A paper from New York University researchers analyzes the methods used by the content industry to annoy and stop file-sharing on BitTorrent networks.  They found the practices of MediaDefender and other organizations presented no more than a nuisance to downloaders despite costing the content industry millions of dollars.

Prithula Dhungel, Di Wub and Keith Ross reviewed two specific methods use to slow down BitTorrent downloads. The first called “piece attack” involves trying to upload as many failed connections or hash fails as possible. Second, there is the “connection attack” where TCP connections are blocked preventing downloaders from accessing the actual content.  The researchers found these methods did slow download speeds, but not enough to deter downloading. Additionally, blocklists which can be easily found online increased speeds by 30-35 percent.  BitTorrent client uTorrent only encountered hostile connections 2 percent of the time while Azureus had only 18 percent.

Emails from a few years ago estimate that music companies pay up to $4,000 for each month of MediaDefender protecting one album.  As many already suspected, this money is likely being flushed down the digital drain.  Downloaders are not being deterred and certainly not being encouraged to buy content in another way.  The content industry is spending massive sums of money to fight against consumers preferred method of distribution. The ethics of file-sharing are not the point – basic economics, as always, is. Consumers by the millions are using file-sharing networks to find the content they want and share that content with other people. This is a good thing that should be embraced, not fought.  As we’ve seen, embracing new technology increases the size of your market and the money you can make, not decreases.

People may be reading less books, but don’t judge that by its cover. A new study from the National Endowment for the Arts finds Americans are reading less books. Spending on books dropped 14 perfect between 1985 and 2005. But more telling was Americans between 18 and 24, college years, read less voluntarily - only 52 percent in 2002 versus 59 in 1992. And all this lack of reading is causing test scores to drop.

The study attributes many “social benefits” to reading including readers getting more exercise, visiting museums, keeping up with news and current events, volunteering, and voting.

Sadly, the 100 page study appears to link declining readership in books and newspapers as a sign of American’s decreasing reading habits. What the study fails to establish is what people are doing instead. Has everyone become a video game addict or, as the statistics in this very study show, are people navigating online for their information. The study cites a 53 percent increase in home Internet use from 1997 to 2003 but fails to ask what people are doing online.

This study also contradicts the increase in book sales targeted at teens.

Further, there’s more to read than ever before. Email, instant messaging, blogs, and websites all require extensive amounts of readings and writing. I rarely pick up a newspaper, but instead read news stories from papers around the world through RSS feeds.

The study cites David T.Z. Mindich’s article “Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don’t Follow the News” which claims only 11 percent of 18-24 year-olds list news a major reason for going online, thus not making up for the more than 20 percent drop in college -aged newspaper readers.

I question the definition of “major reason” since so much online overlaps. I want to check my email on Yahoo! and right there on my mail page are the most emailed news articles. If I’m waiting for my friend to IM me, I might check out the New York Times while waiting. Further, the NEA’s own study provides statistics showing “32 percent of teens and 46 percent of young adults actively ’seek’ news on the Internet, while 65 percent and 48 percent ‘just happen to come across it.” When compared to the 46 percent of college-aged Americans who read newspapers in 1972, interest in news seems somewhat steady.

The NEA wants to attribute less reading of books to dropping test scores and writing proficiency in students but again I worry the correlation does not translate to cause and effect. The New York Times today, in reporting on this NEA study, links dropping test scores with the decline in time spent reading but also finds these drops in test scores are across all academic subjects, including math and science. Could there be other causes affecting test scores (and do we really know what these tests are testing for)?

People, young and old, have untold amounts of knowledge on their little laptops, cellphones, and even gaming consoles (the Wii and PS3 have web browsers). This requires more reading, writing, and understanding than ever before (like how do you get that web browser to work right).

People aren’t necessarily getting stupider by not reading print novels and newspapers. They just might be getting information in new sources and new ways, especially those tech savvy kids. Maybe with all the new technology and resources, it’s our tests and studies that need changing, not the number of pages we read before sixth period.