Band Explains Why It Loves When Fans Download Unauthorized Copies Of Its Music

from the building-a-fan-base dept

Tue, Jun 26th 2012 4:03pm — Mike Masnick

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:

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?

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:

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

87 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

MrWilson, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:14pm

This is just an outlier and will never work for most artists. Most artists are well-known and otherwise make millions off of their record sales and thus lose millions when their music is shared online. Especially the big artists who never go on tour and thus don't make so much more from ticket sales than albums sales like...um...yeah.

/Failed Troll
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:15pm

Thought experiment...
I wonder, and you should too, if the labels had just shut the hell up when they realized trading music was starting to take off, would their business model would still be best? I mean, it really comes down to the advertising, and regardless of how much you reduce the cost of production and distribution, it all comes down to the amount of exposure. And if the labels hadn't gone bananas about Napster and file sharing, there wouldn't be a fistful of blogs promoting bands like Secret Cities being successful off of alternate business models.

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 thread ]
MrWilson, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:21pm

Re: Thought experiment...
I've always said, the RIAA should have invented Napster. The MPAA should have invented Netflix. Nobody would have been able to compete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:25pm

Because of this band's attitude and the fact their priority is to make music and build a relationship with their fans, I was motivated to check out some of their music on their website which I enjoyed so I went on Amazon and bought, yes bought, their music. I am downloading now.

It is good to reward bands like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:26pm

Hey Pirate Mike--

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 thread ]
Aaron deOliveira, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:49pm

give them your whole catalog
At this point, why doesn't the band use something like Boxopus to transfer their entire catalog to everyone at the show?

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 thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:58pm

Re:
intellectual property != true property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:02pm

Band: "We love it when people download our stuff for free".

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 thread ]
Lowery's Sock Puppet, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:09pm

Lowery, you crack me up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:14pm

Re:
I know I love how it says that right there in the post. Oh wait it doesn't? Weird how you made that connection than and assumed we were all as stupid as you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re:
LMAO! Of course it is true property. What is or isn't property is defined by law. Give me a break. If Mike really cared about property, he wouldn't celebrate piracy with posts like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'm up to 11.7 trillion copies of Moby-Dick. Funny kind of property that belongs to everybody.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IP goes on a balance sheet as a derived benefit (or whatever), not as a tangible asset, so no, its not 'true property'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where something goes on a balance sheet is not the test. Cute though. You guys are too much. Never studied a lick of property law, yet all experts on the subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm

Re:
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.

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 thread ]
blaktron (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thats a shit-ton of storage, and i call bullshit. Also, your naming scheme would be intense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:39pm

Re:
You are WRONG because you start from the mistaken presumption that IDEAS (Intelectual property) can be subject to the same economic laws as material objects.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:40pm

Re: Re:
1. How is this violating anyone's rights if the band says they're okay with it?

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:41pm

Re: Re:
ROFL! You guys really know next to nothing about property law. It's awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm up to 11.7 trillion copies of Moby-Dick. Funny kind of property that belongs to everybody.

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 thread ]
VMax, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:44pm

Re: Re: Re:
No. It's simply government granted monopoly rights. Just accept that and you may have the beginning of understanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:48pm

Re: Re: Re:
Ok, please elaborate a detailed rebuttal for what I have written, if you can of course, if you can't, then you are just a very, VERY DUMB troll.

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 thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you did???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:53pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it property or is it not property? Does it belong to no one or does it belong to everyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:58pm

Not sure who cares but if you go to my Archives page you will find a ton of the punk rock stuff I have done.At least 5 albums worth of stuff for free as well as a bunch of videos.I support and encourage people to share my music.
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 thread ]
blaktron (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:00pm

Re:
I love you man, even though the punk I grew up with in the 80s and 90s was not the same as your punk, we at least shared some roots!

Best show ever: Pennywise, anywhere, anywhen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.

It's called buoyancy. Hot air floats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Logician (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect, AC. For something to be property, it must be strictly physical in nature. Things that are intangible cannot be property, precisely because they cannot be contained. The kind of control you imagine does not exist. As Captain Sisko said, "you can pulp a book, but you cannot destroy an idea." What this means is that ideas and culture, and the individual expressions thereof, will exist in spite of any and all attempts to silence or destroy them. They will not be stifled or restrained. When a voice demands to be heard, it will be heard. You cannot silence what by its very nature must speak.

