BBC iplayer

In article om,
wrote:
The case can be argued hypothetically either way, but without
quantitative evidence there is no hope of being sure which is the
dominant effect. When I see such evidence I'll start believing things,
but so far there has been nothing more than the naive orthodoxy of
vested interests.

It is very easy to believe that everyone in a high powered job earning
more than you must be a complete idiot, and that you could do the job
better yourself.

Are you suggesting that this is what I do believe? If so, it's a perfect
demonstration of the ease with which ideas can come from nowhere.

However, I would suggest to you that, just possibly, the record
companies looked at quantitive data such as sales, applied DRM to
different titles in different territories, and performed some kind of
analysis to judge the effect of applying the protection. It's on
record that they monitor p2p traffic too, so it's likely they measured
the number of seeds and copies.

I'm sure they'll have done lots of analyses and written lots of reports,
but any data they used *cannot* have included objective data about the
number of people who *would* have bought published copies of things if
unofficial copying had been impossible, because it doesn't exist. These
"sales" are hypothetical or phantom sales that never took place, and you
can only resort to guesswork to produce numbers for the non-behaviour of
unspecified people.

I don't know if the data itself has been published. Most record
companies are American public companies - a surprising amount of data
is released by them, simply because of legal obligations to do so.

It can't have been published because it cannot exist. If you think it has,
then please give a reference and we can all see what suppositions the
record companies have been using.

It could, of course, be blind belief. The real commercial world isn't
always (ever?) rational. However, there's a bottom line, and someone
in most companies will question expenditure which does not generate
any return.

True, but there is no way of knowing whether all those years of research
into ways of making recordings sufficiently non-standard that they can be
played but not copied have resulted in any return, without the
availability of a parallel universe in which it was not done.

One thing that definitely *is* known is that there have been some real
instances of recordings that have been made so non-standard that they
won't even play properly on bona fide players. Also, since there is no
single form of non-standard recording that will thwart all types of
unofficial copying, the only real results appear to be negative ones, and
the only positive benefits are imaginary. One wonders why any informed
person would ever think there is any point in trying.

Rod.

On 22 Aug, 11:06, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article om,

wrote:

However, I would suggest to you that, just possibly, the record
companies looked at quantitive data such as sales, applied DRM to
different titles in different territories, and performed some kind of
analysis to judge the effect of applying the protection. It's on
record that they monitor p2p traffic too, so it's likely they measured
the number of seeds and copies.

I'm sure they'll have done lots of analyses and written lots of reports,
but any data they used *cannot* have included objective data about the
number of people who *would* have bought published copies of things if
unofficial copying had been impossible, because it doesn't exist. These
"sales" are hypothetical or phantom sales that never took place, and you
can only resort to guesswork to produce numbers for the non-behaviour of
unspecified people.

I don't know if the data itself has been published. Most record
companies are American public companies - a surprising amount of data
is released by them, simply because of legal obligations to do so.

It can't have been published because it cannot exist. If you think it has,
then please give a reference and we can all see what suppositions the
record companies have been using.

It could, of course, be blind belief. The real commercial world isn't
always (ever?) rational. However, there's a bottom line, and someone
in most companies will question expenditure which does not generate
any return.

True, but there is no way of knowing whether all those years of research
into ways of making recordings sufficiently non-standard that they can be
played but not copied have resulted in any return, without the
availability of a parallel universe in which it was not done.

Rod, it's really simple. It's got nothing to do with the hypothetical
effect of perfect DRM, or a parallel universe.

The record companies release hundreds of different titles in tens of
different markets each year, which gives them plenty of opportunity to
experiment with DRM(s), and measure the effect on sales for each title
in each country.

It is a fact that, for a couple of years, some titles in some markets
had DRM, while the same titles in other markets didn't. The choice of
which release to add DRM to sometimes seemed random.

I am hypothesising that this _was_ an experiment. I am hypothesising
that the record companies may have looked at the results of this
experiment, and deduced that the DRM had a benefit for them.

There was no need for them to invent data about what might happen with
a perfect technology that didn't exist. They had real data about what
did happen with imperfect technologies that they had to hand. Their
current actions _may_ be based on that data.

One thing that definitely *is* known is that there have been some real
instances of recordings that have been made so non-standard that they
won't even play properly on bona fide players.

I know. I have a Philips CD recorder which is particularly picky. It
can't play discs that my PC will quite happily copy! My answer was
simple. (No, it wasn't to make a playable copy using my PC!) For each
title where I had this problem, I took it back to the shop, got a
refund, and then bought a replacement from a country where it had been
released without DRM.

Also, since there is no
single form of non-standard recording that will thwart all types of
unofficial copying, the only real results appear to be negative ones, and
the only positive benefits are imaginary. One wonders why any informed
person would ever think there is any point in trying.

