Music sales are not affected by web piracy

[VirtualMark]

Goddamn musicians and their feelings, taking away from the science of the matter.

Again - please explain what feeling has to do with this? We're discussing a technical point here - the claim is that 320 mp3 loses bass response. How will your emotions change this?

You're the one who brought feelings into the argument, why should I have to defend a point that you raised?

What? You said it there! In the quote! Wow, you are getting stupid, lay off the drugs.

I said people let feelings cloud their judgement, you then posted the above quote. So I'm asking you what you meant by the above statement - do you agree with me or are you disputing it? Please explain and stop being a nob.

[Jizz]

You = stupid person.

I hope you don't stop posting here anytime soon man, would love to hear some of your opinions on the non-scientific stuff that gets on here

[wub]

Penis jokes are one thing, mother jokes are unacceptable imo

Comedy takes no prisoners.

If you can't take it, don't start throwing insults. Keep things civil and I will too.

Actually it was you who started it;

http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 0#p3333227

There was no unpleasantness in the thread before you made this comment.

[Phigure]

Goddamn musicians and their feelings, taking away from the science of the matter.

Again - please explain what feeling has to do with this? We're discussing a technical point here - the claim is that 320 mp3 loses bass response. How will your emotions change this?

let's get back to the actual argument here... i simply dont understand how you can deny that LOSSY compression causes a LOSS of information. yes, mp3 is selective and compresses differently depending on different data, but the changes it makes are not claimed to be impossible to hear. they're just not as easy as if it were compressed indiscriminately.

why don't we use jpg compression for example... it also works on the principle of discarding data that the viewer (listener) will notice LESS



if youre zoomed out, you probably won't notice the compression and the artifacts it creates, but data IS being discarded, and upon closer inspection it becomes more obvious.

[wub]

Goddamn musicians and their feelings, taking away from the science of the matter.

Again - please explain what feeling has to do with this? We're discussing a technical point here - the claim is that 320 mp3 loses bass response. How will your emotions change this?

let's get back to the actual argument here... i simply dont understand how you can deny that LOSSY compression causes a LOSS of information. yes, mp3 is selective and compresses differently depending on different data, but the changes it makes are not claimed to be impossible to hear, just not as easy as if it were compressed indiscriminately.

why don't we use jpg compression for example... it also works on the principle of discarding data that the viewer (listener) will notice LESS



if youre zoomed out, you probably won't notice the compression and the artifacts it creates, but data IS being discarded, and upon closer inspection it becomes more obvious.

[VirtualMark]

Actually it was you who started it;

http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 0#p3333227

There was no unpleasantness in the thread before you made this comment.

How is telling someone to use their brain unpleasant? A brain is a useful tool to use, more of you should try it. Much better than relying on your chest.

To claim that measuring sound in a nightclub with different tracks mixed into each other is a fair test of 320 mp3 vs wav is nothing less than INSANE.

A fairer test would be to compare the same track in both formats on a couple of systems. Some of you claim that a PA system will reveal differences because it is louder - yet a null test doesn't support that theory. So I would respectfully ask you to try it with THE SAME PIECE OF MUSIC, and try it BLIND. Have a friend play each without telling you which is which, at least 50-100 times.

If you score 50%, that proves that you can guess half the time. 90-100% shows that you can hear a difference most to all of the time. Don't do it just to win a forum argument, do it so that you know once and for all if you can actually hear a difference. I think you may be surprised. I'm going to leave it at that, I think I've said everything I need to and this will only descend further into personal bullshit.

And TBH I don't take it personal and don't care, I just like to see accurate information and hate myths and ignorance. I'll happily change my mind in a heartbeat if someone can provide some substantial evidence that proves I'm wrong. And by that I mean tests, not opinions.

[Terpit]

m8 do you even compress

[VirtualMark]

Phigure - I didn't claim that it doesn't lose information, I claimed that with 320 you can't tell. Read what I actually said, instead of making it up.

Like I said, I'm out, if you care to bring any facts to the table I'll reply. But I've had enough of the stupidity.

[wub]

"You are disagreeing with me, and thus I shall retreat"

[Phigure]

Phigure - I didn't claim that it doesn't lose information, I claimed that with 320 you can't tell. Read what I actually said, instead of making it up.

Lossy compression takes out sounds that we can't hear!

