Counting Crows Distributes Songs And More Via BitTorrent

from the good-for-them dept

Mon, May 14th 2012 12:55pm — Mike Masnick

Five years ago, we wrote about a fascinating writeup by the keyboard player for the band The Counting Crows, in which he discussed his views on piracy and the music industry. While we didn't fully agree with what he was saying, his viewpoint was definitely worth reading. He was worried about the industry collapsing, but at the same time admitted that the band really made their money on live shows anyway, so getting more music out to the world helped increase ticket sales. He was a proponent of DRM however, and blamed the industry for putting out CDs that had no DRM as being part of the downfall of music sales, and later claimed that it was a three way struggle between the music industry, the tech industry and consumers over how the music industry of the future would be shaped. Of course, that seemed a little extreme to us. You can craft solutions that really benefit everyone, by using the technology to provide a better solution for consumers that makes them more willing to pay the artists.

And, in fact, it appears that The Counting Crows may be coming around to that view themselves. The band -- no longer signed to a major label -- released an album a few weeks ago, but also quickly followed it up by releasing a bunch of songs, liner notes and artwork for free via BitTorrent which you can find here. The band's manager, Aaron Ray, seems to recognize the importance of using free to connect with a larger audience. According to Dave Thier's article at Forbes:

For him, The Counting Crows is an ideal band for this project — they have massive name recognition and a well-known live show, but they aren’t seen as relevant in 2012. The deal gives old fans a low-barrier way to reconnect with the music, and BitTorrent’s massive install base pushes them farther into markets where record labels have little to no penetration, like Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.

“The recorded music business is shrinking like crazy,” Ray says. “Recorded music is basically free – why are we beating around the bush? Counting Crows came off their label and embraced this new theology. It’s the best way. BitTorrent has the most installs, people come there for a reason. We need to be where the people are.”

What's unclear from the article is if they're also using the free promotion to drive people to buy other things (the album, live tickets, merch, etc.). It's always great to see bands embracing what the tech enables, but I definitely would like to see it paired closely with smart business models, rather than just "give it away and pray" that it helps the existing business model.

Still, in the meantime, we're being told across the globe that the only purpose for BitTorrent is "piracy," even as we see more and more artists using it to their advantage. That seems like a pretty big disconnect.

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: counting crows, drm, free

213 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 1:01pm

The RIAA will sue everyone that shares the songs later anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2012 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re:
  maybe it's not up to the RIAA...
  
  http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/artists-know-thy-enemy/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 1:07pm

What the RIAA want is not necessarily what their clients want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  Yep, some musicians are comfortable living on 80-100k a year.
  
  The members of the RIAA would never stoop to such levels of peasant-related income.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hurricane head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    it's great when an artist gets to make that decision and that CHOICE for themselves, what's not great is when that choice is taken away from the artist without consent or compensation so that a company or corporation like google/the pirate bay etc can make all of the money and pay the artist nothing.
    
    I'm pro-choice. I don't know why you guys want to take both choices and earning away from artists against their will. That's the issue.
    
    Everyone should be working towards a FAIR and ETHICAL INTERNET instead of an EXPLOITATION ECONOMY that only benefits the 1% of the 1%...
    
    If the internet is working out so well for musicians, why are there LESS musicians working professionally? "t-shirts and touring" is an ADMISSION that there is no money for musicians online and takes artists BACKWARDS at least 50 years... and you think that's progress? Really?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because we aren't. Exploiters come in all shapes and sizes, such as indentured servitude to EMI, or Universal or Sony. A choice is taken away each time someone signs their rights away in order to "get a chance" at fame.
      
      Before we can have a FAIR and ETHICAL INTERNET, perhaps we should ahve a FAIR and ETHICAL WORLD.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So your solution to one injustice (record labels) is to happily promote an even GREATER injustice in piracy?
        
        wow, yeah, that makes sense... Too Funny the lengths you'll go to, to rationalize illegal and unethical behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Greater? Ah yes, search engines are a greater injustice then the ones that literally STEAL the ACTUAL profits and rights of the musicians, the labels.
        
        I guess we know who you work for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I work for ME. Which of the corporations and companies illegally exploiting artists do you work for?
        
        Why is the solution to one Injustice (record labels) met with promoting an even larger injustice (piracy) that does MORE harm to artists?
        
        Why do you get to take MY CHOICE away from me? That's not very OPEN is it? OPEN to illegal exploitation maybe, but that's about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hahahaha, if it isn't our resident shill. I thought I smelled you here.
        Don't look now asshole, but your insanity is showing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I work for ME"
        
        Oh, so you just do some shill freelancing for the Labels then.
        Self-employment is nice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hurricane head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        why are you so afraid of an independent artist who does not want their choice taken away from them? Why do you hate musicians? Why do you hate me?
        
        I have no love of labels or the RIAA they're all clowns. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to take my work and my labor without my consent and no offer of compensation.
        
        why are you so scarred of one independent artist having having a voice for a Fair and Ethical internet? Why do you believe companies and corporations have the right to rip off artists without consent or compensation and take my CHOICE away from me? I am not the RIAA, I am not signed to a label, you should be celebrating MY CHOICES but instead you are demonizing me because I don't think you should have the right to illegally exploit my work?
        
        Is that what techdirt is all about? A cyber-bully shout down of artists? Wow, that's way to win hearts and minds, make people who largely agree with you the enemy because they don't agree with you 100%!
        
        fascinating captain, good luck with your artists hating ways... wasn't there a gear sluts post about that... looks like it was right on, too bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @ eejit - yes, yes you are an exploiter if you support the artist choice being taken away from them without consent or compensation to profit businesses like the pirate bay and google (to name a few).
        
        truth hurts, sorry.
        
        http://popuppirates.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 4:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And what if I buy the album after finding it on TPB? What if I buy it after finding it through Google?
        
        The world is never as black-and-white as you claim it to be.
        
        And as for exploitation without proper compensation, there are documented instances of the major labels deliberately trying to cripple artists; there are documented examples of actors being scammed out of their contracted residuals; there have been successful lawsuits over unpaid royalties; the collection societies have been proven to employ embezzlers, fraudsters and conmen.
        
        So my argument is; who's exploiting who?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So labels exploit artists as an injustice, and the solution to that exploitation is an even GREATER injustice in piracy that pays the artists NOTHING!
        
        yes, there have been successful lawsuits over royalties because the bands actually had CONTRACTS with the labels to dispute with an audit clause.
        
        Where are the contracts with the pirate bay for artists to dispute? Why does the pirate bay get to keep 100% of the money and pay the artists 0% of the money?
        
        ripping off artists is the oldest business there is, but you support ripping off artists COMPLETELY as some kind of innovation? It's not innovation, it's EXPLOITATION.
        
        You are feeding the exploitation economy by illegally exploiting an artists labor without consent or compensation.
        
        so YOU and the institutions and companies you support are exploiting artists WORSE than the labels you rail against... Hypocrite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DS, 15 May 2012 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "profit businesses like ... google"
        
        You're still going with this myth?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no myth heathcliff... anti-trust what? buckle up... skippy...
        
        http://popuppirates.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        harbingerofdoom (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the problem isnt a fear of independant artists. as far as the artests themselves go, i really could not care less how they decide to market their wares. its their decision not mine.
        the actual problem is that in agencies such as RIAA and MPAA stating that they are in fact working towards ensuring their members are getting paid, they are in fact not working towards that end at all. what they ARE doing is trying to use legislative means to enforce their old school way of doing things on everyone else.
        They could have very easily adapted to the internet a LONG time ago and the problems they are having now would be minor... still present to be sure, but nowhere near to the level it is now. but they did not. they are attempting to get poorly worded and vague legislation passed which has seriously negative ramifications on the rest of the world.
        so, you can sit there all day long and croon about freedom of choice, but these organizations have proven time and time again, they are not worried about artists in any way shape or form. they are worried about two things: money and control. thats it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hurricane head, 14 May 2012 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        dood - one more time - I do not care about the RIAA, or record labels, and more importantly anyone ripping me off.
        
        All you can do is come up with decade old talking points about idiots at the RIAA... that's not helping ME.
        
        How about you address ME and not the RIAA and not record labels?
        
        You are talking about ancient history, there are now TONS of legal ways to consumer music, Itunes, Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, Spotify, etc. You are stuck in the past, get over it already. There's not excuse to illegally exploit MY WORK and doing so has NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the whackjobs at the RIAA. NOTHING.
        
        So again... your answer to one injustice (labels/RIAA) is to promote an even greater injustice in piracy, allowing people to PROFIT from the illegal exploitation of MY work?!?!
        
        here - the irony is so thick you can choke on it... guess how much of this money get's shared with artists ZERO! as in NONE... just some scumbags stealing from my work... and you think that's ok? That it's OK to Exploit Artists for Profit... nice one...
        http://popuppirates.com/?p=1810
        
        if you want to talk about an old business without any innovation, it's called ripping off artists, are you happy to be a part of that club?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shadeyone, 14 May 2012 @ 7:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just curious, how much of your music is played on the radio? I ask because before this gee whiz technology we like to call the internet, how else would you have been heard, would you have had the chance to be an artist back then?
        
        I'm actually wondering, because yes, while some folks are taking your music for free, how many are finding out about you because of that? How many new people are discovering your music because of programs like Spotify and the like? Guess what, if folks like your music, they will buy it, if they don't, then they'll download and maybe keep it.
        
        I'm sorry that folks are taking away from your lifestyle, but also remember that no one held a gun to your head and forced you to become this. If you want to play this game, you have to get into it and you take chances, just like everyone else. I can't think of any job market where you are guaranteed success, you have to work and earn it.
        
        If you are, then the best of luck to you. If not, then figure out why you aren't doing well and get with the program. The only things guaranteed in this life are death and taxes, I don't remember your or my success in life being one of those.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 9:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no, your just removing my ability to make a living by supporting unethical and illegally exploitative practices.
        
        you are supporting an exploitation economy rather than a fair and ethical internet.
        
        why is it ok to you to rip off artists worse than the labels you criticize? that makes you worse than the labels... nice hypocrisy there...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "no, your just removing my ability to make a living by supporting unethical and illegally exploitative practices."
        
        There is nothing unethical or exploitative about infringement. Calling it that doesn't make it so. Yes, it maybe illegal, but that doesn't make it morally wrong. No one is forcing you to produce and release your alleged music and if you don't like people copying your work you can always find another job. But no one is entitled to a monopoly privilege.
        
        However, calling infringement morally wrong is a lie, which makes you a liar and telling lies is wrong. IP does not exist to fulfill some moral obligation to IP holders, no such obligation exists, it exists only to serve a social benefit (ie: promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts). For you to say otherwise distorts the true intent of IP which only gives more reason to abolish these laws. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly. Making money is your responsibly alone, it's not my, or the governments, responsibility to help you make money by granting you and enforcing your copy protections. Don't like it, fine, get another job. I do not want you to have IP privileges.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 1:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LoL
        The only exploitative practices is the practice of monopoly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LoL... hahahah... like Google... hahahahaha... yeah, they're not a monopoly... oh, wait.. anti-trust what? bzzzt... try again...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "How about you address ME and not the RIAA and not record labels?"
        
        Ok, who are you and what have you done to make me want to pay for your music?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I released an album last year that charted in Billboard top 40, alot of people wanted it, a lot more wanted to (and did) exploit my work illegally for profit.
        
        I don't worry about you or demand for my work. There's plenty of demand. I'm still not the RIAA or a record label, and no one has the right to illegally exploit without consent or compensation.
        
        you're still stuck with rationalizations and decade old talking point, ripping off artists is an old business and one you seem to enjoy supporting. why do you hate artists so much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I released an album last year that charted in Billboard top 40, alot of people wanted it, a lot more wanted to (and did) exploit my work illegally for profit. "
        
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        well played... but I am the citation (or at least that's what you guys say when I keep asking you for one). nothing says you have to believe me, but then again I don't need to prove anything to you... you just keep going on, supporting a system that exploits artists illegally and for profit... you are stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant and you don't even know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I released an album last year that charted in Billboard top 40"
        
        I released an album that reached number one in 16 countries and could have afforded another 8 strippers to line my mansion's pool if only those dirty pirates hadn't downloaded it!
        
        Wait, that was a blatant lie. Yet, I've provided exactly the same evidence as you to support my claims. Hmmm...
        
        Either you're lying, or you're a self-admitted coward who can't even use a free forum to market your own work to recoup the sales you think you lost. Which is it? Sorry, but arguing from authority means jack shit if you can't prove your position of authority.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that cuts both ways doesn't it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 1:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What you call illegal was legal not so long ago, cease and desist with the authority falacy.
        
        I'm not paying you over and over and over again for the same crap, it is not happening, I am not paying you when I go take a dump and hear your "music" crap, I am not paying you if a rip 3 notes from your music an use it on my own, I am not paying you when I play "your" music.
        
