You Don't Beat Pirates By Doing Something More Annoying
from the you-need-to-add-value dept
Earlier this summer, a musician named Indiana Gregg made the mistake of demanding The Pirate Bay stop allowing people to find her music. The Pirate Bay responds publicly to such letters and doesn't take down the torrent links, so it tends to not do anything good to send such a letter. Gregg made things worse by arguing with the folks at The Pirate Bay, showing little command for the subject matter. Later, she wrote a long, rambling post for TorrentFreak warning people that "the police were coming" to the "wild west" of the internet, and basically dismissing out of hand any new business model that turns any kind of "piracy" into an advantage, claiming that its the users, not the musicians, who need to change how they deal with music.You can certainly understand where she's coming from, as a musician who's traditional business model is under threat. However, contrary to the opinion of some, it's the consumers who eventually determine how a market works -- and treating consumers as criminals tends to backfire in a big way -- especially when other artists are figuring out ways to create business models that work without treating fans as criminals.
The good news is that Gregg seems to be willing to try out new ideas. Her and her producer (who's also her husband) are apparently planning to launch an ad supported music site that will allow musicians to upload their music and receive a cut of any advertising revenue associated with each stream or download. The details aren't entirely clear, but I don't think this plan is going to work all that well. While it is good that she's trying out new models that end up being free to the end user, ad-supported revenue models are going to be tough -- and it seems a bit extreme to claim, as Gregg has, that this is a way to "beat piracy."
Ad-supported websites are already having enough trouble making enough money to survive online, so Gregg's going to quickly discover that the ad money won't flow as quickly as she expects. Is she going to claim that the police are coming after the folks using ad-blockers as well? Also, given the convenience of other sites where music is available, expecting them to go to a different site to get their music may not be very convincing. The problem with an ad-supported music site is that it doesn't add any value to the end user. Trent Reznor's business model worked by providing more value to the end-user. Jill Sobule's business model worked by providing more value to the end-user. Gregg's solution doesn't add more value to the end user, and for that reason is going to have a difficult time succeeding, let alone "beating" piracy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad supported music, adding value, business models, economics, indiana gregg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Like, not even bothering with music anymore? There are other things to spend money on, or just simply go without.
I haven't purchased anything produced in the last couple of years because it all sounds the same. Why buy new stuff if I essentially already "have" it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For starters, you might be interested in mindawn.com, which lets you demo anything they carry in its entirety. I have also discovered tons of cool stuff on emusic.com. I also find mailing lists for groups I like to be excellent sources for info on music I haven't heard of, but would like. (No connections, just a happy and frequent customer to both sites)
This is truly a Golden Age of music, but you have to do a little more work, but the payoffs are more than worth it... and the mainstream media is doing everything it can to keep you trapped in its own little world of recycled, prefab garbage... in fact, it's a lot like Microsoft in that regard. They don't want you to know what the alternatives are because once you realize what's out there, you'll never go back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be lucky musicians get anything
Like, not even bothering with music anymore? There are other things to spend money on, or just simply go without.
I haven't purchased anything produced in the last couple of years because it all sounds the same. Why buy new stuff if I essentially already "have" it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be lucky musicians get anything
Aha, you're making the same mistake a lot of people do. It seems you're listening to the homogeneous rubbish that gets put out into the mainstream and assuming that represents new music.
There are thousands of independent artists out there who deserve your money for creating something new. You just have to work out who they are. I'd suggest starting with an independent music service like eMusic or AmieStreet (where music is either free or extremely cheap), combined with last.fm and podcasts from the likes of KEXP, KCRW and Indiefedd to discover the music worth buying.
I've said this a few times - changing the music industry will not happen by boycotting all music. Rather, by buying independent music you like, you send the message that the RIAA product is the problem. Thanks to eMusic, I currently buy 10+ albums per month, all good music and not a penny paid to the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Be lucky musicians get anything
you think every artist out there, mainstream or otherwise is being downloaded illegally at record volumes? its only the mainstream ones that really get downloaded a lot. im not arguing that they don't deserve our money, just saying that comment does not hold any relevance other than the old as hell, "that is so mainstream and lame" comment. go back to your emo closet and let the adults talk.
Regardless of whether the artist makes good or bad music. If they are screaming they only made so many millions because their song was downloaded illegally i wont listen to it cause they are whiney babies. use your brain and figure out how to sell your music instead of whining. People laugh at you whining about illegal downloads while you sit in your 3 million dollar house drinking champagne and waiting for cribs to knock on the door.
To the other musicians that aren't "mainstream" your music is "niche" music(only appeals to fairly small groups of people) in which case your not gonna make multi-millions anyway, get used to it and move on to the next song. most people dont buy a lot of music they dont already know. If you put your song out there free, people might like it and more people might be inclined to support your efforts and buy your album. not everyone out there is evil and looking for a way to scam musicians. But if you get all whiney, they are gonna download it free and whistle your tune while your band goes to hell.
an after thought: what about when someone puts a popular song video on youtube? is everyone who watches it a pirate because they saw and heard it for free. NO because those same whiney bands realize that they are being promoted at no cost to them. the same concept goes to radio.
Until you vote to allow big brother to watch and record every single thing you do online(or offline)THERE WILL NEVER BE AN END TO ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS. I'm not saying its right by any means, but its the way it is. Adapt or fail. Thats the world we live in.
for the sake of repeating myself, I AM NOT SAYING ARTISTS SHOULDN'T BE PAID BUT WHINING GETS YOU NOWHERE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Be lucky musicians get anything
"you think every artist out there, mainstream or otherwise is being downloaded illegally at record volumes? its only the mainstream ones that really get downloaded a lot."
Well, no shit Sherlock. That was actually my point. People are getting pissed off at the pricing and supply of new music and choose to download it. Sometimes due to perceived quality (hence my response above), sometimes due to price and/or DRM. Mainstream music gets downloaded more because the mainstream channels that advertise music are controlled by the same corporations. My comment was basically "if you don't like new commercial music, don't give up on music, look for the good stuff). Where's the problem with that statement?
"im not arguing that they don't deserve our money, just saying that comment does not hold any relevance other than the old as hell, "that is so mainstream and lame" comment. go back to your emo closet and let the adults talk."
That bears no relationship to what I was saying. Also, I'm 33, and don't like whatever gets termed "emo". Again, my point was simple - if you don't like the music you hear on the TV / radio / whatever, that's fine. But, that's only a tiny proportion of modern music, and there's plenty more out there. How does that bear any resemblance to your childish comment?
"use your brain and figure out how to sell your music instead of whining. People laugh at you whining about illegal downloads while you sit in your 3 million dollar house drinking champagne and waiting for cribs to knock on the door."
Now, there's the childish talk again. The artists (usually) aren't the ones complaining, but rather the record labels they're signed to. Historically, artists are usually forced into exclusive contracts with these labels, who are dropping the ball on music distribution. I was saying the best way to combat this is not to pirate and/or ignore music completely, but give the money to those who aren't under these contracts. Do you have a problem with that?
Then, you go onto a rant with random capitalisation for no purpose, repeating pretty much everything that's said here. Do you have a point that you can make, maybe with capitals at the beginning of sentences rather than the middle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Be lucky musicians get anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Be lucky musicians get anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, it's a mistake, and only makes things worse, to respond to criminal activity by confronting it? Because, under current laws, unless the musician is choosing to "give away" music as part of his/her "business model," TPB's activities are criminal. Let the market decide, yes, but not by promoting crime.
it's the consumers who eventually determine how a market works -- and treating consumers as criminals tends to backfire in a big way
If consumers could really get what they want, everything would be free. External concerns and constraints, however, never really allow consumers to get what they really want ... the consumers and the producers are always in a struggle for compromise.
As for "treating consumers as criminals" ... well, uh, they are when they're braking the law, by definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymously cowering
Seriously, do you really need any help in figuring out how you are closer to supporting Mike's argument rather than arguing against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ever heard of that?
Or maybe you are unfamiliar with the idea of unjust law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monopolists?
Unfortunately, many of the second-handers here think the illegal path is justified, perhaps because of their inability to earn an income sufficient to purchase a $0.99 song, or a $15 cd?