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 thread ]
Rich, 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I definitely don't side with the troll, but you are wrong on one part. It is a common misconception that the Constitution defines our rights. It does not. It defines the limits of governmental power. The Constitution does list SOME rights, and its frames were hesitant to do so because they were afraid of this very misconception. People mistakenly assume if a right is not outlined in the Constitution, then it doesn't exist. This is completely untrue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DK (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:21pm

I was one of those fans.
Awhile back I heard a song called "Tranquilized" on the radio. Fell in love with it. Found out the band name (Ekotren) and tried to buy it locally, I couldn't find it. I got an illegal copy. Listened to it everyday for almost a year. I came to find out it was a semi-local band located 2 hours from my house. My birthday I went and seen them live, showed up 4 hours early. I hung out with them told them what I've done, and said "I owe you guys, Thank You!" I bought the album and a shirt for my wife as she fell in love with them too. Since then we've seen them 4-5 times always buying merch from them. The last show was rained out and they personally invited us to another location. We hung out all night at the merch stand and even helped them get ready for there set. We are fans for life because of an illegal download. (I have stopped all illegal downloading and now just watch youtube, hulu, xfinity, amazon prime, redbox, gamefly.) I have my band don't need another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Ah, another "law expert" wanders onto the internets...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kaden (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is a property right?

wait for it...

wait some more...

Citation Required.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:55pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
TheBigH (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Be glad Mr Immaturity didn't giggle at you for writing "i snot".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
MrWilson, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:16pm

Re:
Greedy Label Middleman: "We hate it when people download our music for free."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember when the law considered people as property? Good times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, Dred Scott and all that. Totally irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slim, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:35pm

I think the words of Oscar Wilde are appropriate here. "If there's one thing worse than people illegally downloading your music, it's people not illegally downloading your music."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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?"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:53pm

Re:
Except imaginary property is not "true" property, rights are not property, exclusive rights are not property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
Appeal to law fallacy check.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another law expert from Congo probably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Illegal should be granting a monopoly to people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights as property. Losers v. Weepers. Totally relevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:39pm

Re: Re:
"market forces"

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 thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
Anyone who uses OMG LMFAO ROFLMFAO OMG (again, but with an exclamation point!) and ROFL in the same comment clearly wins the argument logically.

I bow to your intellect.

Loser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
You spelled copyright infringement wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
+1 Insightful.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 10:19pm

Re:
Thread highjack, but fits well. I like the way Nipsey puts it. I'm guessing most here won't like his music but he says some real shit in it.

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 thread ]
MrWilson, 26 Jun 2012 @ 10:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
Even if it were actually the same thing as the theft of a physical product, it would still qualify as a market force. If you price anything higher than what the market values it at, you're guaranteed to have losses due to people circumventing paying you that high price for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 10:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
I have the perfect rebuttal, one that will prove you wrong forever, make you look like a loser and make everyone else's dicks grow 10 inches. Here it is:

LOLOL! ROTFL! LMAO! Like, totally, what the fuck? Really? WHAT? Pirate! You guys! Honestly! LOL!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 10:54pm

Re: Re: Re:
Like, OMG! Like, LOL! Like, LMAO! Like, ROTFL! Like, WTF!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowery's Sock Puppet, 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:48pm

Wow, flagged AC comes off as total unhinged, shilling idiot. Thanks Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowery's Sock Puppet, 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:53pm

Re:
tard
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:23am

Re: Re: Re:
But it's funny to watch you try.

Definitely not as funny as you trying to equate infringement to theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:48am

Re: Re: Re:
You are clearly the reason squatters exist.

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, I'll bite.

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 thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, just another Nigerian Prince.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 2:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Brought to you by the Twilit School of Fan Debate (tm).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 2:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
or as funny as him trying to equate anything with anything else, particularly logic or law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 2:42am

Re:
Wouldn't be so bad if he could come up with something coherent, well-argued (or even argued at all!), and not full of unnecessary personal attacks. But, he enjoys being the epitome of fail, just like his business model. It must suck to suck so much!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 2:54am

Re: Re: Re:
Don't you have an old lady to send "pay or else" letters to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 4:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? The majority view is that copyright is property. You clearly know not of what you speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
average_joe (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 4:36am

Re: Re:
Rights are not property? What do you think proprietary rights are? In fact, if you read the Restatement (First) of Property, from the beginning it explains that when property refers to the RIGHTS in the object and not the object itself.

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 4:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
average_joe (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 4:58am

Re: Re:
Here you go, from the Restatement:
The word �property� is used sometimes to denote the thing with respect to which legal relations between persons exist and sometimes to denote the legal relations. The former of these two usages is illustrated in the expressions �the property abuts on the highway� and �the property was destroyed by fire.� This usage does not occur in this Restatement. When it is desired to indicate the thing with regard to which legal relations exist, it will be referred to either specifically as �the land,� �the automobile,� �the share of stock,� or, generically, as �the subject matter of property� or �the thing.