        I would pay you if I was going to see you perform, I would pay you if I bought merch from you otherwise you have zero rights to demand payment and if you don't like it that is your problem, not mine.
        
        I also am not going to let you threaten the foundations of democracy trying to protect your own self interests that only serve yourself and it is not good for anybody else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, I knew you guys hated musicians, but I had no idea you actually hated them this much...
        
        ---
        "I'm not paying you over and over and over again for the same crap, it is not happening, I am not paying you when I go take a dump and hear your "music" crap, I am not paying you if a rip 3 notes from your music an use it on my own, I am not paying you when I play "your" music."
        ---
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >dood - one more time - I do not care about the RIAA, or record labels, and more importantly anyone ripping me off.
        
        For someone who doesn't "care about... anyone ripping me off" you're making a lot of noise. Either you're hypocritical, or you don't think we rip you off. Which is true, we don't. I, for one, have no idea who you are and have no reason to "rip you off" because I have no reason to be interested in whatever you produce.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love it how when you guys start to lose an argument you suddenly start posting as AC's yourself... classic. I don't care about your opinion, I care about your actions. You are the hypocrite if you think labels ripping off artists is not ok, but tech companies ripping off artists is ok?
        
        so tell me again AC, who get's to ripp off artists? is it everyone, but only labels and the RIAA are evil for doing so? or are you and the corporations also evil for ripping off bands WORSE than labels ever did?
        
        pick a lie and stick to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 11:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm still waiting for proof that piracy hurts you financially instead of promotes your work. The loss of a potential sale is not the same as the labels pocketing the bulk of the money for themselves and claiming that a smash hit best selling album makes no money at all. Can we at least be honest about that? Or do you have more lies and half-truths and ad hominems to spew at me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >I love it how when you guys start to lose an argument you suddenly start posting as AC's yourself... classic.
        
        I've always been posting under AC, regardless of the argument and regardless of whether you think I'm losing. I'm not sure what your point is aside from trying to point out that posting as an AC is the sign of losing an argument. So what does that make you who is posting as an AC?
        
        >I don't care about your opinion, I care about your actions. You are the hypocrite if you think labels ripping off artists is not ok, but tech companies ripping off artists is ok?
        
        You don't care about what I think but then go on to allude that if I think in a certain way, I'm a hypocrite? No, you're the one who needs to pick a lie and stick to it. You're all over the place here.
        
        >so tell me again AC, who get's to ripp off artists? is it everyone, but only labels and the RIAA are evil for doing so? or are you and the corporations also evil for ripping off bands WORSE than labels ever did?
        
        This was not mentioned at all in my original response. The only thing I've mentioned is that I, at least, have no intention of "ripping you off". Neither will I make myself an accessory to this, because I have no intent of obtaining access to whatever you produce, legally or otherwise.
        
        Who's a corporation? The Pirate Bay, whom if I'm not wrong is who you're trying to rail against, is not a corporation. Google at best provides directions to whoever asks for them. The labels and the RIAA not only rip off artists, but claim that it's perfectly legal behaviour and insist for heightened enforcement to continue doing so with no regard for artists' welfare.
        
        Now, that's evil.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        needs more indent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hurricane head, 15 May 2012 @ 8:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...fascinating captain, there's so much BS around here you need wings to stay above it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 1:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If by piracy you mean the free exposure and subsequent rise in sales that free music have on it yep, piracy is really bad, so bad that you surely can show some numbers?
        
        Oh that is right you can't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 16 May 2012 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why do you hate meeee?"
        
        Sheesh, you come off like such a whiny little girl.
        
        Why do you hate freedom, civil liberties and the American pie? Why do you hate that people are free to copy what they like? Why do you hate culture? Why do you hate sharing? Children are taught to share. Why do you hate children?
        
        Why are you so terrified of not making an easy buck that you are perfectly happy with sending people to jail or ruining them for life for doing something that comes so naturally to the human psyche, such as sharing culture with others?
        
        Why are you so intent in painting the opposition in the worst possible light, because you aren't able to figure out how to make money like the rest of us honest folks who work a regular day job?
        
        Why do you insist that you must be paid for some noises that you make on a piece of shiny plastic disc even if nobody likes it or if it's stupidly overpriced?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why are you so intent in painting the opposition in the worst possible light, because you aren't able to figure out how to make money like the rest of us honest folks who work a regular day job?"
        
        just because you are jealous and bitter doesn't give you the right to illegally exploit others rights... yeah, you are exactly the kind of person I want to see in charge the one so petty that they can not celebrate in the success of others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 11:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why is 'piracy' a greater injustice? How does it do more harm to artists? Do you have anything to back up your suppositions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        seriously? uh yeah... how about you show me the contracts and payments from the pirate bay to artists and we can compare the terms to those offered by labels...
        
        so yes, the pirate bay takes 100% of the artists money and pays the artist 0%... record labels pay advances, support in millions, and still pay the artists royalties based upon a negotiated contract.
        
        Pirate Bay = 100% of the Money
        Artists = 0% of the Money
        
        Yes, that is a greater injustice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We get that you're angry at The Pirate Bay, but claiming that whatever money artists don't make under labels has been given to The Pirate Bay, dollar for dollar, is a bloody stupid argument.
        
        For someone who claims that he couldn't care about labels, you certainly have a lot of passion in defending them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I care about being exploited and you need to know the truth. What you are doing in supporting the pirate bay and those like them, you are support an Exploitation Economy ripping off artists WORSE than the labels EVER did. EVER.
        
        I don't care about labels or the RIAA, I can about not being exploited. You are the new label. You are the new RIAA. You are the new exploiters of artists. You are stabbing the toes of sleeping giant and you don't even know it yet.
        
        Why do YOU want to support the illegal exploitation of artists that is WORSE than the labels? You are not a hero for supporting a bigger and WORSE system of ripping off artists.
        
        So how does it feel to be the one now exploiting artists? Does that make you feel good? Are you proud of yourself? Is that what you say to people to be "cool" about how you support the Exploitation Economy that ripps off artists illegally and for profit? Seriously?
        
        Wow... arrrg matey... you get to empower a system WORSE the the labels and the riaa... hypocrite...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 16 May 2012 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, you're aganist exploiting artists, but you're in FOR exploiting the general public in favor of the artists?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2012 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the public has a choice, the artists do not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 17 May 2012 @ 2:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They do have a choice, but it's a foolish choice that doesn't take into account the underlying realities of the situation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        man - I love it when you guys start censoring opposing points of view, what are you afraid of? Not very OPEN of you, but it is very SOPA of you... nice hypocrisy!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How many times do we need to point this out?
        
        Could you click on a blocked website under SOPA and view it normally?
        
        No? Then your analogy is stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if it's that easy why censor it in the first place? you censorship is stupid. either don't censor post, or don't claim to be anti-censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're the one ballsy enough to use a ridiculous analogy. No, make that multiple ridiculous analogies. Protecting you from looking like an idiot for doing so is not anyone's responsibility.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        than don't censor the comments... it's that simple... why do you get to decide what should and shouldn't be allowed? that not very OPEN of you...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "it's great when an artist gets to make that decision and that CHOICE for themselves, what's not great is when that choice is taken away from the artist without consent or compensation so that a company or corporation like..."
      
      See, a normal person would add the companies that exploit the most artist, you know, the RIAA companies.
      But only a person with vested interests in record labels, like yourself, would deliberately choose to neglect them while blaming Google, of all things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So again, YOUR solution to one injustice (Record Labels) is to happily promote an even GREATER injustice by taking CHOICE away from artists and not paying them anything so a corporation can make 100% of the money?
        
        I don't care about record labels or the RIAA, I care about corporations profiting from MY WORK without MY CONSENT and offering NO COMPENSATION!
        
        pretty simple stuff. who cares about the RIAA and Labels? I don't... the lady doth protest too much about google me thinks...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So again, YOUR solution to one injustice (Search Engines) is to happily promote an even GREATER injustice by taking CHOICE away from artists and not paying them anything so a corporation can make 100% of the money?
        
        Listen TAN,you already showed us who you work for, no need to drive the point further.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I work for ME. Why are you so threatened by the single voice of one independent artist who could care less about record labels and the RIAA.
        
        Why are you proposing the solution to one injustice, is to promote an even larger injustice in piracy against MY WILL as the artist? Why do YOU feel you have the right to take MY CHOICE away from me so that companies and corporations can profit from the illegal exploitation of MY WORK!
        
        I think it's great for CC to make their choices, but why do you want to take my CHOICES away? Again, not very OPEN of you... unless you are just OPEN to supporting an anti-artist EXPLOITATION ECONOMY!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll say this, if he's a shill he's the most convincing one I've seen. There's still the odd capitalization bits and strawmanning, but one doesn't need to be a shill to do these things. He hasn't used the term 'freetard' once in this thread, hasn't defended the labels or the RIAA, and actually defends his views from time to time. His viewpoint that it should be the artist's choice how do distribute their art, however idealistic, is a valid one. I still believe piracy is a service issue.
        Additionally, artists in any field should see their craft as an art first and a profession later (if at all). The best ones already do this. If you happen to make enough money through various means to support yourself, then more power to you, but don't expect society to figure out a way for you to monetize. That's your problem. For that matter, if you even see that as a problem, you're probably doing it for the wrong reasons.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        thanks... and nonsense. there is no more entitlement in being an artist than starting a pizza parlor. a pizza parlor may fail, a band or album may fail. but people don't expect to get free pizza, and they shouldn't expect to get free music.
        
        you might not like copyright law, but that's why it exists, to protect artists, from the greed of corporations. old gate keepers controlled distribution, now distribution is free but gate keepers control the money.
        
        there is no reason why there can not be a fair and ethical internet which supports artists rights without more, bigger and worse corporations ripping us off.
        
        stealing from artists is an OLD OLD business, which is why copyright exists. all the people here that have a problem with the clowns at the RIAA and Labels need to take a long hard look in the mirror to realize if you illegally exploiting an artists work, or empowering others to do so, you are worse then the labels and the mafIAA you claim to despise.
        
        why is your solution to one injustice (labels) an even larger injustice (piracy). both are exploitation but least one offers contracts and pays. I don't really care about labels and I now care less about the likes of you who are worse.
        
        ripping off artists is the same either way, and there's nothing innovative about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >but people don't expect to get free pizza, and they shouldn't expect to get free music.
        
        No one expects to get free music. You're refusing to address the point Josh brought up. If you don't make your product available by legal means people will either get the product by less legal options, or go without. Either way, you don't get paid.
        
        >you might not like copyright law, but that's why it exists, to protect artists, from the greed of corporations.
        
        If that's the intent of copyright law, then copyright law is doing a horrible job. Aside from the recent Megaupload and Pirate Bay cases the most significantly mentioned cases involving copyright infringement are targeted at singular users. Most of which (Tanya Andersen, Sarah Seabury Ward, Marie Lindor, Larry Scantlebury) were innocent. Your "greed of corporations" claim is a joke.
        
        >all the people here that have a problem with the clowns at the RIAA and Labels need to take a long hard look in the mirror to realize if you illegally exploiting an artists work, or empowering others to do so, you are worse then the labels and the mafIAA you claim to despise.
        
        Why, because the man on the street demanded levies on blank media, brought charges against people based on unverified IP harvesting methods, paid for laws that would incriminate almost everyone and called everyone a criminal scumbag? For someone who claims to be an independent artist and have no love for the RIAA, you seem to have much more to rant against normal people.
        
        >both are exploitation but least one offers contracts and pays.
        
        Are you really not aware of cases where artists have to fight labels to get their royalties back? If you're thinking this is some one-off phenomenon that happens to nobodies, Eminem and "Weird Al" Yankovic are amongst this group. The offering of contracts adds nothing to this argument aside from saying, "I will rip you off, and I have this sheet of paper to prove it."
        
        >I don't really care about labels and I now care less about the likes of you who are worse.
        
        Again, for someone who claims to be nonchalant you're finding bones to pick with everybody. I listen to the few CDs I have occasionally for my music or peruse the local classical music radio station. I have no intention of "exploiting" anyone, and you being a broken record insisting that I am somehow ruining the lives of artists is absolutely disingenuous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DS, 15 May 2012 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " but people don't expect to get free pizza, and they shouldn't expect to get free music"
        
        So, everytime 'your' song is played, you have to play it live and spend money on resources?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 16 May 2012 @ 7:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Interesting, if I liked the pizza from the pizza parlor and go home and make an identical pizza, I'm a thief, according to your analogy, because I'm getting "free pizza".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no, if you go home and make your pizza you would be a musician... no one is stopping you from making YOUR OWN music/pizza and giving it away (like the CC are), but just because you CHOCE to MAKE YOUR OWN and GIVE YOUR OWN AWAY does not give you the right to TAKE from others without their consent.
        