Nonetheless, I hope they (the second-handers) keep stealing the music so that the lawyers can beat them up and inconvenience their lives. It only seems appropriate that they should pay legal fees in their own defense, after annoyingly ripping off the fruits of someone else's labor.
And for Mike, if it really is, "the consumers who eventually determine how a market works ," then the consumers must have made the situation the way it is today. How could that be if the consumers want to pay nothing for anything? [I imagine you will want to modify your pontification... how about saying things are different today than they were historically or something...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Monopolists?
Instead what the problem is, is rather than it being a monopoly (there is nothing wrong with a monopoly) they are behaving as the robber barons of the early industrial revolution. The reason these men's business practices were considered unjust and were forced to alter their business plans was the issue of "Collusion" where these men would stamp out any possiblility of making it into the industry by controlling the market and making it impossible for start ups to compete.
The music industry does something similar by deciding for you who they will make record contracts with, based on who they believe you will like. This would not be a problem if they left it at that, however contrary to this, they try to block out any competition by paying extra in signing contracts with radio stations to not allow unsigned artists to be played. Similar to the movie "Airheads". In doing this they keep only the bands they are contracted with out there and no new or individual labels available by forcefully taking their market share.
The problem is they handled it all wrong from the beginning with Napster. If they had instead of shutting down napster, FUNDED napster to allow for more administration, and regulated any music that was shared that had a record label was not allowed to be downloaded. This would have allowed people to do what they were claiming to do and allowed for cheap advertisement of the bands they were promoting and assist them in finding new business opportunities with new artists. Because originally people claimed that they were sampling and seeing if they wanted to buy. Also they claimed that they would find new artists that were similar to their tastes that OTHER people found and were sharing. While funding napster and pursuing either the same deal or legal actions against anyone else they create a new advertisement campaign and more revenue.
Instead they reduce revenue by restricting access and require that any sampling can be done after purchasing a non refundable product. And the lost revenue is passed on to the consumer by increasing prices and reducing revenue even further. Thus making it profitable to pursue pirates rather than ignore them until they get big enough to make a mint off of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Monopolists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it's a much better use of people's time to promote the lesser-known musicians willing to allow free downloads, who are in their opinion "just as good" as the top bands. So the hip people can get great music for free, or for a small donation, while the masses can buy music from iTunes or stores. And everything is legal and aboveboard, with no resort to the tired "infringement is not theft" gibberish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
With music, it's not GnR who have a monopoly on GnR music, it's whatever corporation holds that particular contract. GnR have no more right to release a copy of Appetite For Destruction than you do. These corporations have not recognised that the market has changed.
They only offer any downloads because they were dragged kicking and screaming into the market by Apple, and continue to offer a product that's less desirable that the "real thing". They have made it easier for people to download a high quality rip of a GnR album from TPB than from a legal source, so people choose the illegal source. Lesser-known artists don't naturally fill the place of GnR as they naturally should because most mainstream media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines) are controlled by the same corporations selling the better known music.
To use your Armani example, let's use a hypothetical example. Let's suppose that the traditional man's suit goes completely out of fashion and nobody wants to wear one. People in business change their standard dress code to something else, but Armani refuse to make this new clothing type. Their sales plummet, but they spend their time trying to sue to makers of cheap knock-off suits rather than innovating in the new market. That's what the RIAA are doing here.
Oh, by the way, lesser-known artists *are* promoted through free downloads (check: download.com's free download section, WE7, AmieStreet, Garageband, Indiefeed, KEXP, KCRW, last.fm, Girl Talk, etc., etc.). The problem is getting these downloads into the mainstream consciousness when so much media is controlled by those with ulterior motives. Things are changing slowly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"well, uh, they are when they're braking the law, by definition."
Congratulations, here's your baton.
They are not subject to the insane laws that US polluticians subject their constituents to. AND they have no material on their servers, only locations and checksums. It would do you well to not inflict your own insanity on all corners of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A terrorist decides to use gmail to communicate for planning activities, it doesn't make gmails enterprises criminal. The TPB's resources can be utilized for wrong, but that's not their problem or responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How many times do people need to be told before they get it through their thick heads?
TPB IS NOT COMMITTING ANY CRIME!
Writing a letter to them IS A DUMB IDEA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it's a mistake to not take an extra 30 seconds and read any of the hundred letters sent to TPB where they laugh at people who write them letters before writing your own and essentailly inviting them to make fun of you. not only do they not do what you want, they will publish your cease and desist letter along with an antagonistic reply. asking TPB to stop doing something is asking to be made fun of. crying about being made fun of afterward is just pathetic.
As for "treating consumers as criminals" ... well, uh, they are when they're braking the law, by definition.
the law is outmoded and wrong. the law is a crutch that is propping up industries that became obsolete a decade ago. TPB is a wakeup call to these industries that they have to change the way they do business. just like prohibition that was eventually repealed, copyright laws will be overhauled, largely because of the sheer number of regular people that are now "criminals".
sure there are people that won't pay, ever. they are not the people to focus your attention on. you should spend your time and money courting and rewarding the people who do pay.
you can't stop file sharing, so stop wasting your time and money. your content will be shared no matter what your feelings may be on the subject. if you have paying fans, treat them well and give them more incentive to give you money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: depends on how you look at it
in the country that Pirate Bay is located, hosting torrent files of any type is not illegal. So should why would they be criminals? Because they don't follow laws that don't apply to them? in this same respect if you've ever spit gum out on the street you are a criminal because thats a crime in Singapore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it will make the situation worse . . . YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: now THAT is a IDIOTIC statement:
ON the other hand, I give you compleat permission to kill yourself by trying to stop a charging "Rhino*" (That is an inside joke BUB) by getting SMASHED FLAT-
*Rhino Records got their BiG start pressing "ILLEGAL" BOOTLEG Records - Look at them NOW, they fixed the sound for "Meet me in St Louis"
If I had to choose between NOT breaking the law and Breaking the law? I'll keep on "Breaking The Law" rather than be an IDIOT spouting supercilious CRAP about TPB all over the internet.
So SHUDDUP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The way the world is going because of people like you, that think everything should be handed to them free without work or sacrifice is scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is a very interesting turn of phrase. Some who have up until now relied on copyrights to earn a living are very scared by this new marketplace. It's unfortunate when artists are frightened of their fans.
As for the first part of your sentence, sure there are people who have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, but... eh, why bother?
THE PIRATES ARE COMING, RUN!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh kinda like musicians that made music 30-50-100 years ago and still expect to make money off of it? Or corporations that still own content (after pressuring Congress to change laws) that should be in the public domain ? Your argument rings hollow on that one. The way it currently works, it is a welfare system to artists for their entire lives. I'm sure we'd all love to go to work for a month and get paid the rest of our lives PLUS 70 years. Are you hiring ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so basically the only ones that they do this with are the people or lawyers that are any of the following;
evil
stupid
greedy
arrogant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Model My Arse
-THE Pirate Bay has NO business model OTHER than billions of people TOTALLY sick of the CRA$$ Commercialism coming at them from EVERYWHERE.
You cannot even buy CDs without there being ADS all over the product, you cannot go to the MOOVIES without having ALL KINDS of crap SHOVED at you, you can't RENT A DVD withot the same thing, and you CANNOT turn on the TV without getting BOMBARDED.
YOU F**KIN CANT OPEN VARIOUS WEBSITES without getting PLASTERED by POPUPZ.
I'd rather NOT pay to see a film and download it for FREE just to AVOID having to see NIKE commercials all over the place (and other WORSE stuff).
THE Pirate Bay EXISTS and will continue to exist and FLOURISH because WE ARE SICK of your damned "Business Models" - Business modles can go to HELL, give us a NON-Business model.
You know what else is cool? Turner Classic Moovies. UNCUT and COMMERCIAL FREE.
If you don't like it? SOD OFF and GO BACK to watching AMC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not for Lack of Trying
The value add of this site is clear: No DRM, No Virus Risks, and the music is nicely catalogued so you don't have to (i.e. filename and ID3 tags are filled in cleanly).
