RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

From: Ben Grodsky <grodsky_at_mediadefender.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:52:56 -0700

Neil,
 
Whether or not they would get minimum 45 results is a issue. It is more statistically viable information when they receive 45 results. The way you have highlighted the tests on your attachment is a little misleading though, as it cuts both ways when < 45 results are returned: sometimes it's good for us and sometimes it's bad for us, but it does cut both ways....
 
-Ben

________________________________

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Thu 30-Aug-07 13:10
To: Ben Grodsky
Cc: Daniel Lee; Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera; Jay Mairs
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

I've been through the results and there are certainly some questionable tests (highlighted in yellow on attached). I believe that the agreement was that they would download 45 'artist - track' pairs and if they got 6 tracks or more from those results then this would count as a fail.

 

We can't determine whether we would have definitely passed these questionable tests or not, but I've adjusted the 'Network Breakdown Summary' tab to show that we did: 72% effective over 50 tests.

 

Out of their total 1,633 download attempts 207 were pirated files - 88% pass, 12% fail

 

Obviously there are different ways of looking at this, but I don't think they should be allowed to counts tests with less than 45 download attempts unless they immediately get 6 complete files in the allotted time frame (2 hours). If you agree, I'm happy to discuss this with Steff.

 

I've discussed the testing methodology with Steff a few times and he's assured me that it is consistent across all territories but I'll bring it up again when I get an opportunity.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Ben Grodsky
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:00 PM
To: Neil Saxby
Cc: Daniel Lee; Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera; Jay Mairs
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

Neil,

 

Daniel/QA will probably have a lot more to say. QA has been working closely with our development staff these past 2-3 weeks on Soulseek in particular and we've started seeing better Soulseek testing results since Monday this week.

 

Jay has already expressed to me that the small data set basically means these data aren't substantiated enough to be meaningful -- a data set of 5 attempts for Sweden just means very little because it's too easy for a fluke to "indicate" an effectiveness percentage that just isn't realistic.

 

Lastly, while it's good to see that they've used the new server.mets, the real question is whether they're testing in a consistent manner across the different locations. If they're not applying exactly the same methodology at each location, then the statistical basis for these EMI results is even more questionable.

 

Thanks,

Ben

________________________________

From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Thu 30-Aug-07 11:43
To: qa
Subject: FW: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

FYI all - latest results from EMI. They tested on Soulseek, MP2P and eDonkey this time around. Across all tests we're hitting around 50%. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

Also, have we started any internal testing on EMI tracks yet - would be good to see some results if there are any.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Hughes, Steffan [mailto:steffan.hughes_at_emimusic.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:36 PM
To: Octavio Herrera; Rick Moreno; Neil Saxby
Cc: Katz, Ruth
Subject: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August
Importance: High

 

Dear all,

 

Please find attached the latest monitoring results - apologies for the delay in getting these to you.

 

In general they were still very poor guys. Hanging around 50% passes just isn't going to cut it. Updating the eDonkey2000 server.met files has also seemingly made little difference to the eDonkey results experienced. Please step up the protection level asap.

 

Any questions, please let me know as usual.

 

Many thanks & best regards,

 

 

Steff

Steffan Hughes EMI Music Anti Piracy

27 Wrights Lane London W8 5SW UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7795 7397 Fax:+44 (0)20 7795 7398

 

- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Music from EMI

This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete it from your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.

This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.

Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW

Registered in England No 229231.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Sep 14 2007 - 10:55:57 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2007 - 22:19:46 BST