your computer).

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Where's the other way round? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Veridium ( 752431 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:02PM (#9854565) Homepage
      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.
      • Here's a question: if you only had enough money to buy, say, 15 CDs instead of the 30 you think are worth paying for, what would you do?

        I suspect most people would keep the MP3s they'd downloaded, on the grounds that they would buy them if they could, and given that they can't, there's no deprivation involved for the record companies or artists and hence it's ethically ok.

        Hence, you'd arguably need to track three things to get something approaching a full picture - downloads which caused a direct increas
        • Here's a question: if you only had enough money to buy, say, 15 CDs instead of the 30 you think are worth paying for, what would you do?

          That's a very valid question and a good one. I hadn't really thought of it as I haven't found myself in that kind of financial situation in many many many moons. What would I do? Honestly, I probably would keep those MP3s and buy the 15 CDs that contained the music I liked best. Which as you've pointed out, there is no deprivation to the artist...

          So all the database
      • A local (chain) music store used to allow customers to preview any CD at their listening stations. Their prices were generally higher, but I would go there first when looking for new music.

        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---

        • I remember that, that was nice. Block Buster music used to do that in my area. My only complaint was greasy headphones on occasion... :) That and the cost, but I'm one of those guys who'll spend an extra buck if there is added value...

          What I don't get, and maybe this has been done and I'm just ignorant, but why hasn't the music industry come up with a website I can go to, select the songs I want on a CD, then let me order that custom CD? Maybe offer 30 second previews on the songs, in the hopes that I mi

    • Or... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Julian Morrison ( 5575 )
      ...stuff they might have bought, but after downloading a sample, decided not to -- because it sucked ass.

    • Here? (Score:2)

      by Rai ( 524476 )
      http://www.freedb.org
    • 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?

  • how? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:12PM (#9854296)
    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.

    • Re:how? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheGavster ( 774657 )
      The idea is that if the sum of the 'sales' recorded here are approximately equal to the quoted losses, then the various copyright holders should be looking elsewhere. The thing is, those losses are really evidence of an economic recession (some people have even done the math and found that companies against filesharing were hit proportionaly LESS by the recession than other industries)

    • Re:how? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oyler@ c o m c a st.net> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:22PM (#9854696) Journal
      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.

  • Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rDx666 ( 801783 )
    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.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      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.

      Only if you assume the individual would have bought said product if he couldn't have downloaded it.

      Personally I download a lot more music than I could possibly afford to buy. I still spend the same proportion (maybe more) of my disposable income on music though. No one is losing
    • 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
    • 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.

      No, it wouldn't be more usefull. I dunno about you, but in those earlier days where getting any new game or software package to run on your DOS-based 286 or 386 PC was a week-long exercise that often ended up in a sub-standard result, or a game just out-right refusing to run on your hardware (nicely complimented by a vendor or retailer outright refusing to accept any r

  • two sides to every story (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.
    • Yeah, and it doesn't keep track of all the crappy albums and movies that people avoided buying because they sampled first.

      Anyway, I strongly suggest that people read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture [free-culture.cc] book (available for from online).

  • Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:15PM (#9854305) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Isn't this illegal? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RPoet ( 20693 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:21PM (#9854346) Journal
      At least where I live (Norway), downloading music and movies is perfectly legal.
      • Are there a lot of artists/musicians in Norway?
        • There are many fjords. And I think some mØØse.

        • A LOT

          I know about 30 norwiegen bands and i'm not from there.
          All bands I know from there are metal, specifically Black Metal.
          From the top of my head Emperor, Mayhem, Dark Funeral, Dark Throne, And Oceans, Dimmu Borgir and MANY MANY MANY more.
        • Sure is. Some of them are listed here [wikipedia.org].
        • The thing is that one can download as much as one likes for personal use. The exception is illegal material like child porn, zoo porn, snuff etc. One can also share downloaded stuff with family and friends. It is however against the law to distribute material that without the correct lisences. Again, the execption is family and friends.

          The police have done raids against so called pirates in Norway, and they get prosecuted. You just don't get fined or canned if you share with your loved ones. Makes sense do
          • The thing is that one can download as much as one likes for personal use. The exception is illegal material like child porn, zoo porn, snuff etc. One can also share downloaded stuff with family and friends. It is however against the law to distribute material that without the correct lisences. Again, the execption is family and friends.

            Same thing in Finland. The only problem with this is BitTorrent where downloading requires sharing. However, with BT you're rarely distributing an entire file to a single p

    • Well, downloading copyrighted, not-for-public-redistribution content *is* illegal, but if you bought it later, I don't see how the RIAA could complain. I mean, you gave them the money, so one way or the other, they and the artists got paid. It would seem a little wrong-headed to say, "You gave us the money we asked for, but you did it after breaking the law -- you need to give us *more* money."

      Then again, I don't think suing your customers is a good idea either...
    • 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?

  • 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....

  • Interesting, but pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sultanoslack ( 320583 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:17PM (#9854323)
    • 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.

  • Wow, $712 gained from file sharing! (Score:5, Funny)

    by phpm0nkey ( 768038 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:18PM (#9854329) Homepage
    How much longer can the MPAA and RIAA ignore these staggering figures?

  • No way i would post to this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybad@gmaCURIEil.com minus physicist> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:18PM (#9854331)

    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.