That being said I hope she realizes a decent revenue stream from this site like many upcoming artists have...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not for Lack of Trying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not for Lack of Trying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not for Lack of Trying
Music download services simply need to offer the same quality of product to compete, maybe with a few extras that TPB can't provide. Some people will continue to download illegally, but you can't stop them. Those are probably not people who will suddenly pay for downloads if freebies were suddenly impossible, so it's dumb to concentrate on attracting those people.
The NIN and Radiohead experiments have proven that millions of people will willingly pay for downloads even if a lower quality freebie is legally available. Jill Sobule's has shown that many people will pay their favourite artist directly for the creation of new material. The success of eMusic shows that millions will pay a monthly fee for DRM-free downloads if the price is right, even if RIAA artists are not represented. And so on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not for Lack of Trying
no. the most notorious downloaders, myself included, are also the most notorious music fans. i buy all kinds of stuff from artists. i have an emusic account that i bottom out on a monthly basis, often in minutes. i have t-shirts and stuff from lots of people, but i express my true fandom in other ways. yes i download a lot of stuff, but i pay for a lot of stuff too.
if you take people like me out of the equation, then you take a good deal of the buying public out as well.
i learned about a small rap group called dualcore (www.dualcoremusic.com) on penny-arcade and paid to download their music because i had to have one of their tracks since i felt like it had been made specifically for me.
i loved the track so much that i contacted them and learned that they were local to me and i have since volunteered at shows, advocated their music, and supported them in ways that only a true fan would. int80 has rewarded my fandom with friendship, a chance to be "with the band" on a few occasions and sneak peeks at tracks before their albums are released.
that true fandom is what artists should focus on, not beating something unstoppable like piracy.
the only way to "beat" piracy is to transcend it and offer something that can't be copied. be more accessible to your real fans and do not waste your time, effort, or money on people who aren't supporting your work. it also helps to realize that people will support you in ways that don't involve money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free publicity
Seems there are several sex tapes floating around that have the same alleged origins.
I didn't know her before either but she's getting a lot of publicity from a free source and it's a chance to advertise her new "service"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this sounds very silly
beat piracy not Gregg.
Also, Gregg never treated users as criminals, she just pointed out the facts that the ISP's and the record labels are coming after users everyday. I read all of the
letters and her blog from Torrent Freak and it's actually the 'readers' who have not taken any time to properly 'read' that have misinterpreted her.
I heard on BBC that they are launching Kerchoonz at the end of the month, so, it sounds like she's been working on this for months, if not years. If the Pirates are forcing their model on musicians and saying they shouldn't make money from their music, then why is Pirate Bay making money from other people's music and works through their $3 milliion/ year advertising funded site?
I think it's a great idea to start paying musician's from the ad revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adding value to end user
It would appear that you have no foundation to your claim. I have gone to Kerchoonz.com and it looks like a holding page at the moment. So, how do you know anything about what their end user's will get?
Since we don't know how the site will work, speculating and saying that the Kerchoonz site will not be giving any added value to the end user is a very biased and ridiculous conclusion.
You can listen to the newsdrive from last night on BBC radio Scotlands iplayer where there is an interview with a few people from Kerchoonz including Indiana which explains some of how the site will work. I'm interested in viewing the beta,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
issue will be resolved
traditionally plaintiff must show the actual transfer of material to claim damages under copyright law. interestingly though under DMCA we are seeing a lot of these "takedown" notices and the viability of these clearly shows that in the view of the court offering copyright material online that you do not have permission to offer is actionable. and that might be extended under stare decisis as a new precedent
IMHO however, it would be better if the congress would simply amend the copyright law with a provision dealing with file sharing. file sharing is not equivalent to making copies for private non-commercial use
for music artists who wish to share their material freely on the internet -- they are certainly free to do that all they like to. but for artists who prefer to have copyright protection for their work that is provided for in the law.
computers are interesting in the way that they distribute media: they are faster and cheaper to use than obsolete media. othere than that though, a copy is a copy is a copy and it don't matter one lick if the defendant uses an 8-track, VHS, or file-share; it's all the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: issue will be resolved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: issue will be resolved
I believe the Swedish authorities differ with your view of Swedish law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: issue will be resolved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: issue will be resolved
how about the term "collaborative". you might want to learn what it means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: issue will be resolved
1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.
2. To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country.
Again, by every definition you wish, Sweden has determined what they do is legal in their country. That is why they returned their servers, and they are up and running today. Since we're playing word of the day, try this one...
Jurisdiction -
1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.
2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.
3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.
4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Issue will be resolved
these indexers may be pure software tools. I think kazaa may be: if all that is provided is the p2p protocol and the search and transfer tools then they may be able to claim they are simply a software tool -- essentially similar to a FTP client you might have. if that's the case they are cool.
OTH if a torrent service should compile a catalog of copyright protected files that are available for download and then make that catalog available to its subscribers as a service then they may well be held as collaborating to effect copyright infringment
it takes the wheels of justice a little while to align themselves and that is still being done in the matter of the file sharers attempt to nullify copyright law
it appears to me the Jamie Thomas case will be resolved in favor of Jamie: simply having personal copies of copyright material on a shared directory apparently is not going to be considered an copyright infringement: plaintiff must show that actual transfers have occurred.
if my guess is good on the outcome here then the music industry will have to get busy and lobby Congress to amend the Copyright law to cover file sharing
if they do that though how do you think they will write it? "Whoever shall ... " Shall do what? store copyright music on their computer? Shall permit copyright music to be transfered to or from their computer?
this is going to get ugly and a lot of people are going to be very unhappy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Issue will be resolved
OK, here's the problem with that argument: everything you said applies to general-purpose search engines as well. There is nothing you can do to stop a specialised torrent search engine like The Pirate Bay or Mininova that wouldn't apply equally to Google, MSN or Yahoo.
Put it this way: if Google catalogues a site and makes an image available through Google Images (a totally automated process with no human intervention), should they be held responsible if the image turns out to be infringing? Any sensible person would say not, yet there's no way of saying that without also saying that TPB is also not liable for the infringements of its users.
"if my guess is good on the outcome here then the music industry will have to get busy and lobby Congress to amend the Copyright law to cover file sharing"
That's what they're trying to do, but why do you think they "have" to? The argument here is always that they would be better off altering their business model to make piracy irrelevant - selling the stuff that can't be pirated - rather than changing the law to protect the old model. There is no way of them changing the laws without causing a lot of nasty unintended consequences that would destroy future opportunities for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Issue will be resolved
the court will determine what is Collaborative Infringement. Quibble all you want but the court decides.
==>"The argument here is always that they would be better off altering their business model to make piracy irrelevant - selling the stuff that can't be pirated - rather than changing the law to protect the old model."
I think it has been adequately demonstrated that it isn't practical to try to create un-breakable locks for music or video media
but this is irrelevant
what is relevant is that artists and producers have a choice regarding copyright. if they wish to copyright their work and sell it via traditional channels that's their choice. others may prefer the free/open distribution via the internet. that is their choice
as a society we have determined to respect authors' and artists' right to copyright and enacted laws for that purpose. but a lot of people today have decided to disrespect copyright law -- "just because they can" -- by using their computers to hide under
now, if the copyright laws are not to be discarded as un-enforceable our legal system will have to examine its existing precedent and possibly amend the statute with provisions for computer use. It is my view that the latter will be required.
so, until the law is amended some file sharers are likely to get away with a lot of counterfeit copies. while they are enjoying their little party though they might do well to reflect that they are actually enjoying the protection of their society which respects the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Issue will be resolved
'Society' as you put it, is on a global scale, and if one country wishes not to enforce copyright laws the way you wish to see it, you will have to learn to respect that nations laws too. That's how 'we as a society' work these days.
I suppose now it's time to ignore that fact and comment more on how congress and the dmca should handle these pirates, even though your laws and your congress have no jurisdiction over another country. Enjoy your freedoms as you quickly copy and paste other peoples words without so much as thinking about the freedom to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Issue will be resolved
That didn't stop the industry from trying. Besides, where did I suggest that anywhere in my post?