�The word �property� is used in this Restatement to denote legal relations between persons with respect to a thing. The thing may be an object having physical existence or it may be any kind of an intangible such as a patent right or a chose in action. The broader meanings of the word �property,� which include any relationship having an exchange value, are not used.

Legal relations between persons can be of widely differing types. Clarity of thought and exactness of expression require the analysis and subdivision of legal relations into types having different significances. This analysis is made in �� 1-4 defining respectively those legal relations designated by the words �right,� �privilege,� �power� and "immunity."
Restatement (First) of Property I, 1 IN NT (1936).

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 thread ]
Colin, 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:11am

Re:
Doing the same right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:24am

Re: Re: Re:
The article he wrote is not about law...even a 10 year old can see that the issue of law is on another tangent. The emphasis for this was the fact that this band was celebrating the fact that people were downloading their music unauthorized.

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 thread ]
The Logician (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:46am

Average Joe, you fail to realize that, as I stated above, only physical things can truly be property, because they are rivalrous. Intangible, nonphysical things such as ideas and expressions cannot, by their very nature, be property no matter what legal constructs you attempt to fence them in with. They will not be contained or locked down, and the sharing of them does not in any way diminish them. Rather, it builds them and helps them grow.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The band even admits that it was illegal piracy. That means someone's rights were being violated. Mike glosses over that whole part of it, and he wants everyone to believe that, despite the fact that it was illegal, unauthorized piracy, no one's rights were violated. Bullshit. Did the label not have rights that were being violated? Mike doesn't know and he doesn't care. Someone said they loved that their music was being pirated, and that's all he needs to publish the next "article." I put it in quotes b/c the shit Mike pumps out doesn't even deserve to be called an article. He's not a real journalist. He's a pirate-loving fanatic who couldn't be honest to save his life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:55am

Re:
And yet the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Executive Branch, the treatises, the commentaries, etc. refer to it as property. Intangibles can and are legally-defined to be property. Yes, tangible property is different in some ways than intangible property, but both are property. This is just basic Property Law 101 stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 7:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you hate TechDirt so much, then why do you keep reading? Do you also like to beat yourself with barbed wire?

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 thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 7:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When people were "illegally" making "unauthorized" downloads that amounted to "piracy," you don't think anyone's rights were violated?

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?

� An ancient law in Alabama bans men from attempting to seduce "a chaste woman by means of temptation, arts, deception, flattery or a promise of marriage."

� Connecticut has a law forbidding any "private sexual behavior between consenting adults."

� An old law in California made it illegal for either partner to reach climax before the other during foreplay.

� In Oblong, Ill., it�s illegal to have sex on your wedding day if you�re fishing or hunting.

� A man in Ames, Iowa, cannot take more than three swallows of beer while holding his wife in his arms in bed.

� Alexandria, Ariz., once banned husbands from having sex with their wives if their breath smelled of sardines, garlic or onion. (Funny enough, all of those have been considered aphrodisiacs at one time or another!)

� Husbands in Willowdale, Ore., can be fined for talking dirty during intercourse, but their wives can say whatever they please.

� An old statute in Florida banned a man from kissing his wife�s breasts.

Source
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 10:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DigalDao, 27 Jun 2012 @ 10:35am

Re: Re:
I think everyone here will concede that the legal definition of property is X if you will concede that nobody here is talking about that or finds it relevant in any way.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out Comrade Masnick's idiocy is fun. It's a guilty pleasure--you guys are too much fun. This place is kind of like the Fox News of IP law. Nice catch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Monkey (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Re:
2. Copyright i snot a property right,

You sir, are absolutely correct! It is just as snotty as you describe.
^_^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, a sad life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KelvinZevallos (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: Re:
If rights are property, as you say, that means that the government is in position to sieze, capture or take away my rights, if they see fit.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
If rights are property, as you say, that means that the government is in position to sieze, capture or take away my rights, if they see fit.

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 thread ]
Tex Arcana (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 4:08pm

Yanno, there was a band once upon a time, that was so obscure, they had to GIVE AWAY their stuff on cassette after every show. They gave it all away, night in and night out, to anyone that held their hand out. No idea how many of those downl--I mean, "cassettes"--ended up in the garbage/Recycle Bin; but, enough stayed in the hands/radios/hard drives of those fans that loved the music, including COPIES of said cassettes, given to more and more people, until a record label took notice and signed this band.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 4:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A sad life would be someone who can't just admit that he loves piracy, even though everyone already knows it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In Sweden if a woman doesn't think she had good sex she can legally charge the man with rape. But you support this, right?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re:
Yet another appeal to authority?

Shall we all agree that the sky is lime green? Because if everyone agrees, the sky becomes lime green.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 28 Jun 2012 @ 9:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadder is following that person around constantly trying to get them to admit it so they can say "Told you so!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]