Band Explains Why It Loves When Fans Download Unauthorized Copies Of Its Music
from the building-a-fan-base dept
There's an interesting blog post by Alexander Abnos, who is both a musician in the band Secret Cities and currently working as an intern at WNYC's SoundCheck radio program. He talks about how much his band loves the fact that people download their music, because it's helped them to build up a really loyal fanbase. He talks about how they signed with a label and spent a few years focusing on the band full time, and were always thrilled when people told them they had downloaded their music, even via unauthorized means:Later on he explains in more detail. And, what it comes down to is the same discussion we've been having for ages: obscurity is a much bigger "threat" than piracy ever was. The biggest challenge for a band is getting known, and these days, file sharing is one major way of getting known:Attendee: “I really enjoyed the show!”
Me: “What?!”
Attendee (now screaming): “I REALLY ENJOYED THE SHOW!!!”
Me: “Oh! Thanks! I’m glad you had good time! It was really fun!” (It almost always was).
Attendee: “I downloaded [insert Secret Cities album name here] illegally! Hope you don’t mind!”
Me: “Nope!”
I wasn’t lying. I didn’t really mind. We didn’t really mind. The reason is absurdly simple: This person heard our music, and enjoyed it enough to come to a show. Most times, they brought friends along. As a little-known band on the road, what more can you really ask for?
We love it because of the countless conversations like the one I recounted above. We love it because of the stadium’s worth of people that have listened to our songs on YouTube that might never have heard us otherwise. We love it because of that time in Atlanta on our first tour, when kids in the front row were mouthing along with our songs before our first record was even released.
We can’t put a dollar sign on those things. Why would we even want to?
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: alexander abnos, file sharing, obscurity, secret cities
Companies: wnyc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
/Failed Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forever On Some Fly Shit -
"I ain't doin features even if they got the cash
Me and black sam ballin out the shop on slauson ave look
There's way more profit in these clothes
So I give away this music and make double back in shows I
360 myself then exercise control
Ihussle.com I Digital Louis stole
catch up now or find out later
I'm revenge of success to all haters"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc6SF36G-lU&feature=related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought experiment...
Makes you wonder how much of the shift to alternate music business models is fueled by analysts talking about the shift to alternate business models.... remember, advertising is everything, and regardless of what you think of the ideas, blogs like Techdirt sure to advertise other ways of doing things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thought experiment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is good to reward bands like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought you were into "true" property rights. If downloading that band's music violates someone else's property rights, then why do you write puff pieces like this that celebrate such piracy instead of admonishing those who willfully break the law? Oh, never mind. I forgot. You hate true property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's funny every time, friend. But of course it's silly and has nothing to do with whether it's property. You guys are great. Can't even admit that copyright is a property right. It's hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
wait for it...
wait some more...
Citation Required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. How is this violating anyone's rights if the band says they're okay with it?
2. Copyright i snot a property right, but a gov't granted monopoly *privilege*. Until you understand the difference you will continue to flop around hopeless confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
OMG, really? You said these were UNAUTHORIZED and ILLEGAL downloads. LMFAO! If they weren't authorized or legal, then that means someone's rights were violated. Duh.
2. Copyright i snot a property right, but a gov't granted monopoly *privilege*. Until you understand the difference you will continue to flop around hopeless confused.
ROFLMFAO! Really? The point is not even debatable. You look like a total fucking moron, Mike. It's too fucking funny. OMG! ROFL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, if anything it only means the law was violated. Under US law 'rights' are only granted under the constitution, and the only 'right' to do with Copyright, is the right for Congress to enact it.
ROFLMFAO! Really? The point is not even debatable. You look like a total fucking moron, Mike. It's too fucking funny. OMG! ROFL!
I'm really not sure how a human being with a brain could craft this sentence and not die under the weight of the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's called buoyancy. Hot air floats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's tough to take you even remotely seriously when you post using the language of a 12 year old.
However, I'll play along. In what world, when someone's rights are violated are they super excited and happy about it and excited to tell the world how they're better off because of it? Doesn't sound like any "rights violation" I'm aware of.
ROFLMFAO! Really? The point is not even debatable. You look like a total fucking moron, Mike. It's too fucking funny. OMG! ROFL!
Ah, so not only do you write like a child, but a child with a potty mouth. Fair enough. It clearly is debatable, as plenty of people -- many of whom much more knowledgeable and distinguished than either you or I have debated the point at length.