Changing the business model = doing what eMusic, WE7, AmieStreet, NIN, Jill Sobule, Girl Talk, Prince and hundreds of other artists and businesses have been doing recently. That is, change the business model so that money is made regardless of any so-called "infringement". Makers of shiny discs are suffering. People who give people what they want are not. The only thing this shows is that the disc market is disappearing, so people should stop depending on that market and move into more lucrative areas.
"a lot of people today have decided to disrespect copyright law -- "just because they can" -- by using their computers to hide under"
Nope. A lot of people have continued to do what they've always done - share culture. I grew up well before the internet, and I still participated in so-called "piracy" - recording songs from the radio, creating and distributing mixtapes, copying albums I rented from the library or borrowed from friends, etc. Yet, I've still spent tens of thousands on music over the years. The only real difference between what I did as a kid and what people do now is that people don't have to leave home to source the material.
"now, if the copyright laws are not to be discarded as un-enforceable our legal system will have to examine its existing precedent and possibly amend the statute with provisions for computer use. It is my view that the latter will be required."
Current copyright laws are a product of a bygone age. They are written to assume that if something is copied, a physical item is produced. From that it is assumed that there is a cost involved with creating the copy, so a financial motive is involved. Therefore, the law is written to assume that piracy for profit is the only motive.
That's not the case today. There is virtually zero cost involved with copying, and so there is no profit motive. People are sharing music in the same way that they listen to the radio. If the industry would gets its head out of its collective behind and recognise the zero-cost advertising opportunity this is, there would be no need for a law change. Continuing to attack the "pirates" only succeeds in attacking actual paying customers.
Piracy is not the problem, its that the record industry hasn't realised that its no longer viable to build your business around selling discs any more. There are hundreds of other ways to make their money though.
It can only be repeated so many times - market forces dictate that most people do not want to buy music in the way they had to 20 years ago. Even if laws were changed to destroy P2P distribution, there is no returning to the old business model. Suing, restricting and alienating customers is not the way forward, but new business models are appearing all the time that show how money can be made in the future, for anyone willing to stop depending on the proverbial horse carriage and move to the proverbial motor car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Issue will be resolved
instead, it will be updated with a simple provision dealing with file sharing
it is certainly the case that online sales can supersede traditional distributions but that is not relevant to the copyright issue
as I noted before: whether a works is to be copyright protected or not is up to the author/artist, not to quibbling computer phreaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Issue will be resolved
Looks like the quibbling musicians are bowing to the quibbling computer freaks on this one. How many letters have they sent now ? Yet they have no rights to their own works in another country, awwwww, how sad. Again I say, hey if we all get paid for our entire lives plus 70 years, then I'm all for it. I can't see how that economy could survive, but let's do it. I'll work real hard for a year and then kick back on your brilliant economy and start collectin' Chaching !! And my kids will continue to collect even if my demise is at 100. Are you hiring ?
Ownership on these "rights" is quite illusive. Once the content leaves the borders(by being broadcast), rights change. They change to there respective nations laws. And in this instance, these people were raided, their property taken, and placed into jail. Over music and movies. How absurd. I recognize the financial inconvenience, but creating laws to deal with the property rights of content is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways.
Now, TPB has been tried in their courts, and found not to be breaking Swedish laws. They are back online after all that hassle and action. That is why they chastise and humiliate individuals/corporations who wish to milk a monopoly welfare system and try to force their views on content and rights upon citizens of other nations. That is wrong. I suggest you read their letters as they are very interesting and stern in opposition to your beliefs. It's fine to say "oh well, that's how it is" when we discuss law in our nation. But my how views like yours get awfully belligerent when the table turns and you so desperately want their actions to be wrong/illegal. Courts, Congress and laws you say? They were not on your side in their country. Oh well, That's how it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Issue will be resolved
In addition, as many have noted, most of the services you're referring to are outside of US jurisdiction. Even if the law is changed to cover file sharing, it still doesn't apply to most of the world.
The RIAA is a sad King Canute, drowning while trying to hold back the tide. Thousands of artists not under that cartel are thriving because they choose to act otherwise. It's not out of place to criticise the RIAA for doing this, nor to point out that many of the traditional copyright rules are out of date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Issue will be resolved
Yeah, I'm sure it will be really effective in SWEDEN, MORON!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Issue will be resolved
BTW, at least admit that your profession is far more damaging and parasitical to our rights than any file sharer. People like yourself (assuming you ARE an attorney) produce NOTHING of value to society. The tort reform train is coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: issue will be resolved
**They are in Sweden, not 'our' country.
under DMCA we are seeing a lot of these "takedown" notices and the viability of these clearly shows that in the view of the court offering copyright material online that you do not have permission to offer is actionable. and that might be extended under stare decisis as a new precedent
**Sweden does not have anything like the DMCA
IMHO however, it would be better if the congress would simply amend the copyright law with a provision dealing with file sharing. file sharing is not equivalent to making copies for private non-commercial use
**Congress isn't in Sweden
but for artists who prefer to have copyright protection for their work that is provided for in the law.
**In US law, perhaps, not in Sweden.
it don't matter one lick if the defendant uses an 8-track, VHS, or file-share; it's all the same.
**It does if said defendant is not a US citizen and acting in their own country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All are not equals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember it's music from the last century as well as new releases. I have about 250 albums on my "save for later" list there, so on my plan it would take me over 2 years to download everything I'm interested in even if no new album I'd like is ever released in that time... unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is too funny
HEY Ian you are now Infamous! Maybe you should hook up with the "Web Sheriff", and ride off into the sunset :)
1)On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:23 PM, wrote:
A message received 2008-06-22 22:23:20 from IP: 82.9.50.198
--------------------
Our record label represents the artist Indiana Gregg and we have been made aware that the album "Woman At Work" is being illegally shared on your torrent website. We request that you have the file removed immediately as
this is legal copyright and has not been authorised to be released as an illegal download.
thank you,
Ian Morrow
Gr8pop ltd.
--------------------
Reply-to address: ian@gr8pop.net
On 23 Jun 2008, at 01:05, bkp wrote:
Ian,
is it possible to authorise something to be an illegal download? That would be a legal download if it would be authorised now, wouldn't it. Also, i've never heard of "legal copyright" (nor illegal copyright for that matter).
I think you need to re-check your intentions of the e-mail and try again. We do not respond to messages that do not make 100% perfect sense. You're confused.
Peter
2)
Reply
Dear Peter,
In the UK ( and most other countries) file sharing by torrent or otherwise is illegal... full stop.
The original email was from the artist, on the company address yes, but not from me.... how does that make you feel ?
Having sat on cross parliamentary committees, resolved to regenerating music and culture in my country, i'm afraid you may just have picked the wrong person to cross swords with on this occasion.
The illegal file sharing of the Indiana Gregg album ' Woman At Work' , with us now having currently had over 250K + full album downloads removed from torrent sites, has almost bankrupted our company and sadly the artist and
myself personally, not to mention many other small independent labels and artists worldwide.
As we both know she is currently # 1 in various myspace charts around the globe in her genre's and you are making money by stealing from us, if we were to do the same in a different genre i.e.... walk into the bakers shop
and walk out with all the cream cakes and 'share' them with people on the street we would be very quickly arrested.
The law needs to.. and soon will be applied to people like you. In fact I correct myself, the law is there, it just needs applied.
Do you share any revenues from your site ( advertising or otherwise) with the people that u steal the goods you supply from ?
For the avoidance of doubt, that would be the.. the artist, the musicians, the writers, producer / studio engineers etc etc who all make a living from what you steal.
I hope the relevant societies and people I copy your reply to, take action to shut down your illegal operations for good.
You and people like you are destroying the music industry, taking away any chance a developing artist has of fulfilling any aspirations whatsoever they or their fans may have for your own illegal financial gain.
Thanks for your IP Address and Server / Routing details
Regards...... Ian
Ian Morrow
Gr8pop Ltd
from bkp
to Ian Morrow
date Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM
subject Re: Response From a Pirate Torrent Site - Something has to be done now ! ......Re: TPB: Legal threats
You're a hoot, that's what you are :)
I want to hug you in a non-sexual way and tell you that you make my heart burst of joy and cuddle up like a cute little cookie monster and ask for more milk.