  • "Total Items Recorded: 10"
    • Big whoop.

  • iTunes. 100,000,000 songs sold in ~1 year. 'nuff said. Fuck you RIAA.

    • You know the RIAA gets a lot of money from Itunes?

  • I for one... (Score:5, Funny)

    by nautical9 ( 469723 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:21PM (#9854345) Homepage
    ... have purchased well over 300 blank CD-Rs!

  • Iv got a better DB (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RTPMatt ( 468649 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:21PM (#9854350) Homepage
    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?

  • For one thing, when it "sets out to prove it once and for all", it is obviously going to get a skewed sample.

  • Bull Shit!!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by strike2867 ( 658030 )
    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.

  • Mirror (Score:2, Informative)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 )
    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 down

  • What about the flipside database? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:31PM (#9854408) Homepage
    There's some bits I WOULD have bought if I HADN'T been able to download a 'preview' first - where being a cheapass usually wasn't the main reason, but the low quality was. ("objective" 3rd party reviews aren't everything).

    New questionaire:

    What didn't you BUY because you downloaded it first?
    __________________________

    Reason?
    (*) It sucked. (I *was* planning on buying the Gigli DVD! Honest!)
    ( ) I'm a rich, cheap-ass freeloader.
    ( ) I'm a poor, cheap-ass freeloader.
    ( ) I'm a Freedom Fighter for the Sensible Copyright Revolution!
    ( ) other: __________________
    ( ) All of the above.

    --

  • Awesome idea ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:37PM (#9854435)
    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.

  • buying if its worth it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by emorphien ( 770500 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:37PM (#9854437)
    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 [slashdot.org]
    who submitted that? Immature asshole, this website is a good concept. Whether it accomplishes anything or not, don't be a retard.

  • What about? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by The Real Nem ( 793299 )

    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 le

  • What about downloading stuff you already bought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:48PM (#9854488)
    CDs and DVDs break, games go missing etc. You shouldn't have to pay for it twice just because the cheapy medium broke.
    • And let's not forget about copy protected CDs (which are more and more prevalent), that don't even PLAY in a Linux computer or let you burn them 'white noise free' to your computer from your data CD drive. I know several people who have purchased the latest Hoobastank, Norah Jones and Velvet Revolver CDs, to name three, only to be forced to go out and download the .mp3 files so they can listen to the music they purchased on their systems...
  • ...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,
    • You know, most of what I've seen on both sides is full of propaganda. It's kind of depressing. There's no public (and would probably have to be anonymous) forum where content publishers talk to people and find out what's up. Some people claim "this music isn't worth the money, so I'm not going to pay for it to prove a point". Some peple can't afford products (especially true with professional software -- it's a sore blow for a fifteen year old kid to pay for a copy of Photoshop or Lightwave). Some peop
    • 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
  • It's good to keep at the music industry (the part that makes these claims downloading music is hurting the industry), but this brushes up against ludicrous! I for one REFUSE to add my purchasing habits to this database -- nice goal, but other-worldly misguided.

    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 f

  • It's control, not sales (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sivar ( 316343 ) <charlesnburns[@]gmail...com> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:56PM (#9854537)
    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 [arstechnica.com] -- 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.

  • irony (Score:2, Funny)

    by name773 ( 696972 )
    in the bottom right of the linked database page it says "Reproduction prohibited without permission"
    lol...

  • What about the other side? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BeerSlurpy ( 185482 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:02PM (#9854564)
    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?

    • 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 thoug
  • "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?

  • Great idea! (Score:3)

    by MikeCapone ( 693319 ) <skelterhell @ y a hoo.com> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:05PM (#9854583) Homepage Journal
    I can add about 500 albums to it.

  • Would have been better worded as... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ironwill96 ( 736883 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:08PM (#9854608) Homepage Journal
    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."

    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 .nfo file "Buy it if you like it!" just isn't going to cut it.

    /my 2 cents

  • my buying preferences (Score:5, Interesting)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:40PM (#9854803) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Database is Functional (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nuclear Elephant ( 700938 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:41PM (#9854805) Homepage
    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 =)
    • Cool.

      Would you care to share with us some ideas about this statement? (from the site):

      The catalog will be analyzed by multiple individuals before any final numbers are made available, so it's only a waste of time to post bogus entries.

      That is, of course, unless doing so ruins the trick :)

      • Naturally, the results are only as useful as the honesty of the individuals reporting the information. There will obviously be a small "troll margin" of people who put subtle entries in the database and no way to identify their authenticity. This will be mentioned in any final results posted. The obvious bogus entries will be removed after human review.

        While I'm certain there are some trolls among us, I doubt they are more than a small percentage.
  • Is this site for real or is this just a great big troll topic from the editors of /.? If it was April 1st I would assume that this was a joke . . . What does a one sided voluntary non-fact-checked database prove about anything? Absolutely nothing at all . . .

    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 g

  • Unfortunately, pointless (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @07:16PM (#9854951)
    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?
  • 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

  • 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

  • Anime and niches (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PsiPsiStar ( 95676 ) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @08:10PM (#9855153)
    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.

  • Concerts? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kristoffer Lunden ( 800757 )
    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

  • What about stuff you wouldn't buy . . . period. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bedouin ( 248624 ) on Sunday August 01, 2004 @01:05AM (#9856310)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close