[deadly_habit]

Oh fuck off a simple glance at a spectral analyzer (SCIENCE) comparing the two disproves you immediately.
Yes a simple sine wave through an encoder won't produce signal loss because it doesn't have much to encode, but once it gets more complex than just a simple sine wave (you know a song) guess what starts to get cut?

Have you performed the null test yet? Generally, what you will hear is some swooshy white noise, that is all. I have tried it. Clearly you haven't.

Staring at an analyser isn't as accurate as performing a null test. Jesus, you're an old hand here, I thought you'd know that! A null test just shows the differences between two audio files! Basic, basic stuff.

You're the one talking science and now discounting A METERING TOOL.
If you want to discuss psychoacoustics say so, but don't cherry pick and call it science, especially since certain psychoacoustical properties differ from person to person since our ears and brains aren't mass manufactured to the same exact factory specifications.

So no scientific response this time, nor any mention on how your tests are primarily done on nearfield speakers and not on a PA rig where the psychoacoustic effects start to fall apart and become more obvious?

Still waiting on your scientific response backed with facts on this.
And I'm also guessing you did your A/B test on some high end nearfield monitors designed to give a completely accurate response of the entire frequency spectrum in a treated room and then compared that with a similar setup with midfield monitors, and then an accurate PA rig.
Surely this test wasn't done on cheap monitors you listen to mp3s on normally day in and out.
Also I'm assuming it wasn't just short tests as the effects of lossy audio manifest more and more over longer periods of time.

[VirtualMark]

"You are disagreeing with me, and thus I shall retreat"

The phrase you're looking for is "Tu quoque" - when someone attemps tries to defend themselves from criticism by turning their back on the accuser.

This is different - I just said I'm happy to continue the discussion if anyone brings new information to the table. But I don't want to hear any more unsubstantiated opinions.

Take Phigures last post for example - showing that lossy compression takes out data. Then I said that I never disputed that, to which he quotes me saying that lossy compression takes out data that we can't hear. It's the sort of thing that goes round in circles, people quote out of context and don't fully understand either the points I make or the subject itself.

I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet, but I do have a good knowledge of the more scientific side of things.

And Deadly Habit - I listen to music on a wide range of systems. I own a couple of subwoofers, one in my car and one in my home theatre system. My monitors are KRKs, which I'll agree aren't the best. I love bass, and if I thought the quality was affected by compression I wouldn't be using mp3 anymore.

However, perhaps you should think about what you're saying - are you disputing the null tests? Are you saying they have no basis? I think to make such a claim, you should provide some reasons and maybe even some evidence.

[wub]

The phrase you're looking for is "Tu quoque" - when someone attemps tries to defend themselves from criticism by turning their back on the accuser.

Nope, wasn't looking for that.


You seem to be falling back on grammatical assertions and corrections a lot in lieu of structured rebuttals.

[Phigure]

Take Phigures last post for example - showing that lossy compression takes out data. Then I said that I never disputed that, to which he quotes me saying that lossy compression takes out data that we can't hear. It's the sort of thing that goes round in circles, people quote out of context and don't fully understand either the points I make or the subject itself.

that has nothing to do with taking out of context. "lossy compression takes out sounds you can't hear" isn't an ambiguous statement, it has the exact same meaning no matter what context.

[deadly_habit]

As I said the majority of these tests are done on nearfield monitors, psychoacoustic tricks (which is what mp3 compression is based on) start to fade away and become much more noticeable on a PA rig, which is what we were talking about in the first place, not home listening.
The null tests have a basis in one specific environment, but not in another.
I think my post above should show the flaw in these tests from basic scientific method as they're only done in one limited environment and one type of speaker which isn't representative of all possibilities, let alone the one we are discussing.

[mIrReN]

Penis jokes are one thing, mother jokes are unacceptable imo

Comedy takes no prisoners.

If you can't take it, don't start throwing insults. Keep things civil and I will too.

Yeah keep things civil you illiterate morons

[VirtualMark]

As I said the majority of these tests are done on nearfield monitors, psychoacoustic tricks (which is what mp3 compression is based on) start to fade away and become much more noticeable on a PA rig, which is what we were talking about in the first place, not home listening.
The null tests have a basis in one specific environment, but not in another.
I think my post above should show the flaw in these tests from basic scientific method as they're only done in one limited environment and one type of speaker which isn't representative of all possibilities, let alone the one we are discussing.

They "fade away"? Since when?