        I know you can understand this, but chose not too - because the truth is, YOU are not the Label, YOU are now the RIAA, YOU are now the one illegally exploiting artists and supporting companies who profit from it.
        
        YOU are the problem and the word is out. You are stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant, and you don't even know it... the silent majority who have been exploited for over a decade know in their hearts and wallets what you are doing to them.
        
        sleep well knowing you are responsible for a greater exploitation of artists than labels ever did, hypocrite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 11:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'll say this, if he's a shill he's the most convincing one I've seen."
        
        Maybe true, but that's not really saying a whole lot, is it ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 7:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I don't care about record labels or the RIAA, I care about corporations profiting from MY WORK without MY CONSENT and offering NO COMPENSATION!"
        
        First, what corporations?
        
        Second, I promise you, yelling about what you think you should be entitled to, whether you deserve it or not, will not convince anyone to give you money. Thanks to technology we now only have to pay for music because we want to, not because we have to, and a big part of making that happen is making people like you. I hope your public personality is much more appealing than your anonymous coward one, for your sake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        so you believe you have the right to exploit artists worse than record labels ever did? wow, seriously? hypocrite.
        
        what corporations... google for one...
        http://popuppirates.com/
        
        don't tell me you really don't understand how the internet works, you're on tech dirt... artists are used by the Exploitation Economy to create advertising revenue without consent or compensation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 11:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "so you believe you have the right to exploit artists worse than record labels ever did?"
        
        Calling it exploitation doesn't make it so and it distorts the purpose of IP. IP laws do not exist to prevent artists from being exploited, they only exist to serve the public interest. To say otherwise distorts their true intent and gives me more reason to want to abolish them.
        
        IP holders are not entitled to a monopoly privilege and you can not exploit someone by taking away something they were never entitled to to begin with. IP laws are a privilege provided for by the government, these privileges do not exist outside of government, and my right to copy is a right that exists outside of government.
        
        Freely copying as I please is a natural right that exists outside of government. I value this right. For the government to take this right away from the public against the public interest exploits the public. Service providers are being exploited by being forced to act in the sole interests of IP holders (ie: by policing content) just to provide them with an unowed privilege. These service providers bring these costs back down to users. In the end, service providers and users get exploited through higher prices, worse/less services, having services like Megaupload getting shut down, less innovation, fewer features, higher prices, etc... all because of a corrupt government-industrial complex that does everything in its power to exploit everyone out of their natural rights just to subsidize IP extremists. That's exploitation. and I want it to stop. Copying is my right, preventing me from doing it is exploitation, and I am sick and tired of being exploited. No more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 12:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "so you believe you have the right to exploit artists worse than record labels ever did?"
        
        There is nothing I could do to match what the labels have done.
        
        "what corporations... google for one... "
        
        Google have given me far more than you ever could, for free, so you'll fail if you play the 'Evil Google' sympathy card.
        
        Thanks for ignoring the point I made though. Who are you again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 10:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sure google has given you more than I have, I'm not allowing, enabling, or profiting from the illegal exploitation of artists worst than the labels and the RIAA ever did...
        
        and as for who's enriched your life, If you've never been touched by music, you may have a point, but I suspect that's not true. you life, like most people has been enriched by a professional creative class which you are now systematically and methodically attempting to destroy through the illegally exploitation of their work for profit to corporations..., yes, like google and the pirate bay.
        
        http://popuppirates.com/
        
        you can to be support the Exploitation Economy, or you can chose to support an ethical internet that supports the rights of all citizens, including artists. those seeking exclude artists (not very OPEN of them) are seeking to do so for the purpose of profit.
        
        you are stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant and you don't even know it. you are the new labels. you are the new RIAA. how does it feel to be the exploiter and to know that artists know you are exploiting them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 2:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Lemme tell you a little story about an artist named Peter Gabriel. I had the fortune of eating dinner with him before a show at the Tower Theatre. He was complaining that he HAD TO TOUR so much because the record labels "didnt pay shit."
      
      Anyone truly in the business knows the real money has always been playing live, and merch. Always will be.
      
      "I'm pro-choice." - Then why are you not outraged that the MAFIAA tries to take away every avenue for free distribution to reach millions of potential fans?
      
      I could go on but I am done work now:
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120117/10470617435/musician-peter-gabriel-comes-out-against -sopapipa-website-will-go-dark.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lemme tell you a little story about an artist named Peter Gabriel. I had the fortune of eating dinner with him before a show at the Tower Theatre. He was complaining that he HAD TO TOUR so much because the record labels "didnt pay shit."
        
        I'm sure he told you all about how much money he was making and how happy he was to have his work illegally exploited by the pirate bay who keep all of his money and pay him NOTHING.
        
        I support the artist choice to make the decisions that are right for them, not to have those decisions taken away without consent or compensation. I don't really care about labels or the RIAA, but Peter has seen a lot more money from Labels than he'll ever see from the pirate bay and other sites illegally exploiting his work and paying him absolutely NOTHING!
        
        And why is it to you that the solution to one injustice (labels) would be an even greater injustice in piracy and the illegal exploitation of artists work for corporate profit?
        
        Welcome to the Exploitation Economy... why are you so threatened by Artists for An Ethical Internet?
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/roll-call-musicians-for-an-ethical-internet/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 1:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Artists" don't have a right or choice to inflict a monopoly on society, it is just not going to happen.
        
        They also have no business trying to dismantle democracy for their own selfish self interests.
        
        If you can't make a living find another job, I am sure there are plenty of people who can work with the current social norms and restrictions to make a living.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ""Artists" don't have a right or choice to inflict a monopoly on society, it is just not going to happen."
        
        BS, the UN says otherwise.
        
        https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-human-rights-of-artists/
        
        and uhm... Lessig challenge copyright on constitutional grounds and got thumped...twice...ouch...
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/larry-lessig-is-wrong/
        
        you're on the wrong side of this, why is it so difficult to support an ethical internet for all citizens, including artists? those seeking exclusions (not very OPEN of you) are doing so because they are seeking profits by ripping off artists for in the Exploitation Economy...
        
        Do you want to be Exploitative or do you want to be Ethical? The choice is yours, but the law is on the side of Ethics...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        weneedhelp (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm sure he told you all about how much money he was making and how happy he was to have his work illegally exploited by the pirate bay who keep all of his money and pay him NOTHING. "
        
        Nice try shill, the pirate bay didnt exist back then. This was BEFORE the interwebs were popular. Try again.
        
        "Peter has seen a lot more money from Labels than he'll ever see from the pirate bay and other sites illegally exploiting his work and paying him absolutely NOTHING! "
        
        Wow - I'm sure he told you all about how much money he was making and how happy he was to have his work illegally exploited by the major labels.
        
        "I support the artist choice to make the decisions that are right for them" - Unless they choose to use the Pirate Bay, right?
        
        "not to have those decisions taken away without consent or compensation." Like the majors currently do. Right, couldn't agree more.
        
        "Welcome to the Exploitation Economy... why are you so threatened by Artists for An Ethical Internet? " - Dont kid yourself, there is nothing ethical about anything they suggest or the way they go about trying to get it implemented.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        don't kid yourself, there's nothing ethical about illegally exploiting artists for profit. funny that your conversation with peter gabriel happen BEFORE you could ask him his thoughts on having his work illegally exploited for profit by a system WORSE than the labels.
        
        You are the new label system. You are the new RIAA. You are the people who have been lying to artists and exploiting them. You are empowering the Exploitation Economy ripping off artists... and artists are learning that YOU are doing it.
        
        It may just be me today, but you are stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant and you don't even know it.
        
        Do you feel good knowing you are exploiting artists and supporting a system WORSE then the labels and the RIAA?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kaden (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 2:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "why are there LESS musicians working professionally"
      
      DJs, open mics and Karaoke.
      
      3/4 of the clubs I played 5 years ago have switched their booking policies to either reflect current consumer demand or to cut their bottoms line. When the mandatory club-level music licensing fees go up, the Live Band line item in the entertainment budget is the first thing to get cut.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nonsense there's not such thing as "mandatory club-level music licensing fees" for live bands. FAIL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, actually there are. Clubs fork over PRO fees (SOCAN, in my case) based on the often unwarranted assumption that a band *will* play cover material.
        
        Even if that weren't the case, the club pays PRO licensing fees to cover the recorded music they play during the times there isn't a live act, which is a majority their workweek. Live entertainment is the first budget item to get cut to pay for licensing hikes, because there are *considerably* less expensive live entertainment options than booking a 5 piece band at AF of M rates.
        
        Why do you think you see so many Battle(s) of the Bands, Jam nights and open mics, even in clubs that oughta have more pride?
        
        It's not because the club owners want to nurture the local community, Sparky. It's because they're cheap and they guarantee a reasonable house, which looks good on the balance sheet.
        
        Working bands get screwed at every level of the biz. It's a good thing we do it for love.
        
        If you try to eliminate a single method we have of making a connection with an audience, I will cut you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        all BS - citation please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sadly, it's all true, Sparky...nip down to any bar in your city that books live entertainment and buy the manager a beer; he'll be happy to provide you with 2 ears full of citation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if it's all true it shouldn't be hard to dig up a citation online should it? Citation Please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You want a citation? I'm the citation.
        
        I've played in bars longer than you've been alive.
        
        I've been the booker at clubs, I've done entertainment budgets line item by line item, including the licensing fees. I've hosted open mics and jam nights, I've promoted and participated in Battles of the Bands.
        
        I know the 'regional live music business' as well as any lifer knows it.
        
        If you don't believe me, push yourself away from the DAW and get out to the bars and talk to the club managers in your market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 6:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no, you are not the citation. you're just more nonsense, if there's truth to your claim you should be able to find a citation online to support it, if not, well... keep blowing hard...
        
        so again, Citation Please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 6:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now you're just being disrespectful, son. That's not gonna serve you well working with other musicians.
        
        Next time you gig, buy the booker a beer and ask him, ok?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shadeyone, 14 May 2012 @ 7:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Curious, where are your citations? I'm just wondering since you seem to think that they are so important. He's stated that he played a number of places and the length of time he's been doing it. Instead of responding with your own experience, you ridicule his as false. Why do you not have an experience of your own that verifies what you are saying? Where's your citation that proves you are what you say?
        
        So to you good sir, Citation Please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        still no citation, no truth, and no point... figures... you guys like to dish it out but can't take it... anyone disagrees with you and it's CITATION PLEASE, but when the same is asked of you... well then... somehow it's disrespectful... yet another case of "do unto thee but not unto me"...
        
        if there's any truth in you claim online factual verification should not be difficult to find...
        
        Citation Please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here, let me get that for you.
        
        http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/musicforbusinesses/PB/Pages/pubsand bars.aspx
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 7:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've never actually played a live gig, have you Sparky?
        
        The reason I suggest this is because every other working musician in North America is fully aware of the competition live bands face in terms of getting stage time in local venues. You keep whinging about citation... if you're a professional musician, you'd have at least a working knowledge of how PRO performance licensing works, because that shit has a direct impact on your bottom line. Surely as a songwriter you're a member of a PRO; didn't you read the 'About Us' FAQs when you signed up with them?
        
        Honestly, you give every indication of not actually knowing a single thing about being a working musician; you certainly don't know enough about performing rights organizations to be considered professional, and your grasp of the competitive forces at work regarding stage time in local venues is tenuous to non-existent.
        
        You're not one of those DAW 'producer' convinced that that the only reason their sick beatz, tired melodies and baby chord changes haven't lined their pockets is because world + dog is 'stealing' from them are you?
        
        Didja even pay for your copy of Fruity Loops?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where are your own citations? We're still waiting for them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2012 @ 12:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        where's yours?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        weneedhelp (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You cant handle citations:
        http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20100518-gym-operators-furious-with-1-500-increase- for-music-license-fees.html
        
        There ya go puke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2012 @ 12:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        so after all that, the citation you find references gyms and not clubs? seriously?
        
        true desperation I see... "The gym and health club industry" uh, yeah, that is exactly why there are less live bands playing ROCK clubs... [facepalm]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 16 May 2012 @ 5:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/pub/music_users/MU_FAQs.jsp
        
        Read slowly, or your lips will get tired.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        post something relevant - how about a citation that supports your claim and not some random unrelated nonsense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you read, Sparky?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nonsense there's not such thing as "mandatory club-level music licensing fees" for live bands. FAIL.
        
        I believe he's talking about ASCAP/BMI type fees. He mentions SOCAN, meaning he's in Canada. Those PROs regularly demand any venue that has live music must pay up. We've written about it plenty of times on Techdirt.
        
        Here are a few "citations":
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200 90517/1247384909.shtml
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0916136988.shtml
        
        Basically, the PROs demand licenses just in case a band plays a covered song. Because of that, many venues now refuse to have live music.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and this only hurts artists. It gives them fewer content distribution choices.
        