... and btw, to be in a business you have very little knowledge on what you're doing. I would actually see you as a retard, but it's hard when you're so cuddly and manly! I wish I was just 20 years older and a girl... oh my..
Hugs n kisses,
Your eternal friend,
Peter
3)
Reply
Dear Peter,
re: 5th attempt .... requesting removal of copyright material: As there seems to be confusion about the intention of our numerous requests for the removal of our copyright material from your piratebay torrent site over the past
year. I would like to clarify and reiterate my request that you take down the link to a torrent download of my album. "Woman At Work" The URL: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3664298/Indiana_Gregg_-_Woman_At_Work_(2007)_-_Pop As
you are fully aware, the law does not condone sharing of copyright material on torrent sites and you are required by law to remove content (that you are being made aware of) that is being shared illegally as the operator of
your site. Just to clarify...the album is the LEGAL COPYRIGHT of Gr8pop Ltd (yes, Legal copyright is a term used in law.... sorry, that you have never heard of it. I suppose you will very very soon.) Illegal file sharing of
copyright material is indeed copyright infringement and it is your legal responsibility to remove that content upon request from the owner of that copyright. Why you would take such a bold step as to actually 'argue' with a
copyright owner who is requesting their material to be removed is, in my opinion, hazardous to your illegal business.
(considering your email below to Mr. Ian Morrow, it is obvious that you are attempting to avoid our request via forms of insult and malicious humor both of which are unecessary and likewise hazardous.)
It's obvious that you don't care about our independent request and are in the midst of defending yourself legally radically this year already....... so, wouldn't it be easier for you to just take down the url at our request and
get on with life?
re: http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-team-charged-080131/
Thank you,
Indiana Gregg
gr8pop ltd
from Peter
to Indy
date Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM
subject Re: Response From a Pirate Torrent Site - Something has to be done now ! ......Re: TPB: Legal threats
Dear Indy,
As you are apparently _not_ aware of - YOUR LAW IS NOT MY LAW. We live in a country where it's totally LEGAL to have torrent files up on a site. Actually, I doubt that it's illegal in your country as well - but apparently you
can't grasp the concept of torrent files but you still try to act like a lawyer with full knowledge. It's "hazardous" to claim something to be illegal when it's totally legal and I would refrain from being a stupid asshole in
your situation.
Also interesting is that even though there are noone sharing that torrent what-so-ever I would more guess that you're close to bancrupcy because of either crappy marketing skills, crappy musical taste, or even your proven
crappy legal skills. It has nothing to do with the torrent community.
I'm arguing is that we have none of your content on our site. We have a torrent file which points to content, which is a totally different thing. We have never removed a single torrent because of a companys request and we will
not start doing it now. Especially not for someone who is so blatently ignorant towards globality and laws in different regions.
I would also like to point out that you made the legal threats section of our webpage with your previous e-mail. http://thepiratebay.org/legal
It's something to be proud of I guess.
Peter
4)Dear Peter,
I'm referring to the Digital Millineum Copyright act. We have tracked over 250 thousand downloads of the album in question on torrent sites globally. Many of the sites
have removed the link as per our request over the past year. Your reluctancy to remove the link is incomprehensible. Happily you aren't as popular as Minnova and bit-torrent. I am simply requesting that you remove the URL
link to the torrent. I am giving you notice as to prevent any copyright infringement.
As you are aware , the DMCA, does not grant blanket protection from copyright infringement liability. The service provider may not take advantage of the DMCA's safe harbor provision if:
1. The service provider has actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
2. The service provider is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
3. The service provider does not expeditiously remove or disable access to the material upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness of the infringing material.
In addition, if the service provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and if the service provider receives a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, the service provider
will not be protected by Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If the service provider satisfies the above requirements of the DMCA and receives a proper notice of infringing material, the service provider must
expeditiously remove or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
I am a millionaire and do not claim to be bankrupt. Your opinion is not necessary or relevent to my request that you remove the URL.
Thank you,
Indiana Gregg
from bkp
to Indy
date Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM
subject Re: Response From a Pirate Torrent Site - Something has to be done now ! ......Re: TPB: Legal threats
Oh my, this is such a treat. You keep on surprising me with more and more displays of stupidity.
Let's go back to the basics.
1) TPB follows Swedish law, the country where we live
2) DMCA is an american law
3) Sweden is not a part of the United States
4) TPB has no connection to United States and hence does not follow US law
Is that understood? Ok, great.
1) You say to us that we must remove a link, although it's legal and we have a purpose of letting people link stuff, because it's what we like
2) You say it's "incomprehensible" when we refuse to follow orders from someone not relevant to us nor our users
3) You say our opinion is not necessary nor relevant and we must do what you say? What kind of fascist are you?
If someone you met on the streets told you to stop wearing brown because their father tries to patent the color, would you do it? You would of course laugh. Just as we're laughing at you (not with you).
Also, very happy for you that you're a millionaire. In an earlier e-mail you said you're close to bankruptcy because of us, so I foolishly believed ya. But glad you proved your lies yet again.
Btw, being the second biggest search engine in the world is good enough for us. We don't need to be higher ranked than Mininova on alexa (although we actually have more visitors than they have). We're glad to be the seriously
biggest file sharing system in the world ever, that sites like Mininova can use in order to let people share. That's our goal and we reached it. And we're continuing to grow.
Peter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is too funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor point....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of being annoying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speaking of being annoying...
BTW, at least WalMart (not sure about Sam's Club) is also online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
And sure there are plenty of Wal-marts in the world, so fricken what! If you're in K-Mart, or a Best Buy, or a Circuit City, and the only way to buy the CD you want is to leave the store you are already in and drive somewhere else, that necessarily is inconvenient by any standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
I just wanted to point out that while you could order AC/DC's new CD from Walmart and wait inconveniently a week or so to receive it, you cannot download that CD or any other AC/DC music from Walmart's website.
Once again, AC/DC wants to make it inconvenient by forcing you to buy the entire CD instead of buying just the songs you want. Somehow the Beatles, Zeppelin, the Stones, and the Who all survived the 45 single, but I guess that's another matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
Oh my God, I have to wait a few days! This is just plain un-American! I want it NOW (goes into corner throwing hissy fit and sucking thumb to express moral outrage)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of being annoying...
And btw, if you like waiting for days for absolutely no reason when you buy something, that's fine. The rest of the world happens to disagree. That's why iTunes is now the number one music retailer in the US and inconvenient Walmart is number 2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
indie artists have it hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone goes to a man standing on the corner and asks where to buy crack and the guy says "I think that guy over there is selling it", That guy does not break the law, the guy that goes over and commits the crime does.
The Pirate Bay is that guy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are not breaking any laws, but trying to explain this to a bunch of retards is like talking to a brick wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe a more accurate representation would be to say "Pirate Bay is the guy standing on the corner wearing a sign announcing that he can direct you to places worldwide where you can buy illegal drugs. He then hands you a slip of paper called a torrent that gets you in contact with the dealers."
Sorry, but what these people are doing is anything but noble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But my point was the guy on the street corner, consistent with Pirate Bay, can respectfully point out to the authorities that he is law abiding because he is not selling illegal drugs. That is something going on between the "sellers" (an uploader) and the "buyers" (a downloader) he has helped to put in contact with each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy strained to breaking point
Some random Anonymous Coward allegedly opined:
Except, what sign is The Pirate Bay wearing? They're not wearing any sign. You have to go up to them and ask, like the OP you're responding to said. Otherwise they don't tell you anything.
Moral: if you're going to try to shore up an argument with an analogy, it helps if the analogy makes at least some kind of sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy strained to breaking point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wanna battle one of us,
Is ending up in God's palace
Back off deadly like black coffee,
Long as I got lungs
And a knot you can't stop me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*SHE* and her producer, even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sexy Artist Promotion outside of RIAA
It's fun!
So sometimes I wonder about what is absent today to prevent good music from being sold. How does the music business differ between 1990s and today? I find myself wondering what essential pieces were in place then to make good music.
