RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

From: Neil Saxby <nsaxby_at_mediadefender.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:43:19 -0700

Thanks Ben,

 

Taken your points about it cutting both ways on board.

 

I've just finished on the phone with Steff - he's agreed to send the
details of the eMule servers they connect to, in all territories, moving
fwd.

 

I told him that Soulseek protection is being ramped up and that we have
been running several internal tests all of which look very promising.

 

Steff explained that all testing is done by their intern in the UK using
remote access to other machines, so we don't need to be concerned about
all testers following the same methodology around the world.

 

We briefly discussed some of the tests where fewer than 45 results are
returned. Steff mentioned that he had compiled a sheet detailing fail
thresholds for tests where fewer than 45 results were returned. He said
that this is something that had already been agreed upon, but I'm
slightly unfamiliar with it so I've asked him to send a copy to O, Ben
and I.

 

Cheers,

Neil

 

From: Ben Grodsky
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:53 AM
To: Neil Saxby
Cc: Daniel Lee; Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera; Jay Mairs
Subject: RE: MediaDefender Monitoring Results 20-24 August

 

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 - 10:56:08 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2007 - 22:19:48 BST