        IP extremists take away broadcasting and cable as a promotional choice through wrongfully granted government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies. On top of that they take away their ability to get their music heard in most restaurants because many restaurants are unable to pay parasitic third party collection societies fees and are afraid to host independent performers, who play independent music, because they still could get threatened with very expensive lawsuits and sued thanks to a very one sided penalty structure.
        
        Our system is so bad that bakeries are afraid to allow children to draw custom pictures on their birthday cakes because they may draw Spongebob which is infringement and could get the bakeries sued.
        
        and they are making every effort to turn the Internet into the same plutocracy that they have managed to turn everything outside the Internet into (ie: by shutting down Megaupload), a system where content must go through an exploitative monopolist gatekeeper to get distributed, a gatekeeper that takes the IP privileges away from artist and exploits both the artists and the public. It's extortion, the government has wrongfully granted them monopoly privileges over information distribution, if content creators want their content distributed, they must sacrifice their IP privileges, or else face not getting their content distributed and hence failing.
        
        How is this giving artists a choice? It's not. It's restricting their choices.
        
        I am all for giving artists more choices. Stop putting restrictions on, and wrongfully taking down, service providers, like Megauploads so that these service providers can provide artists with more and better distribution options and features.
        
        Abolish government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies so that artists can get their content distributed over these channels on a more level playing field.
        
        Abolish IP's one sided penalty structure so that collection societies that attempt to prevent restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying them a fee quickly get severely fined on summary judgement with fines far exceeding infringement damages.
        
        This will give artists more choices so that they can better distribute their content without going through a monopolist gatekeeper and giving up their copy protection privileges.
        
        IP extremists do not want to give artists more choices, they only want to restrict their choices, which, outside the Internet, is what they have managed to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how about any citations you didn't write? no offense, but how about an objective verification rather than just more of your own distorted perception?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 17 May 2012 @ 2:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how about any citations you didn't write? no offense, but how about an objective verification rather than just more of your own distorted perception?
        
        Okay, so now you're denying the fact that PROs require payments from venues?
        
        I'm beginning to wonder if you really are even in the music industry at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 17 May 2012 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        how about any citations you didn't write? no offense, but how about an objective verification rather than just more of your own distorted perception?
        
        Not really sure why I'm replying to you since you seem to be nothing more than some insufferable ass on the internet, but here you go:
        
        ASCAP's About Page:
        
        "ASCAP protects the rights of its members by licensing and distributing royalties for the non-dramatic public performances of their copyrighted works. ASCAP's licensees encompass all who want to perform copyrighted music publicly."
        
        BMI's About Page:
        
        "Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) collects license fees on behalf of songwriters, composers and music publishers and distributes them as royalties to those members whose works have been performed."
        
        Google Search really is awesome!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        these just state the fact that the PRO's are doing their job - where does this say clubs are not booking live bands? again, I say, citation please!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 18 May 2012 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.google.com/search?q=bar+owner+hardship+ascap+bmi+live+music
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      it's great when an artist gets to make that decision and that CHOICE for themselves, what's not great is when that choice is taken away from the artist without consent or compensation so that a company or corporation like google/the pirate bay etc can make all of the money and pay the artist nothing.
      
      No one gets to make that choice. The market makes the choice. Provide something in a format and price the market wants, you're golden. Don't and you're fucked.
      
      it's great when an artist gets to make that decision and that CHOICE for themselves, what's not great is when that choice is taken away from the artist without consent or compensation so that a company or corporation like google/the pirate bay etc can make all of the money and pay the artist nothing.
      
      No one's "taking away the choice." If the choice isn't available because the market rejects it... the choice you want doesn't exist.
      
      That's not someone "taking" it away. It's the market evolving.
      
      If the internet is working out so well for musicians, why are there LESS musicians working professionally? "t-shirts and touring" is an ADMISSION that there is no money for musicians online and takes artists BACKWARDS at least 50 years... and you think that's progress? Really?
      
      Well, in part, because morons are not embracing what the tech allows.
      
      Let me tell you a story. In the early days of the PC, it was shown that using a computer at work cut into productivity. That was mainly because lots of people didn't know what to do with them, so they used them badly. But there were clueless people who claimed that PCs themselves decreased productivity. The reality was the poor use of PCs decreased productivity.
      
      Same thing here. Because of people not knowing how to use the internet to their advantage, there are stories of failures -- and it's people like you who stand their stomping your feet rather than embracing what the tech allows that lead the way.
      
      Yet, for musicians who actually DO embrace what the tech allows we're seeing a clear and undeniable recognition that they can and are making more money than they would have otherwise.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry Mike, that's BS... the "market" is made of people. People who make decisions. People who chose to operate legally and ethically, or illegally and unethically.
        
        YOU chose to take away the choice from artists because you HATE artists that disagree with you.
        
        You HATE artists that don't want their choices taken away from them by people like you promoting an even greater injustice than labels... you're promoting the oldest business there is, exploiting artists for profit, and your double talk about the "Market", guess what Mike, YOU are part of the market.
        
        Any technology can be used legally or illegally, guns, cars, anything. When it's used illegally, as in the case of Illegally Exploiting artists for profit, that should not be tolerated by a decent society.
        
        But I guess you like promoting the whole sale exploitation of artists by removing their choices because you are a part of the Exploitation Economy. No wonder you don't support a Fair and Ethical Internet, you only support one that profits massive corporate gatekeepers with billions in cash reserves.
        
        It scares deeply to support an artists choice, because they might not chose what serves YOU! God forbid, Mike that you would support artists having an OPEN FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Instead of ONLY the choices you wish to grant them (sound familliar?). Hypocrisy anyone?
        
        Artists have been embracing the internet for 10 years without labels, and they are worse off for it. Your lies and propaganda are wearing thin on the very people who have been giving you the benefit of the doubt...
        
        If the internet is working so well for musicians, why are the so many less professional musicians working? Salon reports... 45% LESS professional musicians working...
        
        http://www.salon.com/2012/04/22/no_sympathy_for_the_creative_class/
        
        Are you suggesting all musicians who don't follow your specific advice are morons and idiots? Really? That's how you think of musicians? Either they agree with you or they're idiots? You're worse the the mafIAA that you despise and are doing more damage to professional artists careers as a result.
        
        Good luck with your artist hating ways...
        
        -signed- he who could care less about the RIAA/Labels and now you too...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka, 14 May 2012 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wish i could just decide what is TRUE or NOT by CAPITALIZING words in a HAMhanded attempt FOR emphasis.
        
        I could JUST declare that GOOGLE is taking ALL MONEY EVER and PIRATE-THIEF-TERRORISM-BAY is their THIEF accomplice. and THE SKY is full of MARZIPAN because I AM AN ARTIST.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hurricane head, 14 May 2012 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nice non-substantive, non-response... must be all out of spin... there's only so many ways you can try to rationalize to yourself that illegally exploiting artists without consent or compensation is OK... it's not, and you know it, and you're worse the the mafIAA you condemn... hypocrisy much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice non-substantive, non-response...must be all out of spin...there's only so many ways you can try to rationalize to yourself that wrongful of trying to dismantle democracy to secure a granted monopoly that should never exist in the first place.
        
        When you can show us how piracy deprives you of a market we talk otherwise you are just another buffoon.
        
        You can sell the music you perform and record, you cannot tell other what they should or not do with what they bought, you should not have rights to extort money from business that paid once for a product and force them to keep paying it forever, you cannot tell others they can't copy it, that is not for you to decide it is not your place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the "market" is made of people. People who make decisions. People who chose to operate legally and ethically, or illegally and unethically.
        
        Or, in my case, people who choose not to operate at all. You see, I've given up on the music industry. I don't really need it. I buy one or sometimes two indie or foreign CDs a year, recced by friends. I don't download at all, through iTunes or otherwise. There's already enough music in my house to play continuously for 2-3 weeks without repeating anything, so why do I need more? I don't listen to the radio, I don't borrow from the library. The music industry has effectively turned me off of new recorded music entirely.
        
        (I still go to concerts, by the way.)
        
        This is relatively recent for me - starting about 3-4 years ago. I lost interest in tv before that, and I can proudly say I've been to see an average of about 1 movie per year in the theater for the last 10 years, with maybe 20 loans from the library in that decade. I do almost all my reading online, following free authors. I do buy a few books or comics used if I see something that really catches my eye.
        
        I don't just do it because I don't have much money. I do it because I'm sick of the repetition, the formulas, and the dull methods the major industries use. If I read one more Robert Jordan ripoff, I may cry. If I hear of one more fourth installment in a dying movie franchise, I absolutely will laugh my head off.
        
        Want to know why profits are supposedly falling? It's the way the industries are structured to encourage creators to follow certain formulas. Forget piracy - if you want to really get the attention and money of lots of people, get more creative. Those formulas are killing interest. And that's why indie movies are starting to scare Hollywood.
        
        Piracy is a scapegoat. The MPAA and RIAA are doing this to themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 5:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no, your (NON)argument is a scapegoat. try again. FAIL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay, first of all, that was a very rude way to speak to someone who has just engaged with you for the first time. I wanted to believe otherwise, but now I smell troll.
        
        And second, my point was not to directly attack your argument but to present you with another possible side of the debate. (Generally, there are more than two.) My side is simply that my revenue was not taken from MPAA and RIAA member companies due to piracy; it was taken because the free alternatives were worth more to me, even if they had not been free. Big business and its profit models kill creativity. If you want proof, I will happily play my CD collection for you and show you the much wider variety of music available under indie labels and imports.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Big Business and it's profit models kill creativity"
        
        that's funny because I'm not a big business I'm an artist and I'm not sure how these big businesses are killing my creativity except for the ones who are actually killing my bank account by illegally exploiting my work without compensation or consent.
        
        The Big Businesses are the tech companies profiting from the illegal exploitation of my work. Why are you supporting an Exploitation Economy that ripps off artists WORSE than labels ever did instead of a fair and ethical internet?
        
        I'm not a part of the "Industry" you hate. I'm not signed to a label, and I could give a rats ass about the RIAA. But you still don't support my rights as an artist... you support corporations ripping me off instead... nice hypocrisy... go look in a mirror the next time you spout off your mafIAA talking points because none of that does anything to help actual independent artists who have NOTHING to do with the "industry"...
        
        nice try, FAIL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 4:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (I'm the same anon as above but have lost my cookies, so I'll probably show up under a different icon.)
        
        Okay, first of all, lose the "FAIL" mantra. It's not getting you anywhere.
        
        Then realize that I have never downloaded anything of yours, nor intend to, because I don't download music. When you stop yelling at me for doing things I'm not doing, I'll probably be happier to talk to you.
        
        Third, I actually don't know anyone who has downloaded your music, or at least who has done so and recommended it to me. That might be more of a problem for you than the downloading itself.
        
        Fourth, I know of no corporations that made big bucks directly off of torrents. Perhaps some trackers make decent cash - I wouldn't know - but they tend to be small shops, not big corporations. Certainly nothing on the level of EMI et al.
        
        Your overall treatment of myself and others in this thread who disagree with you with specific evidence (which you tend to counter with random wails of "citation please!" or "hypocrisy!") has convinced me of the opposite of your arguments. Congratulations. I have no more compunction about looking in the mirror than I did 5 minutes ago, and even less respect for your position.
        
        While you may not be signed to a label, your whimpers of "rights as an artist" are cookie-cutter and unconvincing. I've had stuff plagiarized, but I don't think I ever kicked up so much fuss as you have in just this one thread.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you just keep rationalizing your support of exploiting artists illegally without consent of compensation. when you can actually, rationally realize what you are doing is WORSE than what the labels have done to artists maybe we can have a conversation.
        
        the solution to one injustice (labels) is not a greater injustice in piracy. which does profit corporations and companies including and not limited to google and the pirate bay...
        
        if you truly so naive as to not understand how this works, this will help you... it's called "advertising"... and it's great to monetize against content when you don't actually have to pay the creation/production of it...
        
        that's called Exploitation, and it's really easy to understand.
        
        http://popuppirates.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "no, your (NON)argument is a scapegoat. try again. FAIL."
        
        Citation Please
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kaden (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You forgot the exclamation point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Citation Please! I'm going to have to remember all the reasons why not to provide back up the next time one of you guys asks for it, I'll just link back to this thread...
        
        you got nuthin'...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 12:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry Mike, that's BS... the "market" is made of people. People who make decisions. People who chose to operate legally and ethically, or illegally and unethically.
        
        Indeed. But that's not what you said. You were arguing that somehow those of us here were somehow making that choice for you. You're wrong.
        
        In the meantime, we've found that non-assholes who engage with their fans seem to be making more money.
        
        YOU chose to take away the choice from artists because you HATE artists that disagree with you.
        