If applying DRM reduced sales, I think it's fair to assume it would be
removed pretty sharpish. It would appear that I was in a tiny
(irrelevant) minority in finding the discs unplayable and returning
them to the shop.

The point in "trying" appears to be to make money and increase sales.
Your statement "there is no single form of non-standard recording that
will thwart all types of unofficial copying" clearly misses my
original, simple point: if it costs X to add the DRM, and it gains Y
in increased sales, it's worth doing if XY. The fact that "there is
no single form of non-standard recording that will thwart all types of
unofficial copying" is completely and utterly irrelevant to that
equation.


Despite my picky Philips CD recorder, there are other reasons why I
now buy fewer CDs: less time to listen, less exposure to new music,
and "the loudness wars". That picky Philips CD recorder not playing
some DRM'd discs doesn't really come into the equation, even for me.

Cheers,
David.

In article .com,
wrote:
The record companies release hundreds of different titles in tens of
different markets each year, which gives them plenty of opportunity to
experiment with DRM(s), and measure the effect on sales for each title
in each country.

It is a fact that, for a couple of years, some titles in some markets
had DRM, while the same titles in other markets didn't. The choice of
which release to add DRM to sometimes seemed random.

So how is it possible to know to what extent any differences in numbers of
sales of these recordings are the result of DRM, rather than the fact that
they are different titles? A valid comparative test of something with and
without the component being tested has to be done with all other components
being equal. Different published music recordings are very far from equal.

The point in "trying" appears to be to make money and increase sales.
Your statement "there is no single form of non-standard recording that
will thwart all types of unofficial copying" clearly misses my
original, simple point: if it costs X to add the DRM, and it gains Y
in increased sales, it's worth doing if XY. The fact that "there is
no single form of non-standard recording that will thwart all types of
unofficial copying" is completely and utterly irrelevant to that
equation.

I suppose it is irrelevant if we're only talking about DRM, but I didn't
realise we were. I tried to make the more general point that as long as it is
possible to play back a recording in order to listen to it, it will always
will be fundamentally impossible to prevent copying, and in any case
impossible to know how many hypothetical purchases would have been real ones
if this had, hypothetically, been possible. I agree if something costs X but
earns Y, then as long as Y is greater than X it is worth doing, but I remain
unconvinced that it is possible to know.

Rod.

On 22 Aug, 14:22, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
The record companies release hundreds of different titles in tens of
different markets each year, which gives them plenty of opportunity to
experiment with DRM(s), and measure the effect on sales for each title
in each country.

It is a fact that, for a couple of years, some titles in some markets
had DRM, while the same titles in other markets didn't. The choice of
which release to add DRM to sometimes seemed random.

So how is it possible to know to what extent any differences in numbers of
sales of these recordings are the result of DRM, rather than the fact that
they are different titles? A valid comparative test of something with and
without the component being tested has to be done with all other components
being equal. Different published music recordings are very far from equal.

ANOVA:
Title
Country
DRM

Easy. It's not like they're short of statistics to process.

The point in "trying" appears to be to make money and increase sales.
Your statement "there is no single form of non-standard recording that
will thwart all types of unofficial copying" clearly misses my
original, simple point: if it costs X to add the DRM, and it gains Y
in increased sales, it's worth doing if XY. The fact that "there is
no single form of non-standard recording that will thwart all types of
unofficial copying" is completely and utterly irrelevant to that
equation.

I suppose it is irrelevant if we're only talking about DRM, but I didn't
realise we were. I tried to make the more general point that as long as it is
possible to play back a recording in order to listen to it, it will always
will be fundamentally impossible to prevent copying, and in any case
impossible to know how many hypothetical purchases would have been real ones
if this had, hypothetically, been possible. I agree if something costs X but
earns Y, then as long as Y is greater than X it is worth doing, but I remain
unconvinced that it is possible to know.

See above.

Cheers,
David.

In article .com,
wrote:
So how is it possible to know to what extent any differences in numbers of
sales of these recordings are the result of DRM, rather than the fact that
they are different titles? A valid comparative test of something with and
without the component being tested has to be done with all other components
being equal. Different published music recordings are very far from equal.

ANOVA:
Title
Country
DRM

Easy. It's not like they're short of statistics to process.

I'm sure they're not, but this *still* doesn't explain why anybody thinks that
such statistics about DRM on *different* music recordings could mean anything.
If one published CD sells more copies than another, isn't it simply because
more people like the music or the artiste? If they don't even know whether it
has DRM (which most people wouldn't), how could this affect their decision to
buy it?

Rod.

in 238673 20070822 093954 " wrote:

It is very easy to believe that everyone in a high powered job earning
more than you must be a complete idiot, and that you could do the job
better yourself.

When it comes to organising the road works in my area that is no illusion.

On 22 Aug, 20:32, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
So how is it possible to know to what extent any differences in numbers of
sales of these recordings are the result of DRM, rather than the fact that
they are different titles? A valid comparative test of something with and
without the component being tested has to be done with all other components
being equal. Different published music recordings are very far from equal.