Let me repeat myself because I believe this is important: I wonder what caused good music to be in such abundance that musicians felt free to create, improve, and even had resources to remix. Back then, the labels supported all these efforts with a smile.
During these days, the RIAA didn't pursue individuals, but rather, companies that made devices that threatened the production of shiny discs- The Diamond Rio, for instance.
I wonder about that magical piece that is missing today. What is it? Whatever it is, it also seems to have an incredible ability to prevent artists from being discovered, produced, and the ability to improve on their work.
I wonder how or even IF the music of even a decade ago will somehow be available again. I personally missed whatever caused and created those days.
What's necessary for the industry sway from short term profits prescribed by the happy paid bean-counters and consultative resources and to focus the industry back to innovation?
It isn't the labels. Remember Steve Jobs had to negotiate with each label, NOT with the RIAA.
Lawyers are talking, and the artists who are being used as pawns in lawsuits, and seem to be doing so for short term gains. What's missing? Sure enough, seasons change.
Is it that time again, and who is fighting for what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Business Model
I've got the solution, and it's really cheap: Release. GOOD. Music. That'll get people excited about music again.
Then, you can forget all about who's downloading what, and make beaucoup bucks from concerts, T-shirts, TV and magazine spots, etc.
Bungholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a viral add campaign,if not for this none of us or anybody outside of Indiana would have ever even heard this name!!!!
happily for her she is already a millionaire! The music part is just a joke. This crap would not make anyone money no matter what the business model!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Experiences
There is no way to eliminate this happening before the fact, but because they know it could (and does happen) they can after the fact remove (links to) that protected content - assuming they were notified with request for removal.
Google can't separate from the process. TPB can simply because their law allows it. Although be it a moral standard or for simple respect of the content owner, they probably should remove links to protected content where there is a request for removal.
However if TPB did, they would certainly be adversely affected by loss of income generated by advertising related to search results for that protected content. So, it is simply a business (read: $$) matter. If it's legal there, and they can make $$ doing it, then it is foolish not to.
==
The solution - I believe - is to focus on experiences the individual user cannot achieve on their own and legally allow the rest.
For music / music video, allow the free download as a method to build desire in the user to expand on that experience. Then focus attention on personal appearances, concerts, etc. for which there would be $$ charged.
The target audience is not the casual user who may never be interested in anything more than listening to music - with no specific emotional attachment to any content; it's the fan that wants to support their favorite artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When that "official" CD/DVD with the lots of extra goodies is made available for download via P2P, then entice fans to secure an honest-to-goodness "second official" CD/DVD containing even more goodies.
After the "second official" makes the P2P rounds, roll out an honest-to-goodness "third official" CD/DVD.
Etc., etc.
Ok, then, let's try selling scarcities that cannot be pilfered. Let's sell cool t-shirts with real live autographs. Of course, we can only sell a limited number since band members can sign just so many before their hands go numb, which would interfere with guitar strumming. The rest of the sales would be shirts with copies of the authographs, though, of course, they will have to be priced competitively with the knock-offs that will immediately appear on eBay.
Well, then let's go tour and make our bucks giving live performances. Try to copy that P2Pers. Of course, we will have to leave home for several months living in motels/hotels/RVs and eating pizzas, not to mention hauling all our stuff and support staff around for each performance. Oh no...someone has a bunch of video cams and is trying to make a video of the performance. Of course, they will remix it for upload to YouTube, so we can become even more popular and sell even more t-shirts, "official" CDs/DVDs, tickets to live performances, etc.
Hmmm...we see where this is headed. Maybe it is time we all got real jobs working from 9 to 5 in cubicles, just like our fans.
Thank you P2Pers. You have helped us see the error of our ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"we can only sell a limited number since band members can sign just so many before their hands go numb, which would interfere with guitar strumming"
MMMUUUUHHHHAHHHHAHHHHHHAHHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shut up p#$sy!!! You must be in an EMO band!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this to suggest that mail-order businesses need to adopt new business models? Ebay has "Buy it now". Perhaps it should add a button for "Want it now".
Seriously, is time so precious that any delay is unacceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering how much the current law has been paid for by large copyright holders, you'll get little sympathy from me when people start taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA: Fuck You! Boycott to oblivion
Theives: Fuck you too!
Garth Brooks, Metallica, AC/DC etc: FUCK YOU TOO!
TBP! Weather if even I want to see you keep fighting, FUCK YOU TOO, You are wrong! Your the guy on the corner with a sign over your neck stating that you know where to find anything legal or not, with no care, and makes tons of money from ads for what you do, legal and other! FUCK YOU ALSO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
fuck you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE : by Anonymous Coward - Aug 31st, 2008 @ 10:13pm
If you wanted to write your name you should have looked at the form, F'k'Tard!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add value?
2. Criticizing the artist that stands up for themselves - what point does that make?
3. Trent Resnor is not a good example of artist adding value - only because he's already stinking rich and he already has a massive and loyal fan base that were built up using the very model that you so obviously state is broken...what does he have to lose exactly?
4. You seem to be an expert at this...so, I'm wondering why you haven't built out this incredibly profitable business model for musicians that adds value to the consumer and earns a living for the artists? Surely you could be making a little money on the side for your troubles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Add value?
2. Criticizing the artist that stands up for themselves - what point does that make?
They are in Sweden, you must be in the US. They have been tried and found that what they do is legal in their country. Law firms from the US constantly send them DMCA notices which are not recognized in their land. Why should they behave according to another nations laws ? Do we uphold laws of other nations ? If so we'd probably have to chop off one of your hands for something you did.
Criticizing them points out the weaknesses in their business model. If you read these letters, they are not "please take down my content" letters. They are sharply worded, exclaiming blasphemous "consequences". Especially when what they do has been deemed legal in their nation. They are not to be taken seriously. The law firms should be punished for even sending them to another country (which they had to know citing the address in the letter and on the envelope). These people have no right to demand payment or compliance of TPB. It is a weakness in the law, but how do you think China views our copyright law ? How many other countries will this be a weakness in ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Add value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Add value?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Add value?
It would help before making statements such as:
"They are in Sweden, you must be in the US. They have been tried and found that what they do is legal in their country."
Insofar as I am aware, Swedish civil courts have not jumped on the bandwagon that what TPB is doing in Sweden is legal under Swedish law, and it seems those tasked with the enforcement of Swedish criminal law have likewise not jumped on the bandwagon. For people who say "we are doing nothing wrong here in our home country", I do have to wonder why they found it necessary to "move" servers to various foreign locations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Add value?
As stated, there are many countries that do not see IP laws the way America does. It was a smart move for them, especially if they anticipate their laws being tampered with by lobbyists. Think Russia has any interest in enforcing our copyright laws ? China ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Add value?
they were raided by the swedish police two years ago and were back online in less than 3 days. the police shut them down (swedish criminal law was on the bandwagon thanks to pressure from the US) and couldn't make a case against them. people try to shut them down and fail because they are not doing anything wrong there in sweden.
For people who say "we are doing nothing wrong here in our home country", I do have to wonder why they found it necessary to "move" servers to various foreign locations.
they have backup servers elsewhere sure, but so does just about every large website. they are still based in sweden. the announcement that they moved to egypt was an april fool's day joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Add value?
"And I'm not sure why someone should be criticized for trying to defend their rights under the law if they so choose?"
Three reasons. First of all, it's the practices of the music industry over the preceding 50 years that led to people wishing to do this in the first place. Why should we feel sorry for them now that the customers they've been colluding against for the last half a century (e.g. price fixing, payola) are turning against them?
Secondly, there is no "paying customer" vs "pirate" as the industry likes to pretend. Both of these groups are the same people - when they try to prosecute the "pirates", they're actually prosecuting their own customers, then wondering why sales are dropping...
Thirdly, go back 10 years ago, maybe more. People were warning that the Internet would change everything, that digital distribution would become the norm and that the inherent value of a CD would drop. They chose to not only ignore this advice but attack those who would make it happen, first by suing Diamond, then trying to force DRM. They wouldn't be in this position if they had listened to what their customers actually wanted all that time ago.