And remember - if the difference in bass isn't in the null test, it isn't there.

From your earlier post - I noticed you said that I disregard the use of a metering tool? Wrong - I didn't say that and would happily welcome the use of a metering tool. If you read what I actually said, you will see that my argument was based on the fact that your chest is not an accurate metering tool.

[mIrReN]

nostrils>chest imho

[deadly_habit]

As I said the majority of these tests are done on nearfield monitors, psychoacoustic tricks (which is what mp3 compression is based on) start to fade away and become much more noticeable on a PA rig, which is what we were talking about in the first place, not home listening.
The null tests have a basis in one specific environment, but not in another.
I think my post above should show the flaw in these tests from basic scientific method as they're only done in one limited environment and one type of speaker which isn't representative of all possibilities, let alone the one we are discussing.

They "fade away"? Since when?

And remember - if the difference in bass isn't in the null test, it isn't there.

From your earlier post - I noticed you said that I disregard the use of a metering tool? Wrong - I didn't say that and would happily welcome the use of a metering tool. If you read what I actually said, you will see that my argument was based on the fact that your chest is not an accurate metering tool.

I didn't mention using your chest, I said spectrum analyzer.
The difference isn't there because your speaker can't reproduce the missing frequencies as they aren't capable of it even when it is present, which is why we are discussing PA rigs.
Go and actually perform these tests on a proper PA rig, yes those psychoacoustic effects that mask issues on a mp3 in a nearfield home environment fade away in comparison.
Hell even take your sine wave results compare them through an oscilloscope and magnify the waveforms and tell me again there is no difference.

[murky21]

Here's an interesting take on piracy in the games industry from the coder from Team Meat.

I think I can safely say that Super Meat Boy has been pirated at least 200,000 times. We are closing in on 2 million sales and assuming a 10% piracy to sales ratio does not seem unreasonable. As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer.

For the sake of argument, some of those people that did pirate Super Meat Boy could have bought the game if piracy didn’t exist but there is no actual way to calculate that lost revenue. It is impossible to know with certainty the intentions of people. With the SimCity fiasco and several companies trying to find new ways to combat piracy and stating piracy has negatively affected their bottom line I wonder if they’ve taken the time to accurately try to determine what their losses are due to piracy.

My first job outside my parents cabinet shop was at KMart. KMart, like countless other retailers, calculates loss by counting purchased inventory and matching it to sales. Loss is always built into the budget because it is inevitable. Loss could come from items breaking, being stolen, or being defective. If someone broke a light bulb, that was a calculable loss. If someone returned a blender for being defective, it wasn’t a loss to KMart, but a calculable loss to the manufacturer. If someone steals a copy of BattleToads, it’s a loss to KMart. All loss in a retail setting is calculable because items to be sold are physical objects that come from manufacturers that have to be placed on shelves by employees. You have a chain of inventory numbers, money spent and labor spent that goes from the consumer all the way to the manufacturer. A stolen, broken, or lost item is an item that you cannot sell. In the retail world your stock is worth money.

In the digital world, you don’t have a set inventory. Your game is infinitely replicable at a negligible or zero cost (the cost bandwidth off your own site or nothing if you're on a portal like Steam, eShop, etc). Digital inventory has no value. Your company isn’t worth an infinite amount because you have infinite copies of your game. As such, calculating worth and loss based on infinite inventory is impossible. If you have infinite stock, and someone steals one unit from that stock, you still have infinite stock. If you have infinite stock and someone steals 1 trillion units from that stock , you still have infinite stock. There is no loss of stock when you have an infinite amount.

Because of this, in the digital world, there is no loss when someone steals a game because it isn't one less copy you can sell, it is potentially one less sale but that is irrelevant. Everyone in the world with an internet connection and a form of online payment is a potential buyer for your game but that doesn’t mean everyone in the world will buy your game.

Loss due to piracy is an implied loss because it is not a calculable loss. You cannot, with any accuracy, state that because your game was pirated 300 times you lost 300 sales. You cannot prove even one lost sale because there is no evidence to state that any one person who pirated your game would have bought your game if piracy did not exist. From an accounting perspective it’s speculative and a company cannot accurately determine loss or gain based on speculative accounting. You can’t rely on revenue due to speculation, you can’t build a company off of what will “probably” happen. Watch “The Smartest Guys in the Room” and see how that worked out for Enron.