ANOVA:
Title
Country
DRM

Easy. It's not like they're short of statistics to process.

I'm sure they're not, but this *still* doesn't explain why anybody thinks that
such statistics about DRM on *different* music recordings could mean anything.
If one published CD sells more copies than another, isn't it simply because
more people like the music or the artiste? If they don't even know whether it
has DRM (which most people wouldn't), how could this affect their decision to
buy it?

Firstly, as explained, different titles in different countries carry
DRM.

So, for example, Dido's CD in the UK had DRM. The same CD in Australia
did not. The Beatles "Let it be - Naked" CD had DRM in the USA, in the
UK it did not. These are just two examples I'm aware of.

Multiply that by 10s of countries, 100s of releases, and you have more
than enough data for ANOVA to discover the significance, or otherwise,
of applying DRM.

That's the whole point of ANOVA. It lets you discover if variable X is
significant, even in the presence of variables Y and Z.


I don't know whether they did this or not. What I'm arguing is that
it's perfectly possible, and the statistics work. It's not magic.

Cheers,
David.

On 23 Aug, 08:23, Bob Martin wrote:
in 238673 20070822 093954 " wrote:

It is very easy to believe that everyone in a high powered job earning
more than you must be a complete idiot, and that you could do the job
better yourself.

When it comes to organising the road works in my area that is no illusion.

Ah, you see, there is a perfect example. You're assuming that one of
the criteria on which road works shall be organised is that it should
minimise (your) disruption.

It's quite apparent to me (and you) that the bureaucracy that sets the
criteria by which road works should be organised has no interest in
disruption to your day. If it's the local council, their primary
interest is minimising cost. Hence the road works happen 9-5, Monday
to Friday, and frequently don't have movable obstacles removed outside
of those hours.

Whereas, when I lived near a railway crossing, disruption of service
must have had some direct financial impact on those planning repair
works - because they always used to happen between midnight and 6am.

I suggest road contractors should be charged a nominal amount for each
car they delay, for each minute it's delayed. If the charge was set
correctly, this could push the use of overtime to concentrate repairs
into times when the roads are less busy. It would mean us all paying
more tax (at some level) to spend less time sitting in road works.

Cheers,
David.

In article .com,
wrote:
Firstly, as explained, different titles in different countries carry
DRM.

So, for example, Dido's CD in the UK had DRM. The same CD in Australia
did not. The Beatles "Let it be - Naked" CD had DRM in the USA, in the
UK it did not. These are just two examples I'm aware of.

So if, for example, more copies of Dido's CD are sold per head of
population in one of these countries, how can a page of mathematics tell
us that this isn't simply because of their musical tastes? It often
happens that an artiste is more popular in one place than another.

Multiply that by 10s of countries, 100s of releases, and you have more
than enough data for ANOVA to discover the significance, or otherwise,
of applying DRM.

That's the whole point of ANOVA. It lets you discover if variable X is
significant, even in the presence of variables Y and Z.

I don't know whether they did this or not. What I'm arguing is that
it's perfectly possible, and the statistics work. It's not magic.

It sounds impressive, and I'm sure it's possible they did this, and I'm
equally sure that the statistics "work", in the sense that the
calculations produce numerical results. However if the calculations that
led to those results are based on a supposition that is unfounded (e.g.
identical musical tastes, or identical efficacy of an artiste's
publicity campaign, in different countries), then of what value are
they? The phrase "garbage in, garbage out" comes to mind.

Rod.

in 238779 20070823 094656 " wrote:
On 23 Aug, 08:23, Bob Martin wrote:
in 238673 20070822 093954 " wrote:

It is very easy to believe that everyone in a high powered job earning
more than you must be a complete idiot, and that you could do the job
better yourself.

When it comes to organising the road works in my area that is no illusion.

Ah, you see, there is a perfect example. You're assuming that one of
the criteria on which road works shall be organised is that it should
minimise (your) disruption.

It's quite apparent to me (and you) that the bureaucracy that sets the
criteria by which road works should be organised has no interest in
disruption to your day. If it's the local council, their primary
interest is minimising cost. Hence the road works happen 9-5, Monday
to Friday, and frequently don't have movable obstacles removed outside
of those hours.

Whereas, when I lived near a railway crossing, disruption of service
must have had some direct financial impact on those planning repair
works - because they always used to happen between midnight and 6am.

I suggest road contractors should be charged a nominal amount for each
car they delay, for each minute it's delayed. If the charge was set
correctly, this could push the use of overtime to concentrate repairs
into times when the roads are less busy. It would mean us all paying
more tax (at some level) to spend less time sitting in road works.

Cheers,
David.

There is a half-mile stretch of the A3 near me which has been total chaos for 11 months,
and is still far from finished.
In France or Gernany it would have been wrapped up in 3-4 weeks.