        I don't hate anyone. I pity some foolish people, but I really don't spend much time on them. Lots of people "disagree with me." I have no problem with people who disagree with me. I just feel bad when they not only fail to embrace tools that make their lives easier *but then* lash out at the people trying to help them. I don't understand why such people lash out at the messenger, but I guess they have an inability to look in the mirror carefully.
        
        You HATE artists that don't want their choices taken away from them by people like you promoting an even greater injustice than labels... you're promoting the oldest business there is, exploiting artists for profit, and your double talk about the "Market", guess what Mike, YOU are part of the market.
        
        Um. Again, I don't hate anyone. And I certainly don't support exploiting artists for profit. Is that your go to line? I'm a fan of creativity. I spend a ton of money on music, movies, books and other content. I love supporting artists -- and I spend an inordinate amount of time helping artists embrace amazing new tools properly so they can make more money.
        
        Any technology can be used legally or illegally, guns, cars, anything. When it's used illegally, as in the case of Illegally Exploiting artists for profit, that should not be tolerated by a decent society.
        
        It's not. It's illegal. But certain misuses are seen as more problematic than others. And, as we've seen repeatedly, for artists who take the time to understand, they have no problem embracing the tools available to do better.
        
        But I guess you like promoting the whole sale exploitation of artists by removing their choices because you are a part of the Exploitation Economy. No wonder you don't support a Fair and Ethical Internet, you only support one that profits massive corporate gatekeepers with billions in cash reserves.
        
        You really don't know very much about me, do you?
        
        Explain to me how this "fair and ethical" internet works?
        
        It scares deeply to support an artists choice, because they might not chose what serves YOU! God forbid, Mike that you would support artists having an OPEN FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Instead of ONLY the choices you wish to grant them (sound familliar?). Hypocrisy anyone?
        
        I support artists having a hell of a lot more choice than you. I'm not trying to shut down innovation and tools. I believe artists should have whatever choice they want. But I also believe that when the market tells them their choice sucks, or that the market tells them they won't support them, because they're moronic assholes, that that does NOT give the artist the right to lash out and attack services that many, many other artists find useful.
        
        No, I have no interest in limiting anyone's choices. I just recognize that some people make bad choices. From the sound of it, you have a history of making a lot of bad choices.
        
        Artists have been embracing the internet for 10 years without labels, and they are worse off for it. Your lies and propaganda are wearing thin on the very people who have been giving you the benefit of the doubt...
        
        Weird. The artists I've seen who really embrace things all seem to be doing better. It's true that some pretend to embrace things, or are so clueless that they think putting songs on iTunes means they embrace the internet. Some of them may be worse off. I find that sad, because they could be doing better. If you're a failing artist, perhaps you should let us know where you've fun into trouble and folks around here may have some useful suggestions.
        
        It might start out by not attacking anyone and everyone and making huge assumptions about them as you seem to do regularly here. You're a very angry individual. I do wonder how that makes your fans feel.
        
        Separately, I don't do "propaganda," and just in the last week I've received nearly half a dozen random thank yous from content creators saying they're learning useful things from the site for their own careers. So, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how you think you know what anyone other than you seems to think.
        
        If the internet is working so well for musicians, why are the so many less professional musicians working? Salon reports... 45% LESS professional musicians working...
        
        Again, if you're not very good and you think that iTunes is embracing the internet, well, that may mean trouble. Transition is tough on those who are bad at adapting.
        
        As for the BLS stats, that's misleading at best. If you look at the actual entertainment industry -- BLS code for arts and entertainment is 71, you see pretty decent growth. You see pretty big growth for independent artist, as well (43%).
        
        Furthermore, BLS is predicting pretty big growth in the musician and singer category over the next 10 years, as more of those folks stop whining about the past and learn to embrace the future. http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/27-2042.00 They're looking at 10 to 19% growth over the next 10 years. That's not bad.
        
        Are you suggesting all musicians who don't follow your specific advice are morons and idiots?
        
        Not at all. Lots of people don't follow my advice and are perfectly smart. I'm just saying that some morons are failing and lashing out at people. But if you fail because you're a moron, you have no one to blame but yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurrican Head, 15 May 2012 @ 8:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, You Are Lying. But I'm glad you took the time to respond with such profound spin.
        
        "In the meantime, we've found that non-assholes who engage with their fans seem to be making more money." - Mike Masnick
        
        And also, thanks for the true colors, so a single independent artist with no ties to the a record label and no love of the RIAA is an "asshole" to you? Wow, just wow.
        
        you really do hate artists don't you? You deserve your reputation amongst the artist community. That's what you think of artists who want to get paid from a fair and ethical internet? again, wow, just wow.
        
        So the way to not be asshole artist is to agree with you and allow corporations and companies to illegally exploit my work. No thanks Mike, and at least I'll have the decency to not resort to calling you names no matter how poorly you debate, or how faulty your reasoning is.
        
        Mike Masnick says artists who don't want to get ripped off are assholes... nice headline...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 17 May 2012 @ 2:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And also, thanks for the true colors, so a single independent artist with no ties to the a record label and no love of the RIAA is an "asshole" to you? Wow, just wow.
        
        I said no such thing. You are now simply making things up.
        
        Whether or not an artist is independent or on a major label is entirely independent of whether or not he is an asshole.
        
        I merely said that artists who are assholes seem to have a harder time making money.
        
        you really do hate artists don't you?
        
        Not at all. Why would I spend so much time helping artists make more money if I hated them? Weird accusation.
        
        You deserve your reputation amongst the artist community.
        
        I have tons of friends who are artists. They seem to think nice things about me. I'm glad that you agree that I deserve the reputation.
        
        So the way to not be asshole artist is to agree with you and allow corporations and companies to illegally exploit my work.
        
        Again, that is not what I said. I find it odd that your only mode of speaking is to lie about what I said. You should stop doing that.
        
        How you make money is separate from whether or not you're an asshole. Both asshole artists and non-asshole artists can agree or disagree with me at their will. My only point -- as clearly stated -- was that in the modern era, it seems that non-asshole artists who embrace these things are doing well. Asshole artists don't seem to be doing as well.
        
        That is not a statement that says those who disagree with me are assholes. It's a statement about what is happening in the world.
        
        Mike Masnick says artists who don't want to get ripped off are assholes... nice headline...
        
        That would be a lie, since I said no such thing.
        
        Given how often you link to that ridiculous trichordist site, I can only assume you're the guy behind it. Nearly ever post on that site has the same formula: take statements totally out of context or twist them into things that were not said. I guess it's no surprise that you would do the same here.
        
        I'm not sure what you think you're proving, but it's hard to take you seriously this way.
        
        If you'd like to debate, or even just talk, I'm always happy to talk to artists who agree or disagree with me. I've even managed to convince more than a few who originally disagreed with me that what I'm saying is not the ridiculous strawman they've claimed I've said.
        
        Feel free to contact me and we can chat. Perhaps I can help you do better in the market.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2012 @ 12:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry Mike, that's BS... the "market" is made of people. People who make decisions. People who chose to operate legally and ethically, or illegally and unethically.
        
        Indeed. But that's not what you said. You were arguing that somehow those of us here were somehow making that choice for you. You're wrong.
        
        *** Actually, you're wrong. By supporting the Exploitation Economy you are removing the choice from artists to distribute their work how they chose, whether to give it away, charge for it, stream it, etc. They are forced to have their work exploited illegally, for profit, without consent or compensation by tech/internet companies like the pirate bay. But if you'd like to make a statement about how The Pirate Bay should not be supported for operating illegally and unethically by exploiting artists WORSE than labels, I would applaud you for having the ethical integrity to do so. ***
        
        In the meantime, we've found that non-assholes who engage with their fans seem to be making more money.
        
        *** So any artist who disagrees with you is an asshole. Wow Mike... Must have hit a nerve to resort to insults. So I guess you really do hate artists, or is it that they're all just assholes if they don't agree with being ripped off worse now in the Exploitation Economy online than that were by labels. You know how to win um over, agree with me or you're an asshole... er, uhm... ok... ***
        
        YOU chose to take away the choice from artists because you HATE artists that disagree with you.
        
        I don't hate anyone. I pity some foolish people, but I really don't spend much time on them. Lots of people "disagree with me." I have no problem with people who disagree with me. I just feel bad when they not only fail to embrace tools that make their lives easier *but then* lash out at the people trying to help them. I don't understand why such people lash out at the messenger, but I guess they have an inability to look in the mirror carefully.
        
        *** No Mike, it does appear you hate musicians. Why else would you resort to name calling of an independent artist who has embraced your theories, is not signed to a label, and does not support the RIAA? Sorry Mike, it appears through actions and deeds, you do in fact hate musicians. Also, factually there are less working professional musicians now than a decade ago. It shouldn't be the hard to understand. The record industry is 60% smaller than it was a decade ago, and there are 45% less working professional musicians than there were a decade ago. And don't start in with the CCIA Lobby Report bought and paid for by Google. ***
        
        You HATE artists that don't want their choices taken away from them by people like you promoting an even greater injustice than labels... you're promoting the oldest business there is, exploiting artists for profit, and your double talk about the "Market", guess what Mike, YOU are part of the market.
        
        Um. Again, I don't hate anyone. And I certainly don't support exploiting artists for profit. Is that your go to line? I'm a fan of creativity. I spend a ton of money on music, movies, books and other content. I love supporting artists -- and I spend an inordinate amount of time helping artists embrace amazing new tools properly so they can make more money.
        
        *** MIke, you support the pirate bay. The Pirate bay is illegally exploiting artists for profit. They've been convicted in court and sentenced to jail time. Maybe I'm wrong, just come on out and say that you don't support The Pirate Bay illegally exploiting artists. Just say it if you really mean it. I have a funny feeling you just won't say it. You'll come back with some BS about how you don't believe the pirate bay is exploiting artists (despite being proven guilty in court). You'll just keep supporting a system that rips off artists WORSE the then the labels did... Fine, but have the balls to own it rather than hiding behind some kind of nonsensical double speak ***
        
        Any technology can be used legally or illegally, guns, cars, anything. When it's used illegally, as in the case of Illegally Exploiting artists for profit, that should not be tolerated by a decent society.
        
        It's not. It's illegal. But certain misuses are seen as more problematic than others. And, as we've seen repeatedly, for artists who take the time to understand, they have no problem embracing the tools available to do better.
        
        *** You have a very few exceptions, if any, of artists making a sustained professional career in the last decade and you have an entire industry of artists suffering. You are, factually wrong. Again, 60% smaller industry, 45% less professional musicians. You can't have a smaller industry, less sales, less revenue, and less professionally working artists and claim victory, that's some damn funny math... I'd suggest getting a better calculator. ***
        
        But I guess you like promoting the whole sale exploitation of artists by removing their choices because you are a part of the Exploitation Economy. No wonder you don't support a Fair and Ethical Internet, you only support one that profits massive corporate gatekeepers with billions in cash reserves.
        
        You really don't know very much about me, do you?
        
        Explain to me how this "fair and ethical" internet works?
        
        *** A fair and ethical internet works by protecting the rights of ALL citizens including creators. You chose to exclude artists from your internet so that they can be exploited by corporations who profit from the illegal exploitation of their work, which is WORSE than the labels ever did. maybe brush up on your HUMAN RIGHTS... ***
        
        http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/artists-rights-are-human-rights/
        
        It scares deeply to support an artists choice, because they might not chose what serves YOU! God forbid, Mike that you would support artists having an OPEN FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Instead of ONLY the choices you wish to grant them (sound familliar?). Hypocrisy anyone?
        
        I support artists having a hell of a lot more choice than you.
        
        *** No, no you don't. ***
        
        I'm not trying to shut down innovation and tools. I believe artists should have whatever choice they want.
        
        *** No, you believe in the innovation of exploiting artists worse the the labels ever did without consent or compensation. You remove choices from artists by not allowing them to have control over the distribution and monetization of their own work online. Sorry, but you are supporting the exploitation of artists, not the liberation of artists. And guess what, we're onto you. We listened to you, but now we know you are the new record label boss. You are the new RIAA. You are the new preacher of lies to musicians. You are the very thing you told musicians you were protecting them against, except You are worse. ***
        
        But I also believe that when the market tells them their choice sucks, or that the market tells them they won't support them, because they're moronic assholes, that that does NOT give the artist the right to lash out and attack services that many, many other artists find useful.
        
        *** Right, after a decade of your half baked ideas not working with any degree of statistical success, it's the musicians who are the "Moronic Assholes." I'm glad to see that you think so little of musicians if they should just simply disagree with your half baked ideas that work at best as a novelty and never as a business model. When you preach about t-shirts and touring, You are admitting there is no sustainable money for musicians online. it also shows you vast lack of understanding of how record producers, songwriters and other non-performers get paid in the value chain. But I understand why. It's lot easier for the companies that pay you consulting fee's to make a profit by exploiting musicians illegally than to actually pay the fair cost of legitimately paying the artists. You are the one selling artists out down the river to protect your own financial interests. Wanna prove me wrong, start financing some bands, start investing in some artists. ***
        
        No, I have no interest in limiting anyone's choices. I just recognize that some people make bad choices. From the sound of it, you have a history of making a lot of bad choices.
        
