Jul 09
29
The ARIA Cookbook.
Many will have noticed that my extremely popular Top 50/Top
200 P2P listing is conspicuous in it’s absence over the last two weeks.
Have I stopped collecting the statistics ? Nope, I analyse
them every night before I go to sleep.
So why, you may ask, am I not publishing the results ?
You, my reader want those stats.
The problem is that I have started noticing anomalies in the
data listed in the Australian Aria Physical Media Top 50.
Far be it for me to suggest that any respected organisation
would deliberately introduce material on the Top 50 physical Sales chart that isn’t
on any radio station, MTV, MAX, V or Rage playlist; (in other words can’t possibly
be on the top 50 if no-one can hear it).
But if I was a
gambling man, I would take fifty cents each way on the foregoing premise.
So what am I doing with the stats ?
Patiently collating, adding playlists, making comparisons
and all will be revealed – eventually.
However, what I am quite happy to say is that P2P does in
fact appear to be indicating what will be number one in advance of the sales on
the digital playlist quite nicely.
So if I can indicate number ones, why can’t I show what will
be number two, or number twenty two next week or in four weeks time.
Well we could except for manpower, programmers time and
budgetary constraints.
After all, there are only a few of us Perceptric and the
number of P2P daily transactions compared to the source data set (the Top
40/Top 50 ARIA Lists) are humungous.
But we are starting to notice other deep catalogue trends.
So whilst I would argue vehemently that my conclusion is
that P2P illegal downloading of Music files does not harm newly released music
sales, I am unable to say the same about deep catalogue downloads.
In other words, the industry is right when it says that it
MAY be losing from illegal File sharing from amongst the industries deep
catalogue collection.
However, I would argue that there needs to be additional
research carried out on the this thesis before anyone can claim that I said
that it is so. E.g.: I purchased a Hot
Chocolate cassette tape in the eighties. The tape is now cactus – do I have a moral
concerns about downloading the songs from the eMule network ? None at all. Do I
think I am breaking the law ? No, I am just saving time and legal fees.
Huh?
Well, Trade Practices have a requirement that goods to be
sold are fit for the purpose. Nowhere on a cassette tape is the warning that “
Hey – this tape will self destruct after 375 plays……” so my argument is that I
am saving the legal system of Australia from having to adjudicate on the matter
by taking the matter into my own hands and downloading a copy of content that I
already paid for BUT that was not suitable for the purpose.
At least with DRM the industry by installing the DRM are
saying “We are selling you a LIMITED version of this song.” However – if they
installed the DRM without your prior knowledge or consent (i.e.: by labeling the
Disc with “Warning – This Recording is not suitable for playing on most CD
players as it has DRM installed.”) then you do have a case against the
organisation who sold you what you thought was a legitimate copy of a music
track.
The problem is that even if I were to go the legal route,
the reality is that Trade Practices actions must be commenced in Australia
within three years of the breach. I didn’t realise my Hot Chocolate Tape was
cactus until I took my stuff out of storage (it had been there for nearly fifteen
years (six years in Darwin and then eight years in Sydney).
Then again, who would take on a 15 year old Trade Practices
case on the basis of $2.95 cassette tape?
Why are you all looking at me?