Because you're a "by the book, the law above all else" sort of person, I think I understand your confusion (though not your childish response). You seem to think we're talking about the law. We're not. When you catch up to the rest of the class, then perhaps you'll understand what you were missing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so dishonest, it's hilarious. The band admits that it was piracy and that it was illegal. Who owned the copyrights on the songs that were downloaded? The band or the label that they said they were signed with at the time? If they are saying it was illegal, then they are saying that someone's rights were violated. Why would you title your own article with the word "unauthorized" unless you meant "violative of someone's rights"? You aren't making any sense. No surprise there. You're really off the reservation, Mike. You admit that it's "unauthorized" but then pretend like no one's rights were violated. Try and weasel all you want, but that makes no sense and is seriously laughable.
You seem to think we're talking about the law. We're not.
Nice try at a cop out. Clearly, you're talking about the law--a subject that you prove day in and day out that you don't understand. You really are a "wannabe lawyer." LMFAO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember how IP was considered morally evil by a good number of the Founding Fathers of the US, as the Queen had done that in the UK?
...Yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what you're completely incapable of understanding: Nobody gives a shit if the label is unhappy. The band is happy, and that's all that matters. You can blah, blah about the law all you want, but the fact is the band is happy that people are listening to their music. You show your true colours (and likely source of employment) by getting so upset for the label and not even acknowledging that the band is getting the very thing they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When people were "illegally" making "unauthorized" downloads that amounted to "piracy," you don't think anyone's rights were violated? LOL! OK, Mike, whatever you say. God forbid you ever be the least bit honest about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And a new superhero is born! Letter-of-the-Law Man is here to save you from thinking for yourself once again!
I'm sure that when you travel around the country with your wife you make sure to abide by the laws below, right AJ?
Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In Japan possessing child pornography is legal. But you support this, right?
God forbid you ever be the least bit honest about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I bow to your intellect.
Loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only K-12 grade schoolers and those who barely passed the Advanced Composition course in community college use "TXT TLK" acronyms.
...And yes. I'm aware of the irony of my username.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sir, are absolutely correct! It is just as snotty as you describe.
^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ideas are non material "objects" that do not get destroyed when consumed like material objects and whose "production" does not require direct consumption of material inputs as what economists call "services" do.
Therefore, the economic concept of "trade" on which all arguments about the efficiency of "markets" based on well defined property rights, simply cannot be meaningfully applied to ideas, similarly, it makes no sense to "steal" an idea.
Only what is legally and materially OWNED can be stolen.
To own something you need a legal right claiming PROPERTY.
Property can be meaningfully defined if the owner can enforce the right to EXCLUDE others from consumption/use, claming otherwise is utterly asinine...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In addition to your rebuttal, thats in case you have enough braincells to write something more than ad hominem attacks, please answer this;
1.- How can IDEAS can be subject to the same economic laws as material objects?
2.- Do IDEAS as non material "objects" get destroyed when consumed like material objects?
Answer that or just GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I note also that you provide no evidence of your claims or of your alleged expertise. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that you possess either one, and as such, your argument is invalid. You also neglected to account for the fact that unauthorized downloads are only illegal because of laws that are demonstrably unethical and which were passed through corrupt means. Therefore, it is not wrong to ignore and oppose such laws.
Whether you like it or not, AC, technology is changing how individuals and societies interact with our shared human culture. If you wish to remain relevant, you must change with it. The Borg have a saying, and I believe it is relevant here:
"Resistance is futile."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOLOL! ROTFL! LMAO! Like, totally, what the fuck? Really? WHAT? Pirate! You guys! Honestly! LOL!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but you and Mike and the rest of the Techdirt nation obviously know little to nothing about property law. Mike can try and weasel out of it by saying he's not talking about law, but clearly a discussion about rights and privileges is a legal discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No where does Mike justify piracy, as the blue AC forgot to point out (and instead put word sin his mouth)
It's hilarious when you people create drama to justify yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't hang out on FOX News all day so I can make rude comments and hate everything I read. What a sad life that would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So even the Restatement uses the word "property" to refer to the legal relations in a thing, such as rights, and not the thing itself. Every first-year law student learns property law, and the first thing they teach you is that the word "property" is used very broadly, and it refers to the rights in a thing. Law students learn that rights are property. The Supreme Court, Congress, the Executive Branch, the commentary, secondary sources, etc. are all in agreement.
I take it you've never studied property law for even five minutes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In fact, this happens on the common criminal situations (Tangible-Stuff Theft, Murder, Treachery, Blackmail, and so many others). Possibly will also happen with "Copyright Infrigment" if it's criminalistically penalized as it was propoused many times in the past (but thankfully it has not happened yet).