        *** If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. Again, anyone who disagrees with you is either an "asshole" or has made a of bad choices. Well Mike, you're half right. The worst choices I've ever made was actually listening to your half baked ideas, and I'm not the only one. So how many artists do you want to call assholes and accuse of making bad choices? Why do you want to attack your readers Mike? Isn't that like bands attacking their fans? ***
        
        Artists have been embracing the internet for 10 years without labels, and they are worse off for it. Your lies and propaganda are wearing thin on the very people who have been giving you the benefit of the doubt...
        
        Weird. The artists I've seen who really embrace things all seem to be doing better. It's true that some pretend to embrace things, or are so clueless that they think putting songs on iTunes means they embrace the internet. Some of them may be worse off. I find that sad, because they could be doing better. If you're a failing artist, perhaps you should let us know where you've fun into trouble and folks around here may have some useful suggestions.
        
        *** No Mike, you are lying, the facts just don't support your assertions. I can't believe people actually pay you for this nonsense, you must be spinning things pretty hard or they just want you to write fiction for them. Come to think of it, I'm sure it's the fiction part. Ted Cohen and Tom SIlverman completely debonked the myth of artists doing better, it's just statistically not true... or, do you think Ted Cohen is an asshole too? Is every artist on tunecore an asshole too? Wow, your asshole list is a lot longer than your successful artists list... no coincidence ***
        
        http://blog.midem.com/2009/12/breaking-through-the-noise/
        
        It might start out by not attacking anyone and everyone and making huge assumptions about them as you seem to do regularly here. You're a very angry individual. I do wonder how that makes your fans feel.
        
        *** More projections and pathologizing, it figures that's what happens when you are out of argument. I'm actually really happy. No matter what happens I've done well enough for myself that I don't need to worry. I'm just calling you out on your BS and you don't like it. If you are feeling any anger, it's yours, own it. Personally, I find your whole shtick amusing. ***
        
        Separately, I don't do "propaganda," and just in the last week I've received nearly half a dozen random thank yous from content creators saying they're learning useful things from the site for their own careers. So, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how you think you know what anyone other than you seems to think.
        
        *** Keep telling yourself that. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't full all of the people all of the time. You have been stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant and you don't even know it. The silent majority is waking up. You math does not add up. You are the new label boss. You are the new RIAA. You are the new order of artist exploitation and people know the truth in their wallets and in their hearts. You have lied and deceived and you the word is spreading. Today it may just be me posting here, but tomorrow, there will be many more. ***
        
        If the internet is working so well for musicians, why are the so many less professional musicians working? Salon reports... 45% LESS professional musicians working...
        
        Again, if you're not very good and you think that iTunes is embracing the internet, well, that may mean trouble. Transition is tough on those who are bad at adapting.
        
        *** Same to you. If the best you've got is the very old business of exploiting artists that's an old business indeed. Youv'e had a good run at it for your bosses. There's absolutely nothing innovative in ripping off artists for profit and you get the grand prize for bamaboozaling more artists and supporting a system that rips them off WORSE than any label ever did. You are the problem. You are the new label Boss. You are the exploiter of artists. You are the new RIAA lying to artists about their best interests. If you didn't fear artists you would support their rights to a fair and ethical internet where they are stakeholders in sharing in the revenue of their labor. But instead you support an exploitation economy of illegally exploiting artists for profit. Shame on you. ***
        
        As for the BLS stats, that's misleading at best. If you look at the actual entertainment industry -- BLS code for arts and entertainment is 71, you see pretty decent growth. You see pretty big growth for independent artist, as well (43%).
        
        *** That's just factually not true. There's a 45% decrease in "musicians and artists' from 2002 - 2011. You are intentionally conflating the data to make a false claim that can not be substantiated. Just like you can't refute the dramatic reduction in recorded music sales so you use a metric of "transactions." That's like sophmore year HS school logic, do you think people really don't see what you are doing? Wake up Mike. The gig is up. I may be the voice on one musician, but the silent majority has woken up. You half baked nonsense could only go on for so long. Enjoy it. But it's going to come to an end. If your smart, you'll recognize the error of your ways and side for artists rights and an ethical internet for all citizens. ***
        
        Furthermore, BLS is predicting pretty big growth in the musician and singer category over the next 10 years, as more of those folks stop whining about the past and learn to embrace the future. http://www.onetonline.org/link/details/27-2042.00 They're looking at 10 to 19% growth over the next 10 years. That's not bad.***
        
        *** Let me know what else you seen in that crystal ball MIke, because thus far you haven't done so well. Artists are hurting and you are supporting the Exploitation Economy in sites like The Pirate Bay who are ripping off artists WORSE than labels ever did. We now know you are the new Label King. You are the new RIAA / CCIA... you have your own mafIAA to rip off artists with. You are no different than anyone else who has ripped off artists to further their own career, I'm sure your bosses are very proud of you. ***
        
        Are you suggesting all musicians who don't follow your specific advice are morons and idiots?
        
        Not at all. Lots of people don't follow my advice and are perfectly smart. I'm just saying that some morons are failing and lashing out at people. But if you fail because you're a moron, you have no one to blame but yourself.
        
        *** Funny Mike, do you really not read what you write, in your post above you've called artists who don't agree with you "assholes" and "moronic assholes"... Oh well, have it your way. Buckle Up. The word is out. You hate artists, especially the ones who disagree with your support of them getting ripped off worse than ever before. But hey, enjoy being the new king of artist exploitation and lies. Enjoy it while it last, because ya, know... all things change Mike... learn to adapt and evolve... LOL... ***
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 12:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A musician who makes poor decisions does not have to be an asshole. Similarly not every asshole is a musician who makes poor decisions.
        
        If you choose to be both, it's really none of anybody's concern. Nor is it anyone's responsibility to not criticise you for your choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you spend a lot of time here on "nobody's concern", the lady doth protest too much me thinks...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2012 @ 11:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yet, for musicians who actually DO embrace what the tech allows we're seeing a clear and undeniable recognition that they can and are making more money than they would have otherwise.'
        
        So you mean hobbyists who never have, and never will have a professional career...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FarePlay, 15 May 2012 @ 9:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You are delusional if you think many artists make 100k a year. Most musicians make less money than you do, even if you're unemployed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 1:17pm

atm, torrent is the best way to transfer/download/upload large files. the entertainment industries continuously condemn this system because THEY WERE TOO SLOW TO ADOPT IT AND TOO SLOW TO CONTROL IT! as soon as it is made illegal for anyone and everyone else to use, those same industries will be all over torrent like a freakin rash. it will then be the best thing since meat came in little boxes!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PlagueSD (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re:
  Not to mention, most MMORPG (Massive Muliplayer Online Role Playing Games) use torrents to distribute game client patches.
  
  Sorry RIAA, torrents aren't going ANYWHERE anytime soon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 1:20pm

...So, where the hell did they actually release it? There was no link in the Forbes article, I didn't see it on TPB, there was no link on their homepage that I could find... for someone wanting to get their music out there, they don't seem to be doing a very good job at it...

Okay, searching further I managed to find a link to it on their Facebook page. In case anyone else is wondering, you can find the bundle here. But really, it's pretty bad that it takes this much time to find even when you're actively looking for it. I honestly don't understand why they don't have a news entry for this on their homepage nor why Forbes does not actually link to the free thing that they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  Forbes don't link because they didn't get paid of course.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  The Counting Crow actually has an unoficial torrent website where they trade all bootlegs of their shows according to Wikipedia.
  
  http://www.crows-town.com/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_Crows
  
  Or you could just have gone to the official website.
  
  http://www.countingcrows.com/main
  
  Where they have links to every social network and Youtube.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/countingcrows
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re:
  Added a link to the story...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 1:21pm

artists embrace megaupload = megaupload seized

artists embrace bit-torrent = bit-torrents seized

only that won't work
this is going to be amusing to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- llortotevoli, 14 May 2012 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re:
  Artists are mostly creative types anyway. They don't really know what's good for them or have any business sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 1:24pm

Piracy doesn't really seem to reduce sales, for example, despite free alternatives being available, people still went to see the movie avengers and, despite (illegal and) free alternatives, they still pay to download music online.

No, what IP extremists are really afraid of is competition. Now that competition can enter the market these people must actually work (harder) for their income. That's what they don't want.

and, outside of the Internet (through anticompetitive laws like govt established broadcasting and cableco monopolies and laws, legal penalty structures, that deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers without paying a parasite collection society insane fees), banning competition is what they have managed to do. They want to do no less to the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  hurricane head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  "Piracy doesn't really seem to reduce sales"
  
  hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha...
  
  http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/sf-gate-blunders-facts-about-recording-industry-a nd-piracy/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Interesting how the source of that information is
    
    "Recording Industry Association of America; Digital Entertainment Group;Motion Picture Association of America"
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/02/05/opinion/05edit1.html?ref=sunday
    
    and how, exactly, did they arrive at these numbers? Using Hollywood Accounting? Why should I take any of their numbers seriously when they have a very bad history of touting absurd losses due to infringement and whatnot?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      do you have a source that shows piracy is the decline?
      
      citation please!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trolling. No one said piracy was declining, so your cries for citation are ludicrous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2012 @ 12:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that's what I thought, so the NY Times report IS accurate... or are you just now saying that it's selectively accurate? pick a lie and stick to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Blogger quotes this from this source.
    
    "IFPI estimated that global digital revenues grew 8% to $5.23 billion, or nearly a third of total industry revenues."
    
    Quote from blogger (trichordist in Copyright, Magic Beaver ???) on your link.
    
    "First, online piracy has continued to grow and there�s no attribution to where this contrary claim has come from"
    
    It came from the IFPI, it says it in the article. But since the anonymous and lazy blogger can't even be bothered to do a simple Google search, I'll do his homework for him.
    
    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/ifpi-digital-music-report-2012-gl obal-digital-1005956352.story
    
    The sources for the claims of increasing piracy come from the RIAA/MPAA.
    
    and the rest of that blog is filled with nothing but nonsense, poor reasoning, lazy research, and lies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (not that the IFPI is any better a source than the RIAA/MPAA, they're both terrible sources. But the point is that the article uses their own numbers so it's hard for them to dispute their own numbers).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Lets further dig into the assertions on that site.
    
    One of its sources for that site says
    
    "RIAA has reported declining revenue in nine of the past 10 years, with album sales falling an average of 8% each year. "
    
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/
    
    Wait, since when is the RIAA the only source of (digital) music sales. So their complaint is that their (digital) music sales are decreasing and so they want the government to do something about it. Since when is it the governments job to guarantee their sales revenue? It's not, and it shouldn't be. and just because their sales are decreasing doesn't mean that overall sales are decreasing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BeeAitch (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 6:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aw, you scared the poor little troll away. Funny how facts and a logical rebuttal will do that...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 9:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and I like this bit on the site
        
        "Artists For An Ethical Internet"
        
        IP extremists have absolutely no regard for morality whatsoever, for them to preach ethics, like they have standing to do so, is just hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can see why you would think Ethics is hilarious when you are supporting an Exploitation Economy by ripping off artists without consent or compensation - or would you like to show me the contracts and payments the artists are getting from the pirate bay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
llortotevoli, 14 May 2012 @ 1:41pm

This couldn't work for small artists
This could only work for Counting Crows because they're already a huge name. It'd never work for a no name like Jonathan Coulton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: This couldn't work for small artists
  That's true, but you're missing the fact that there is no guarantee for success in any occupation...including being a musician.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - llortotevoli, 14 May 2012 @ 1:57pm
    
    Re: Re: This couldn't work for small artists
    If the labels want you to succeed, you'll succeed. If not, then you can't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: This couldn't work for small artists
      They may hold the gates, but they don't bar people from success with music.
      
      In fact, a friend of mine (part of the band "Beats Noir") who didn't ascribe to any specific label was able to get his band's single played on a clear channel station here in Denver, CO.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - llortotevoli, 14 May 2012 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This couldn't work for small artists
        Ooooohhhhh, a local station. Big freakin' deal. I've never heard of them, and none of the big labels have told me they're any good. I have to assume they're not, and I won't be listening to their music. Neither will billions of other people on this planet unless someone important decides they will succeed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill W (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 1:45pm

But, but ... Piracy!
"Still, in the meantime, we're being told across the globe that the only purpose for BitTorrent is "piracy," even as we see more and more artists using it to their advantage."