2. It's only if they do it in the wrong way. Time and time again, examples are given of artists who get their work noticed, appreciated *and paid for* without resorting to the courts, DRM or other tactics. It's only that they use these tactics that they are criticised.
3. I don't see why he's not a good example - Reznor still has a lot to lose as he can't exactly return to the old model now without losing a lot of credibility. Even if you choose to ignore him, what about Girl Talk, Saul Williams, Harvey Danger, Jill Sobule and other not-rich people who are using innovative new models. Not to mention the literally thousands of bands who now promote themselves through free tracks?
4. Mike tends to point out the economic and technological realities of modern industry, including the music industry. He's presumably too busy running his own (apparently quite successful) business to go into another just to prove a point. If the music industry comes up a lot in these threads, it's only because they're usually the ones making the biggest (and most obvious) mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest this writer for writing blatant lies
And what an incredibly inaccurate article it is. Purposefully so I'm sure. Her letter is not rambling nor did she warn the police were coming from anyone.
Not only did you purposefully misquote her you completely misrepresented her. You tried to make it sound like she's some nut job writing wacky letters when in actuality she's an articulate, intelligent woman that just happens to disagree with you.
Did you honestly think that we would read your article and then her letter and agree with you? Or did you assume no one would bother to read her letter so would accept your total bullshit?
We should never stand for people trying to convince us of something when they are clearly lying, like the guy that wrote this article, even when they are telling us things we want to hear. Otherwise we're no better than the religious nut jobs believing in invisible fairies in the sky.
The media is out of control and assholes like this that purposefully write false stories need to be fired and never allowed to work again.
Do you want truth in reporting or do you just want to hear what you want to hear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrest this writer for writing blatant lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arrest this writer for writing blatant lies
It's filled with inaccuracies, such as her dismissal of the fact that file-sharing helps promote artists. Apparently she seems to think that the only promotion that matters is the one authorized by the artist.
She also apparently doesn't understand the differences between tangible and intangible goods, since she compares paying for music to paying for petrol or bread.
She complains that "musicians will not be able to exist financially in order to create music if income streams are cut off", which is true, but she seems to believe that directly selling the music is the only income stream. She even acknowledges that there are other ways, before dismissing them out of hand.
Honestly, her little ramble comes across as someone complaining about something she doesn't really understand, and that we should protect the status quo because that's they only way she knows how to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arrest this writer for writing blatant lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Each of these countries have copyrights laws in force, but their enforcement has been spotty. I expect this will begin to change under pressure from the US and the EU that is being exerted via international treaty negotiations.
As for TPB's server locations, their location outside of Sweden is not particularly relevant (if at all) to criminal charges dealing with contributory copyright infringement. The four principals of TPB have been doing publicly a good job deriding the system and proclaiming their innocence, but I daresay that even their lawyers recognize that they face an uphill battle trying to convince a Swedish court of their innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No offence to anyone else here, but that's a pretty typical American attitude. You cannot go around forcing other countries to work in your way, even if you think you're protecting your profits. This has been the big issue with allofmp3 and their ilk - they *were* totally legal under Russian law. The US tried strong-arming them but they've had little real effect on Russian law (allofmp3's eventual downfall was Visa and Mastercard refusing transactions, nothing to do with Russian authorities). Of course, all this really did was cut off a route for people to buy music, and the market lessons that should have been learned (people want cheap, DRM-free music in abundance with a wide choice of formats and titles) go unheeded.
The EU doesn't even have anything like total agreement over which of your laws we should be lining up with, and we're one of your major trade partners and allies. Why should China, Russia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, India, Iran or any other country do this? By the time this particular game of whack-a-mole is anything like finished, business that depend on the old school method of control will be long gone.
As for TPB's actions in moving their servers, maybe you should actually read up on the case a little more so you know what you're talking about. The servers were moved after their ISP was raided 2 years ago by a Swedish authority working under the direction of the MPAA/RIAA. There's still doubt (IIRC) about whether the seizures were legal under Swedish law, but TPB was compelled to relocate the servers in case the same thing was tried again. Which it hasn't, so far.
If it's taking this long to shut down the RIAA/MPAA's main antagonist and so-called "threat", how can it take on the rest of the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sony BMG...partnership between Sony and Bertelsmann (sp?), the former controlled out of Japan and the latter out of Germany.
EMI...British all the way.
Universal Music Group...owned by Vivendi, a French conglomorate.
Warner Music...Finally, one from the US.
These are the "Big Four" in the music industry, 3/5ths of which are controlled by companies in the EU, 1/5th from Japan, and 1/5th from the US.
If you take the time to study the development of US copyright law you will quickly come to realize that many of its features (extending copyright from 28+28 to much longer terms...removal of need to use copyright notice...etc.) were implemented to conform US law with European law embraced in longstanding treaties such as the Berne Convention. For example, the Berne Convention has been around a long time, but the US resisted signing on (for about 103 years) because a basic premise of US copyright law was the need for copyright claimants to observe certain strict formalities.
Think what you will, but much of what comprises US copyright law results not only from domestic influences, but also from foreign influences. Good, bad or indifferent, copyright law is coalescing towards a body of law that in large measure reflects the construct of current US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is also increasing resistance to corporation lobbyists as you have in the US, as well as pressure to avoid certain laws being passed to match US law (look at the massive resistance recent proposals to extend performance rights have faced). The basis of EU law is indeed the Berne convention, but the additions you keep making do not have to apply, and are fiercely opposed.
Meanwhile, as we keep repeating, those non-"big four" labels who actually innovate in order to compete are *growing* their businesses while this goes on. Why do you think that acts like Madonna are jumping the RIAA ship in search of greener pastures? It's not because "pirates" are stealing their music. Trent Reznor didn't need to fix copyright laws in order to make millions from his most recent albums. Why do you think the only way to "save" the music industry is to fix copyright law to your pitiful standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sony BMG...partnership between Sony and Bertelsmann (sp?), the former controlled out of Japan and the latter out of Germany.
Headquartered in NY. Oops.
EMI...British all the way.
Yes, this one you got right.
Universal Music Group...owned by Vivendi, a French conglomorate.
Headquartered in both Santa Monica and NY. Oops.
Warner Music...Finally, one from the US.
Also correct.
These are the "Big Four" in the music industry, 3/5ths of which are controlled by companies in the EU, 1/5th from Japan, and 1/5th from the US.
So, actually, we're talking 3/4 American. But nice try.
If you take the time to study the development of US copyright law you will quickly come to realize that many of its features (extending copyright from 28+28 to much longer terms...removal of need to use copyright notice...etc.) were implemented to conform US law with European law embraced in longstanding treaties such as the Berne Convention.
Actually, if you take the time to study how that came about, you'll learn that there was tremendous pressure, often from US interests that pushed other countries to change their copyright terms, after which US lobbyists ran to US politicians explaining how we had to "conform" to international standards.
It's how the game is played, but to claim that US lobbyists had no part in it is incorrect.
Think what you will, but much of what comprises US copyright law results not only from domestic influences, but also from foreign influences
Many of whom were actually influenced by US companies.
Be fair...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Intel has subsidiaries throughout the world, but is there any doubt true control rests within Silicon Valley? The converse is equally true when it comes to foreign corporations. Sony has Sony USA, but I am sure the execs in Japan have a bit more control than you appear prepared to concede. The entertainment industry is no different than any other industry that operates on a global scale.
Re how the "law" has come about, perhaps you should read what I said, and not what you think I said. US law reflects both domestic and international influences. DC does not call the shots internationally to the extent you would have many of your readers believe. The truth be told, and rightly or wrongly, global corporate interests are the ones trying to drive the general harmonization of IP law globally...both directly and indirectly via industry association proxies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, showing you have little knowledge of how these companies function. The operations in question have ALWAYS been centered in the US, with US management and control.
Yes, they were bought by foreign companies eventually, but have always been treated with a complete handsoff by their corporate owners.
To claim that Sony BMG or Universal Music are not American companies is to suggest you know nothing of either company.
Intel has subsidiaries throughout the world, but is there any doubt true control rests within Silicon Valley?
Can you name a foreign "subsidiary" of Intel that was a separate company until Intel bought it, that wasn't merged into the rest of its operations, and which retained its foreign mgmt and allowed them to run as an entirely independent company?