Considering the fact that there are major corporative representatives buying different types of enforcement or laws, it's not farfetched to say that this can even reach the Orwell's 1984 scenario eventually, under the presumption of certain well-placed crisis (War on [insert theme here]).
In all and all, this means that maybe laws do not live up to today's living standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not that simple. Some rights are property, and some are not. Depends on the right. If you own a copyright in some work, the copyright rights are your property. You can sell them, license them, extinguish them (by abandonment), etc. Rights like that are called proprietary rights. Personal rights, on the other hand, such as your right to freedom of speech, cannot be transferred. Freedom of speech is not a proprietary right--it's not your right in a piece of property.
Your copyright rights cannot be taken away without due process or just compensation. Property rights, like copyright, are subject to Fifth Amendment protections. Personal rights, like freedom of speech, are guaranteed by the First Amendment or some other provision. Different amendments, different kinds of rights, different stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
give them your whole catalog
They've expressed interest in your music. Get them involved with everything you do. Then you've really connected with them as a fan. Now they know you better and are more likely to support you directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greedy Pirate: "So you're saying it's ok for me to download stuff from every other band for free too then, right?
Band: "What? That's not our choice to make."
Greedy Pirate: "It's just logical."
Band: "Where the hell did you learn that "logic"?
Greedy Pirate: "Techdirt."
Band: "What's Techdirt?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Label Artist: "Wait, I thought it was my music. After all, I created it."
Greedy Label Middleman: "Read your contract again. We own it all."
Label Artist: "Bastard. I'm going to go leak my music online so that more people will hear my music and come to my concerts where I make more money since the label obviously doesn't care about me and just about the money."
Greedy Label Middleman: "That's fine, we'll just pay some minimum wage shills to create strawman arguments on websites that don't drink the corporate lobby kool-aid about how all copyright infringement is from Satan, rather than the truth we all know, that it's really a market fordce reacting to the obsolete business models of us aging dinosaurs who refuse to let go of the old ways because we're scared we can't keep up in a modern world."
Label Artist: "Wow, that's really honest and insightful. If you realize that, shouldn't you realize you need to change?"
Greedy Label Middleman: "Hell no!" [lights a cigar with 100 dollar bills]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Translation:
Stealing because you're unafraid of being punished.
You people are fooling absolutely no one.
But it's funny to watch you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Definitely not as funny as you trying to equate infringement to theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.bigmeathammer.com/archives.htm
I have always supported DIY and always will !!!
I am now 56 and went to my first punk rock show in the summer of 1976 Boston,Mass.
Punks Not Dead !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Best show ever: Pennywise, anywhere, anywhen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was one of those fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unethical laws such as what copyright has become must be opposed and ignored and their powerlessness demonstrated for all to see. The control you once had is gone and will never return, and no amount of laws and treaties will change that. People will do what they know can be done, and they will not be stopped. Digital copies cannot be contained or restricted. To attempt to do so is futile. The only choice you can make is whether to adapt to the new way, or fall into obscurity with all that is left of the old guard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point of the piece is that instead of being hung up on protecting their "property", this band was pumped because people who DL'd their music knew who they were and came to their shows. The band correctly concluded that what's important is not all the songs they're not selling - it's all the other things they're selling because of all the "unauthorized" exposure they're getting.
The irony (and, I'm pretty sure, this is another one of the core points of Mike's blog) is that if their "property" were fully and effectively protected they wouldn't be selling ANYTHING - not songs, not shows, not merch, nothing - because nobody but their family and friends would know who they were.
So while you're trying to argue with everyone that OMG PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, the point of this piece is that (at least for this band) that turned out to be great and the artists are aware enough to be grateful for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shall we all agree that the sky is lime green? Because if everyone agrees, the sky becomes lime green.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So: the record label signed this band based on the popularity of their (by today's rules) ILLEGALLY COPIED and DISTRIBUTED works. And this band gained their first popularity due to their fans ILLEGALLY COPYING their works. Oh, the ironies.
And the ultimate irony?? This band was Metalliwhore--I MEAN, "Metallica".
Yeah.
What can we take away from this? That the MAFFIAA (and Metalliwhore) are a bunch or retarded asshats.
If things keep going the way they're going, there won't be anyone left to buy any media, and they will ALL collapse within their house of cards. Along with the entire global economy, but that's another discussion altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]