But you see, because I got recorded music FOR FREE, AND I used BitTorrent, that is, By Definition, "Piracy" ... don't you see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re: But, but ... Piracy!
  Torrents... 98% Illegal... citation please!
  
  http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90061/aussie-study-98-1-of-bittorrent-files-illegal/
  
  http://www. p2pnet.net/story/42091
  
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent -confirmed-to-be-legal/
  
  http://www.ipworld.com/ipwo/doc/view.htm?id=240371&searchCode=N
  
  ht tp://www.myce.com/news/study-97-9-of-bittorrent-files-likely-illegal-32298/
  
  http://www.zeropaid.c om/news/87971/study-only-1-of-bittorrent-files-are-non-infringing/
  
  did you ever meet a criminal who didn't rationalize or justify their crime? this isn't about fans, this is about companies and corporations profiting from the Illegal Exploitation of an Artists Labor against the Artists Will...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
    Why is the response from these people always to try to educate us? You guys are in the wrong business.
    
    Try focusing on getting us to buy stuff.
    
    Clearly people are still buying stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 4:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
      here - you might like my album:
      http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/particle-salad/id6251774
      
      are you going to buy it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Kaden (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        You're gonna need to work on the whole 'Connect With Fans' thing, Sparky... the best time to ask people to buy your music is *not* after you spend an afternoon calling them names.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jeff (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Nope.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 5:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        right, and uhm... it doesn't change the that 98% of torrent activity is illegal does it... hmmmmm...
        
        CwF+RtB is an admission that there's no money of artists online, otherwise why would the solution be "t-shirts and touring?" hmmmmm... masters of the obvious are bad at their own math...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        right, and uhm... it doesn't change the that 98% of torrent activity is illegal does it... hmmmmm...
        
        Maybe not. But, you did guarantee that I would never check out any of your music.
        
        So....mission accomplished?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        hahahahahahaha LOL... maybe it's NOT my music... you guys are too funny... hahahahahahaha... goofballs... you'd have to be nuts to think I'd post my music here... hahahahahahaha... phew... I'm in pain I'm laughing so hard...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        We already think you are nuts, as is evident by your posts. What's telling is that all the other "musicians" here are willing to put their money where their mouth is, literally and prove they are who they claim to be by creating profiles or putting links to their music.
        
        Some are even willing to listen to things and try and be reasonable and respectful, taking advice on how to better market themselves and what have you. Obscurity is a much bigger threat than any pirate.
        
        I sincerely doubt you're an actual musician though. I own several electric guitars and one acoustic guitar. I play for fun at home, mostly covering stuff for my own amusement or just writing my own songs when bored or when something just comes to me. I'm not a "professional" musician by any means, more of a hobbyist (with several day jobs, in fields I'm much more interested in; namely, technology), but I'm definitely more of a legitimate musician than you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 4:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        For a moment there I thought you'd actually given it a shot, you know, maybe just given people a chance to listen to and assess your music, maybe even buy some.
        Nope.
        Why wouldn't you do this? How does not promoting your music help your sales?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        I don't need to promote my music on techdirt, to a bunch of people who support an exploitation economy by ripping off artists worse than any label ever did.
        
        you people are so clueless as to not even be able to have the integrity to admit that you are illegally exploiting artists against their will, how does that make you a hero?
        
        how is it that your solution to one injustice (labels) is an even greater injustice in piracy?
        
        At least have the balls to own it, just say you hate artists, don't believe they should be paid, and they you LIKE exploiting artists... say that you LOVE exploiting artists and seeing them struggle... just have the balls to own it.
        
        That's what you are doing. You could be supporting a fair and ethical internet for all citizens, including artists, but you'd rather exclude artists rights so that corporations and companies and can profit from the ripping off artists just like artists have ALWAYS been ripped off... but now, YOU are not only ripping off artists yourself, but you are supporting an Exploitation Economy.
        
        Nice, good work... keep ripping off artists and enjoying your exploitation of other human beings, that makes you a hero?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 16 May 2012 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        I really don't know why I'm bothering with this but here goes:
        "bunch of people who support an exploitation economy " - It's nice that you know so much about me, I guess all the music i've bought over the last 25 years probably does contribute to exploiting artists, but The Pirate Bay has sweet FA to do with that.
        "you people are so clueless" - now I've tried to be polite throughout these discussions, is it too much to ask for that courtesy to be returned? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically make them wrong.
        "how does that make you a hero?" - You ask this question twice, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
        "how is it that your solution to one injustice (labels) is an even greater injustice in piracy?" - Two things here (both of which we've state before): 1) Recognising that something happens is not the same as endorsing it. 2) This was originally an article about a band choosing to give away their content for free, where is the injustice exactly?
        "just say you hate artists, don't believe they should be paid, and they you LIKE exploiting artists" - Why would I, or anyone else on this site, say those things when they're so blatantly not true? I'm a fairly cheeful soul, I don't hate anyone, much less a whole classification of people that (on a good day) I like to think I'm part of.
        "YOU are not only ripping off artists yourself, but you are supporting an Exploitation Economy" - See my point above about the difference between recognition and endorsement.
        So to go back to the discussion I was trying to have before your rant, where do you promote your music? How do you promote your music? And how does demonising the entire readership of a site that regularly posts about music help your sales?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        "1) Recognising that something happens is not the same as endorsing it. "
        
        great, so here's your opportunity to NOT endorse the illegally exploitation of artists work without consent or compensation. do you endorse what the pirate bay is doing to artists, or not?
        
        simple question, should have a simple answer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        No I do not endorse what the users of the Pirate Bay are doing when they share files that the creators don't want shared.
        Which is a slightly different point to your broad brush but hopefully answers your question.
        
        Now, do you think we should be rolling back technology to protect an outdated business model or adapting our business models to make the most of the available technology?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        I charted a record in the billboard top 40 last you, I don't need your validation, and it doesn't excuse you from supporting an exploitation economy of ripping off artists worse than labels.
        
        so I come in here, I don't like labels, I hate the RIAA and I'm demonized because I don't think that trading one injustice (labels) for an even greater injustice (piracy) is any kind of progress... wow, just wow.
        
        so as long as artists have no rights and anyone can exploit artists at any time for profit, personal or commercial, than that's ok?
        
        so let's check the math hypocrite... labels and RIAA are evil for ripping off artists, but some how if you and/or corporations or ripping off artists for profit, that ok?
        
        really? pick a lie and stick to it already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        You're demonized for your trollish attitude. You act as though you're the greatest thing since sliced bread because, oh my!, you made the top 40. NOTHING I listen to is on the top 40.
        
        Also, you keep saying that piracy is a greater injustice, but can't provide solid, verifiable evidence that it even causes harm.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 1:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        >I charted a record in the billboard top 40 last you
        
        Haven't you been claiming that you're an independent artist not tied to any label? The Billboard is only for artists signed to labels. You've been claiming that you've not been on any label, even independent ones.
        
        That proves it. You don't have any skin in this game at all. You're just here to insult people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        You are a lying, sleazy, scumbag, go back to the troll hole you crawled out of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hurricane head, 15 May 2012 @ 9:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        anyone can chart in billboard... good lord, I charted a self released album, billboard charting is completely agnostic, it's based on soundscan sales which are now largely dominated by sales from itunes... you need to educate yourself before you start calling people liars...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 6:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Just because Jeff said he doesn't want to buy it, that doesn't mean he's going to download it for nothing. He might just not want to touch it at all. With your attitude, I don't want to touch it either.
        
        I went and purchased all of Louis CK's stuff because he's a down to earth guy who doesn't treat potential fans like criminals. Maybe there's a lesson there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Maybe... maybe not... maybe it's just another poor rationalization... besides, I don't care if people download illegally, I care if companies and corporations PROFIT from the illegal exploitation of my work... if you're not profiting, I don't care what you do... but I do care about The Pirate Bay and Google making money from my work and not paying me... they're making money from my labor...
        
        If they allowed me to opt out, I'd have no problem with them either. Just let me distribute my work the way I want too.
        
        no one has the right to profit from my work without consent or compensation. when the pirate bay starts offer contracts and payments let me know.
        
        until then they're just more people ripping off artists, and worse than labels ever did.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and find some proper sources for how people are profiting instead of that tired excuse for a quote database from the RIAA.
        
        For someone who doesn't care about the RIAA you're using an awful lot of their source material.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        I don't know anything about the RIAA but what I do know is that musicians are worse off now than they were ten years ago by buying into a lot of this crap... "t-shirts and touring" is an ADMISSION that there is no money for artists online... so pick a lie and stick to it...
        
        why do you support tech companies ripping off artists for profit worse than labels ever did? is everyone who rips off artists evil, or just the labels and the RIAA?
        
        why do you support an Exploitation Economy of ripping off artists instead of an ethical internet? What's in it for you? You really need music so bad that you have to exploit the labor of other human beings to get it?
        
        tech slumlords unite to ripp off artists and illegally exploit them... why do you hate artists so much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Still no citations?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        "...but I do care about The Pirate Bay and Google making money from my work and not paying me... they're making money from my labor..."
        
        Since you're adamant that The Pirate Bay and Google are making money from your work, prove it. Provide us with actual evidence of both or either of these companies actually making money off YOUR work. Put up or shut up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Louis also isn't a batshit crazy, paranoid, and completely delusional moron like this clueless 'musician' appears to be.
        
        Hey elitist idiot, nobody gives a shit about your shitty music. I also suggest you sign up for some music lessons too, you suck ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        hahahahahahahaha... phew... you are too funny... I love it when you guys get down to nothing left but insults, always the sing of a lost argument... hahahahahahahaha... yeah... phew... tummy hurts...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 12:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Um, no. No, I am not. You know why? YOU SUCK! Or, more politely, I do not enjoy your music, and do not find that I would ever pay for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        Depends if I like them:
        http://www.particlesalad.com/news.html
        Although coming from you....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - weneedhelp (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        In The Mood (mp3 7megs)
        Temporary Pain (mp3, 7 megs)
        The Night I Heard Caruso Sing (mp3, 5 megs)
        
        Good stuff, I think... let me know what you think!
        
        I think broken links suck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 5:32pm
    
    Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
    So if so many people disregard IP laws then a representative government ought to disregard them as well. I say we legalize infringement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 10:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
      good luck w/ that... it didn't work for lessig... uh oh...
      
      http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/larry-lessig-is-wrong/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        No need for luck, copyright is optional today, in case you didn't notice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
        "No need for luck, copyright is optional today, in case you didn't notice."
        
        keep saying that to yourself... there are no monsters here... there are no monsters here...
        
        what I notice is that if you actually believed that you wouldn't need to spend time here posting trying to convince me of it...
        
        lessig lost TWICE at the highest courts... how do you really think this story is going to end? the wild west wasn't wild forever and neither will the internet be...
        
        and why are you so invested in exploiting artists illegally for profit when you could be supporting an ethical internet for all citizens, including artists? not very OPEN of you, and the people seeking exclusions are seeking to profit from those exclusions... as always, follow the money and it leads back to google and big tech.
        
        the old gate keepers controlled access to distribution, the new gate keepers control access to money. you've traded one monolithic corporate gate keeper for another but don't even realize how badly you are being played.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
    Yet you want to stop perfectly legal services like Megaupload, that police their content, from existing and offering mostly legal content and then you complain when people turn to infringement and infringing sources for content.
    
    What are your sources to show that Megaupload, for example, hosted mostly infringing content? You have none.
    
    Yes, torrents do host a larger percentage of infringing content, but people will share a whole lot of perfectly legal content. but when the means to share legal content is banned for no good reason (more) people will turn to, and create, much more difficult to regulate methods of sharing content, those methods will become more efficient and have a larger support base and become more effective at distributing content without getting infringing users in trouble, and those methods will invariably have more infringing content. When people are denied access to reasonably priced content due to an artificial disruption in the content distribution channels more people will be willing to contribute more of their effort and resources towards circumventing the disruption in ways that are more difficult for governments to regulate.
    
    A problem with decentralized sources of information (and this might be addressed in the future) is that they don't allow the efficient promotion of legal, valuable, and relevant content (ie: content that search engines can rate the value and relevance of based on user input and remove infringing content). But when services that allow artists to better freely promote their work and consumers to freely (or more affordably) download it (legally) are terminated, like megaupload, the demand for content (at a cheaper price) doesn't disappear despite an artificial reduction in supply and people will find alternative methods to distribute content, methods that are more difficult for the government to regulate and hence will have more infringing content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: But, but ... Piracy!
      "Yet you want to stop perfectly legal services like Megaupload, that police their content, from existing and offering mostly legal content and then you complain when people turn to infringement and infringing sources for content."
      
      if that were true there would not have been a raid, what are you going to say when they are criminally convicted?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:14pm

With everything that's happened, i have no trust now or in the future with any company who's held the control on a market a for an extended period, seems like, everytime, the ones in charge are unwilling to evolve, which tends to lead to butt raping

I'd be more then HAPPY to suffer the growing pains and mistakes of an upstart media distribution company, if they show promise of becoming the first one with honest morals, a willingless to embrace technology, and above all else, actually base their business around the wants of their customers,

I mean, who else is in a better position to know what the customer wants, then the customers?