So now do you understand why they're different?
The converse is equally true when it comes to foreign corporations. Sony has Sony USA, but I am sure the execs in Japan have a bit more control than you appear prepared to concede. The entertainment industry is no different than any other industry that operates on a global scale.
If you had any experience with either SonyBMG or Universal Music, you would know that both are thoroughly American companies.
Re how the "law" has come about, perhaps you should read what I said, and not what you think I said. US law reflects both domestic and international influences. DC does not call the shots internationally to the extent you would have many of your readers believe. The truth be told, and rightly or wrongly, global corporate interests are the ones trying to drive the general harmonization of IP law globally...both directly and indirectly via industry association proxies.
Again with twisting what you said and pretending you said something different when someone actually calls you on this stuff. You're amazing.
You clearly made it sound as though the US was simply catching up to other countries with copyright law, but left out the part where it was US industry interests that created that gap in copyright law in the first place.
Don't try to rewrite history when the thread shows exactly what you said.
Btw, why is it that whenever people finally call you on your more questionable comments you resort to anonymous comments? I find that curious. If you lost your cookie, it's not so difficult to type in your established username and save the cookie again. Or do you hope that as an anonymous commenter people will be less likely to point out your obvious mistakes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I find even more amazing is your seeming inability or unwilligness to actually read what people say and comment accordingly. Importantly, I know I am not being singled out. You react in the identical manner towards anyone who says something with which you happen to disagree.
"In youth we learn; in age we understand."
Marie Ebner von Eschenbach
I encourage you to keep learning. After a while it should start to make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I find even more amazing is your seeming inability or unwilligness to actually read what people say and comment accordingly. Importantly, I know I am not being singled out. You react in the identical manner towards anyone who says something with which you happen to disagree.
Oh please. I react to lame arguments the same way because they are lame. Of course I'm not singling you out. What makes you think you're so special that I would single you out? And, no, I'm not unwilling to read what you wrote. As I said, it's right there for anyone else to read.
I pointed out that you were wrong in your attempts to prove that the US-based recording industry isn't really based in the US, and that the copyright laws in question were often driven by foreign interests by showing that's simply untrue for the most part. Do you have something to actually counter to show that your original statements were correct, or are you going to continue to refuse to actually respond to the claims, and instead, resort to weak attempts at insults?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright Act of 1909
Copyright Act of 1976
Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
GATT
Berne Convention
TRIPS
The above is a laundry list of copyright-related laws and treaties that have given rise to the copyright law currently on the US books. Obviously, there are continuing international negotiations that when completed will obviously result in further structual changes.
It is appropriate to note that the Statute of Anne had a profound influence on the creation and substance of the Copyright Act of 1790. It, together with the international treaties noted above, I submit demonstrate that US law has and will continue to be influenced by other nations, just like US law will have a reciprocal effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A quick example
I'm a big fan of the progressive house artist Sasha, as well as the label he's signed to, Global Underground. However, I've not bought much of their stuff recently as frequent travelling means that CDs are inconvenient, since I use Linux and despise DRM then iTunes isn't a real option, and being in Europe I'm not allowed to use Amazon or Play for downloads. Idiots.
Anyway, I got notice of a pre-order offer on Sasha's new album, including an extra disc and the chance to receive a signed copy. It was much more expensive then normal (about 4-5 times what I'd pay on eMusic if it was available there), but I though, hey I'm a fan I might as well...
Today, I get an email saying that the album's exclusively available for a short time through f***ing iTunes. That's right, people who want to buy the album through Apple can get it before it's even dispatched to me...
Now, there's a loophole here. The album's already on several BitTorrent sites. I can download a copy, and listen while I'm waiting for my copy (which I've already paid for) to be dispatched. But, according to some idiots here, that would make me a "thief".
This is the idiocy we're dealing with in this industry. If I choose to download the album and not pay a penny, I can have it now, no questions asked. Because I've decided to pay for it, I'm getting screwed. The *paying fans* are being screwed here. Guess how likely I am to preorder the next album from this label? It's unlikely. Yet, it'll be "piracy" that's blamed if the next album tanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Editing
>new ideas. Her and her producer (who's also her husband)
>are apparently planning...
Just because one is writing on the web doesn't mean that the rules of the English language get flushed down the loo like the results of last night's bout of heavy drinking.
Correct: She and her producer...
Incorrect: Her and her producer...
It makes me weep to see a once proud language manhandled in that manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing you can do
It's sad when people contribute theirs life for theirs works but founded that theirs income is 'pirated' but this is digital era where they need to find other solutions.
As I am living in Indonesia, and have limited income, I can't buy original product from the west. Simply one copy of a product could take all my one month salary. So I'm helped by TPB's existance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprising, astonishing, and ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: surprising, astonishing, and ridiculous
Nor did it claim to be. We are an analysis site, not a journalistic one.
Blatant lies are truly 200% more annoying.
Please point out a single factually incorrect statement we made.
Otherwise, the only one lying would appear to be you.
For the record, we were merely pointing out that her attempt, while it may be admirable that she's trying something, shows that she still does not understand the market that she is facing. That's not a "lie," it's a statement based on our understanding of the market. I'm sorry that you dislike our opinion, but that doesn't make it a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from what I've read, I've found nothing of the sort.
from this line: "- and it seems a bit extreme to claim, as Gregg has, that this is a way to "beat piracy."
there is no quote from gregg about 'beating piracy'
also this line:
"- and treating consumers as criminals tends to backfire in a big way -- "
How would she be treating 'consumers' as criminals when the issue is concerning "piracy"?
this is severely a ridiculous article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
from what I've read, I've found nothing of the sort.
Then you need to read again. Gregg most clearly stated (and I quote):
"With the likes of Microsoft, Prince, and the IFPI going after you, any outsider might begin to wonder when YOU plan to adapt to ‘change’. It’s becoming evident that your business model is a sinking ship. Pretty soon, your users will be slapped with fines and more big companies will be slapping on lawsuits. Why not just sink your ship yourselves..eh? That’s really what you’re doing.. Your resistance to ‘change’ is in complete conflict with your very survival… Oh the irony."
That certainly fits exactly with what I said: "claiming that its the users, not the musicians, who need to change how they deal with music."
And then there's this:
"Free promotion? Basically, torrents are promoting music that has ‘already been promoted’, so it’s not ‘free promotion’."
Which absolutely is "basically dismissing out of hand any new business model that turns any kind of "piracy" into an advantage"
So what was false about what I said?
Ah, right. Nothing.
from this line: "- and it seems a bit extreme to claim, as Gregg has, that this is a way to "beat piracy."
there is no quote from gregg about 'beating piracy'
The headline of the article in question:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7586502.stm
"Musician bids to beat net pirates."
And again, my post was truthful. Your response, on the other hand...
How would she be treating 'consumers' as criminals when the issue is concerning "piracy"?
How is my opinion (that treating consumers as criminals tends to backfire) a false statement? How can an opinion be a "blatant lie" as you called it?
Again, you have failed to show any "blatant lies" on my part.
As for treating consumers as criminals and its relationship to piracy, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, unless you seem to think that pirates aren't in a musicians marketplace as well. If you don't think that, then you are severely in trouble.
this is severely a ridiculous article.
Well, so far you accused me of blatant lies, but could not name a single one. So, the only ridiculousness seems to be pointing in your direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the second phrase:
"Free promotion? Basically, torrents are promoting music that has ‘already been promoted’, so it’s not ‘free promotion’."
She is not dismissing the model, she seems to be rather clearly pointing out that the main music being downloaded is copyright material that has already been promoted, otherwise, nobody would've heard about it and therefore, nobody would have downloaded it. This is how I believe it works. More media and promotion results in more pirated music.
As far as the BBC headline:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7586502.stm
"Musician bids to beat net pirates."
There is no reference to that being either a claim or a statement from Gregg and I found that she had even clarified it herself in her myspace blog.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=41311907&blogID=42872284 6
It is one thing to 'infer'; however, blatantly lying (as other's have found in these comments) only reduces your credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]