Companies try to combat piracy of their software with DRM but if loss due to pirated software is not calculable to an accurate amount does the implementation of DRM provide a return on investment? It is impossible to say yes to this statement. Look at it as numbers spent in a set budget. You spend $X on research for your new DRM method that will prevent people from stealing your game. That $X is a line item in accounting that can be quantified. Can you then say “This $X we put into research for our DRM gained us back $Y in sales”? There is no way to calculate this because it is not possible to quantify the intentions of a person. Also, there’s no way of accurately determining which customers would have stolen the game had there not been DRM.

To add to that, the reality of our current software age is the internet is more efficient at breaking things than companies are at creating them. A company will spend massive amounts of money on DRM and the internet will break it in a matter of days in most cases. When the DRM is broken is it worth the money spent to implement it? Did the week of unbroken DRM for your game gain you any sales from potential pirates due to the inability to pirate at launch? Again, there is no way of telling and as such cannot be used as an accurate justification for spending money.

So what should developers do to make sure people don’t steal games? Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do to actively stop their game from being pirated. I do believe people are less likely to pirate your software if the software is easy to buy, easy to run, and does what is advertised. You can’t force a person to buy your software no more than you can prevent a person from stealing it. People have to WANT to buy your software, people have to WANT to support you. People need to care about your employees and your company’s well being. There is no better way to achieve that than making sure what you put out there is the best you can do and you treat your customers with respect.

Lets loop back to what’s going on with SimCity. I bought SimCity day one, I played it and experienced the same frustrations that countless others are experiencing. For total fairness, I know the always on DRM isn’t the main issue, but I can’t help but think that the server side calculations are a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” version of DRM. I won’t claim to know the inner workings of SimCity and this isn’t a Captain Hindsight article because that is irrelevant. EA and Maxis are currently facing a bigger problem than piracy: A growing number of their customers no longer trust them and this has and will cost them money.

After the frustrations with SimCity I asked Origin for a refund and received one. This was money they had and then lost a few days later. Applying our earlier conversation about calculable loss, there is a loss that is quantifiable, that will show up in accounting spreadsheets and does take away from profit. That loss is the return, and it is much more dangerous than someone stealing your game.

In the retail world, you could potentially put a return back on the shelf, you could find another customer that wants it, sell it to them and there would be virtually no loss. In the digital world, because there is no set amount of goods, you gain nothing back (one plus infinity is still infinity). It’s only a negative experience. A negative frustrating experience for a customer should be considered more damaging than a torrent of your game.

Speaking from my experience with SMB, I know for a fact we have lost a lot of trust from Mac users due to the Mac port of SMB being poor quality. I could go into the circumstances of why it is the way it is but that is irrelevant...it’s a broken product that is out in the public. We disappointed a good portion of our Mac customers with SMB and as a result several former customers have requested and received refunds. I’d take any amount of pirates over one return due to disappointment any day.

Disappointment leads to apathy which is the swan song for any developer. If people don’t care about your game, why would people ever buy it? When MewGenics comes out, I doubt many Mac users are going to be excited about our launch. When EA/Maxis create their next new game how many people are going to be excited about it and talking positively about it? I imagine that the poison of their current SimCity launch is going to seep into potential customers thoughts and be a point of speculation as to “Is it going to be another SimCity launch?”.

This is not a quantifiable loss of course, but people are more likely to buy from distributors they trust rather than ones they’ve felt slighted by before. Consumer confidence plays a very important role in how customers spend money. I think its safe to say that EA and Maxis do not have a lot of consumer confidence at this point. I think its also safe to say that the next EA/Maxis game is going to be a tough sell to people who experienced or were turned away by talk of frustration regarding SimCity.

As a result of piracy developers feel their hand is forced to implement measures to stop piracy. Often, these efforts to combat piracy only result in frustration for paying customers. I challenge a developer to show evidence that accurately shows implementation of DRM is a return on investment and that losses due to piracy can be calculated. I do not believe this is possible.

The reality is the fight against piracy equates to spending time and money combating a loss that cannot be quantified. Everyone needs to accept that piracy cannot be stopped and loss prevention is not a concept that can be applied to the digital world. Developers should focus on their paying customers and stop wasting time and money on non-paying customers. Respect your customers and they may in turn respect your efforts enough to purchase your game instead of pirating it.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/TommyRefenes ... piracy.php

Great read. Saw the documentary with Team Meat in it. Fucking smart dudes