Its on the upstart to figure out how to turn what a customer wants, into something they can use to support their company
The wants that wouldn't make business sense would be their time to shine, times when the company would be praised for innovation, in doing the same old thing in a "duh, why didn't we think of doing it that" moment

To provide a customers wants, wants that are known and those that come from left field, AND figuring a way to profit from them without butt raping, would be their number one motto

In the current internet age, however CURRENT that may be, those are the things i will notice and gladly incourage

MOTTO
"Insert company name". Innovation without the, well, you know, penetration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re:
  and just too add
  
  That's all assuming the legacy companies stop cockblocking the upstarts
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    there needs to be a better licensing system so as to create more competition in online retailing models, I agree.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 2:17pm

"...embraced this new theology."

Has file sharing finally become a theological matter? or was it always?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re:
  about as much as theology as the "singularity"... are you ready to be uploaded! Be Saved! The Church of Singularity will Save Your Soul!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 3:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I love how people who don't know fuck all about the tech industry actually think that everyone in tech thinks the singularity is something serious.
    
    We don't. Most people think it's a joke. Tarring and feathering people you don't know may seem like fun, but it just makes you look like a clueless crank.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2012 @ 4:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike, based on his writing style so far and what he's saying "a clueless crank" may be what he is. I'm thinking, and this is pure speculation based on his writing style and what he's said so far, that he's the same AC who hijacked the El-P article awhile back. You know, "how much does the Pirate Bay pay artists = $0" and "show me the contracts that the Pirate Bay is offering artists, oh that's right they aren't offering any". That guy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 9:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm thinking, and this is pure speculation based on his writing style and what he's said so far, that he's the same AC who hijacked the El-P article awhile back.
        
        Bingo.
        
        This guy is nothing but a troll, who is trying to post links to "thetrichordist" (which I think is his own personal blog, though I can't be sure). He also posts links to popuppirates.
        
        Both these sites are nothing more than anti-tech, and specifically anti-Google, rant sites. The first is from someone who is like (and I suspect, is) our illustrious guest here. The second is from someone who made a terrible rip-off of another movie, that hasn't actually been pirated very much, who is screaming that piracy killed their one-star film and that Google is stealing money from everyone.
        
        Make no mistake about it: "hurricane head" is an ideologue. He does not care one whit about artists; witness the fact that every single thread about a successful artist is dragged into the mire by this fucktard and his spamming. He represents artists exactly as much as George Lincoln Rockwell represented white people.
        
        And his comments should be treated as such. Don't reply to him; you're arguing with a complete loon - so even if you win, you lose.
        
        He has nothing to add; he is making no arguments at all. If people try to actually debate him, he insults them, and doesn't respond to any of the points raised. He is nothing but a troll. I'm not usually one for advocating the reporting of posts, but this guy deserves it. In spades.
        
        Don't interact with him; report his posts. That's the only way we'll ever be able to hold a conversation in this thread.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2012 @ 12:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you guys are too funny... at techdirt "truth" = "troll" ... LOL... gently whisper to yourself... there are no monsters here... there are no monsters here...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2012 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, at Techdirt true DOES NOT equal troll. TROLLING = TROLL. Coming to this site, disrupting the conversation/comments by ranting and repeating the same thing 50 times (ex: "how much does the pirate bay pay artists??? where are the contracts the pirate bay gives artists?!?! etc) is what is considered trolling.
        
        Doing what you do regularly. That is trolling. In fact, you are a troll. You don't actually state anything factual, you go off on tangents, you spin things from something no one said and then go off about them, etc.
        
        You're right, there are no monsters here. But there is at least one idiot. And I'm replying to him/her.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        truth hurts, and on techdirt it appears TRUTH = TROLLING.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 19 May 2012 @ 4:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "truth hurts, and on techdirt it appears TRUTH = TROLLING."
        
        There was truth? Sorry, you'll have to highlight the words that contain any semblance of truth. I'm not seeing any.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hurricane Head, 14 May 2012 @ 4:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm glad you think the Singularity is a joke, it shows the level of critical thinking dreaming up the rationalizations to keep ripping off artists worse than labels ever did...
      
      and NO, I don't care about labels or the RIAA, I'm an independent artist... and NO you don't have the right to illegally exploit my work, and YES I have tried your "solutions" for the last half a decade, and NO they don't work unless someone already HAD a career of someone else spending millions of dollars on them like Amanda Palmer, Radiohead and NIN...
      
      So you hate artists, don't believe they should have choices, and believe you should have the right to exploit them for profit... wow, that's innovating thinking... at least the singularity is something new...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Monkey (profile), 14 May 2012 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fascinating! You kept speaking about The Pirate Bay and how they are 'exploiting' people, yet you fail to show any credible facts that they are doing just that. Also, when I speak of credible, I speak of facts that are not based upon RIAA/MPAA affiliated information, as we all have seen the "sources" they use and promote. I ask for this BECAUSE you will find very little to support that claim that has not been manipulated by those organizations.
        
        As far as your comment "I'm sure he told you all about how much money he was making and how happy he was to have his work illegally exploited by the pirate bay who keep all of his money and pay him NOTHING. "
        Please show any relevant factual information that really supports this.
        
        FYI: This is what The Pirate Bay is really encouraging:
        The Promo Bay
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2012 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        this is what the promo bay really is... these guys are now the types of lying gatekeepers they had accused the labels of being... hypocrites!
        
        http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/smells-like-pirate-desperation/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - drew (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 4:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "and NO they don't work unless someone already HAD a career of someone else spending millions of dollars on them like Amanda Palmer, Radiohead and NIN... "
        
        Hold on a moment, didn't you have a top 40 hit? So you've already got a fan-base that's big enough to get you onto the billboard chart (without the help of a label or the RIAA) but you can't work with that fanbase to make that work for you?
        
        I'd be really curious to know exactly how you're trying these solutions, because a lot of people are making their way without anything like that kind of exposure.
        
        "So you hate artists, don't believe they should have choices, and believe you should have the right to exploit them for profit"
        This i just don't understand. There's a whole section of this site dedicated to case studies so that artists can see how they can make their choices to compete in the new environment. That doesn't sound like exploitation to me.
        
        The unit cost of a digital file is effectively zero, funnily enough an open market will only ever accept a certain amount over the unit cost as a fair price. You can't roll back that technology, all you can do is find a way to compete in that market.
        Your choice appears to be to ignore that reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " YES I have tried your "solutions" for the last half a decade"
        
        Citation needed.
        
        "NO they don't work unless someone already HAD a career of someone else spending millions of dollars on them like Amanda Palmer, Radiohead and NIN... "
        
        It's funny how you people can never address all of the ideas on the site, just whichever ones are convenient to you.
        
        So, did you miss the articles about artists like Jonathan Coulton who have never had a label contract but still manage to make a decent living?
        
        No, I suppose that would interfere with the cherry picking you do in between accusing others of things they've never done. Whatever makes you sleep at night instead of addressing why you're a failure, I suppose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is with you and this crap about hating?
        I hate you, are you an artist? so yes I hate one artist.
        
        Would I rip you off?
        Probably not, but if I did I would sleep like a baby at night, because this BS guilty trip of yours is tiresome.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no, you hate all artists that disagree with you. I'm just the only one in front of you right now. but techdirt community hates all artists who don't want to get ripped off by tech companies and corporations WORSE than we got ripped off by labels...
        
        get hip man, you are on the wrong side... don't let the silence fool you. the mass of artists are taking notes, you can only fool people for so long. you are the new labels, you are the new RIAA. you are the ones who don't want us artists to get paid. you are the ones hating on artists and exploiting us, and we're figuring it out after a decade of giving you the benefit of the doubt.
        
        the long silent army of artists no now who the enemy is... and it's the people exploiting us WORSE than labels and for PROFIT.
        
        Fans are gonna share, that's cool, but NO ONE has the right to illegally exploit my work without my consent or compensation. NO ONE.
        
        So you can make this about ME, but you are stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant... Buckle Up, the word is out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >no, you hate all artists that disagree with you. I'm just the only one in front of you right now.
        
        We don't "hate", but your insistence that all of us are assholes worse than the RIAA is getting extremely tiresome. Especially considering that when we say so, you insist that we're lying.
        
        >get hip man, you are on the wrong side... don't let the silence fool you. the mass of artists are taking notes, you can only fool people for so long. you are the new labels, you are the new RIAA.
        
        When Techdirt starts pushing for censorship laws, demanding that the citizenry pays a blanket tax on storage media, or suing thousands of John Does in joinder while demanding settlement fees, you might have a point. Until then, you're making completely baseless attacks.
        
        >the long silent army of artists no now who the enemy is... and it's the people exploiting us WORSE than labels and for PROFIT.
        
        Funnily enough, for someone who claims to be working independent of labels you've got a very big beef with the man on the street. Why don't you already work with labels if you claim that the general public is ripping you off harder than the labels ever will?
        
        >Fans are gonna share, that's cool, but NO ONE has the right to illegally exploit my work without my consent or compensation. NO ONE.
        
        You are full of it. The Pirate Bay is a medium for sharing and the suggestion that they make profits off your back is stupid. If The Pirate Bay never existed and fans shared through email, would you claim that email providers were illegally exploiting your work? If fans shared through swapping disk drives, would you claim that corporations like SanDisk were illegally exploiting your work? If fans shared through sharing CDs, would you claim that CD manufacturers were illegally exploiting your work?
        
        >So you can make this about ME, but you are stabbing the toes of a sleeping giant... Buckle Up, the word is out.
        
        So, when we ask you for citations it's because we're losing the argument, but when you ask us for citations and we provide you with them, you still mock us? For someone who claims that there is "a sleeping giant", you're having a hard time to come up with some names. But hey, continue to provide us with nothing, because that's all we're going to work with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 15 May 2012 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm an independent artist... and NO you don't have the right to illegally exploit my work,
        
        First of all, I've never said I had the right to illegally use your work. Why do you always attack people who are pointing you to smarter solutions?
        
        and YES I have tried your "solutions" for the last half a decade, and NO they don't work unless someone already HAD a career of someone else spending millions of dollars on them like Amanda Palmer, Radiohead and NIN...
        
        It sounds like you're doing it wrong. There are tons of artists who did not have a career before who are doing quite well this way. We've talked about Jonathan Coulton, Corey Smith, Matthew Ebel, Jason Parker, Motoboy, Uniform Motion and lots of others on this blog alone. None came out of the traditional industry. All are doing well as indie musicians by embracing the internet. And there's a *lot* more where they came from.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        mike, stop lying. You support the pirate bay illegally exploiting my work for profit and paying me nothing, or are you actually coming around and realizing that is an unfair and unethical exploitation of my work? Do tell...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are an idiot. People have been repeating countless times that they do not agree with "exploitation of your work". Your best rebuttal to this argument so far has been nothing but insistence that everyone else is lying. You are too far gone to believe anything else other than what the RIAA has fed you, despite your own claiming that you do not support them.
        
        Continue to hijack threads and scream at the top of your voice, because it's enough to prove your own lack of validity, intelligence and decorum.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2012 @ 9:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Show me where TechDirt does NOT support the pirate bay illegally exploiting artists for profit and without consent or compensation. Citation Please.
        
        Why doesn't Mike just come out and say he doesn't support the illegal exploitation of artists work for profit be it from Record Labels OR the Pirate Bay OR both? Why the selective reasoning when it comes to the exploitation of artists?
        
        You are now the new labels. You are now the new RIAA. You are the people lying to artists, being dishonest, and supporting a system WORSE than labels illegally exploiting artists.
        
        You are the supporters of the Exploitation Economy. At least have some balls and either admit it, or have the balls to say that you were WRONG, that it's WRONG to illegally exploit an artists work without consent or compensation. Say that you actually support Artists Rights and an artists right to CHOSE when and how their work is distributed commercially for profit.
        
        Why not just have some integrity already rather than being a hypocrite with a double standard.
        
        When labels ripp off artists = bad, but when the pirate bay ripps off artists = good? Pick a lie and stick to it already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2012 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love your get out of jail free card, for the countless thousands of artists who are failing from your half baked methods must be doing so because they are doing it wrong... can't argue with that logic... By that logic every band that failed during the pre-piracy era that didn't succeed was also doing it wrong...
        
        no, the simple truth is Mike, all things being equal the simplist answer is usually the correct one, which in this case is very simply, YOU ARE WRONG.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron deOliveira, 14 May 2012 @ 2:49pm

two phrases
two phrases i like

1) low-barrier way to (re)connect

2) bit-torrent has a bigger install base

both great realizations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony, 15 May 2012 @ 7:04am

They are not "THE" Counting Crows, just Counting Crows (an action a human could do), not some sort of erudite birds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]