P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO

[eaeolian]

Whatever the cause, if labels/bands start going out of business, I can say that they won't be missed. There's simply a glut in supply that outstrips the demand. Clearly we aren't going to run out of new music to buy anytime soon.

There's another way to look at this, though - there's a huge chance to turn music from a mass market enterprise to a niche market one. However, since the current label philosophies generally mirror Atlantic from the '80s (hey, let's sign every band that sounds even remotely like this popular one and see which ones stick), I think it's actually ENCOURAGING downloading. I sure don't want to buy all that crap to find the 30 I like.

 

[Milky Licker]

Yes. However, those that would do that are in the same classification as the ones that don't give a shit in the first place. This alternative provides the fan that supports the band the option of hearing the disc at the same time as everone that illegally downloads. Right now, those fans are alienated and penalized because they are trying to do what is right and hold off for the new release.

Plus, the bands make a few bucks off it as well.

***True, I noticed that cdbaby even has mp3's available for the fans who "need it now". I feel this will help a little, very little. But Glenn I have a question. Do you feel P2P sites are ok for ones looking for those unavailable or out of print cd's? Please answer this as a music fan.

 

[The Fiddler]

It would also be highly illegal in most countries...

So what's "more illegal", illegally downloading music from a billion-dollar recording industry defended by agencies such as RIAA who legally defend intellectual property (and win), or a hack in Weinerschnitzel, Germany supplying viruses-laded mp3 files to illegal download sites.

The threat of legal incarceration has never stopped hacks from attacking big businesses, and it certainly wouldn't deter a hack trying to reak havoc on hundreds of thousands of people trying to get a free, full-length "sample" of Metallica's next platter via a torrent.

And let's supppose a malicous computer geek living with his folks in Walla Walla, Washington is identified as spiking illegal downloads with viruses. Who's going to bring/fund the class action lawsuit against the geek, who is going to stand up and be counted in the complaint as an illegal downloader (so they can receive any restitution), and just how much restitution could the downloader expect to get from McFly and his folks? Will the restitution, if it could even be collected, cover legal costs?

 

[Harvester]

***True, I noticed that cdbaby even has mp3's available for the fans who "need it now". I feel this will help a little, very little. But Glenn I have a question. Do you feel P2P sites are ok for ones looking for those unavailable or out of print cd's? Please answer this as a music fan.

Two things:

1. The "little" would go a long ways towards a situation with Manticora on the North American tour. Every dollar earned is a dollar they don't lose on the tour. Even a little is a lot sometimes.

2. If that cd is not available as a purchaseable download anywhere online, then I would indeed support it 100%.

 

[eaeolian]

The threat of legal incarceration has never stopped hacks from attacking big businesses, and it certainly wouldn't deter a hack trying to reak havoc on hundreds of thousands of people trying to get a free, full-length "sample" of Metallica's next platter via a torrent.

You're not suggesting a sole attacker, though - you're suggesting systematic attacks by corporations or corporate-sponsored entities. I'm sure that the court systems in multiple countries would be more than willing to explain to the RIAA membership why two wrongs don't make a right, one case at a time.

There's nothing about that idea that isn't stupid from a real-world business standpoint. All the labels would be doing is finishing themselves off in the public's eye.

 

[rockyracoon]

So what's "more illegal", illegally downloading music from a billion-dollar recording industry defended by agencies such as RIAA who legally defend intellectual property (and win), or a hack in Weinerschnitzel, Germany supplying viruses-laded mp3 files to illegal download sites.

The threat of legal incarceration has never stopped hacks from attacking big businesses, and it certainly wouldn't deter a hack trying to reak havoc on hundreds of thousands of people trying to get a free, full-length "sample" of Metallica's next platter via a torrent.

And let's supppose a malicous computer geek living with his folks in Walla Walla, Washington is identified as spiking illegal downloads with viruses. Who's going to bring/fund the class action lawsuit against the geek, who is going to stand up and be counted in the complaint as an illegal downloader (so they can receive any restitution), and just how much restitution could the downloader expect to get from McFly and his folks? Will the restitution, if it could even be collected, cover legal costs?

Once again, anyone with one eye and half a brain need only invest, or illegally download some decent anti-virus/spyware/malware,etc software and scan any potential downloads to combat this.


Also, do you think someone simply wouldn't find a way to provide a more "secure" download site if these virus-laden mp3s hit the web?


And again, your idea ignores the many law-abiding people who would most certainly be negatively affected by carelessly putting more viruses out there.

 

[rockyracoon]

What about those who buy CD's but then make copies for friends, or simply let someone rip the CD onto their computer?

 

[The Fiddler]

You're not suggesting a sole attacker, though -

Yes, absolutely, I am offering it as a possibility. Hack is singular, not plural. Hacks operate independently to reduce the risk of being caught. Hacks aren't going to call up RIAA/Atlantic/Metallica and inform them of their plans. RIAA/Atlantic/Metallica would have no idea that their product is being tainted no more than Microsoft knows in advance that their software is about to be tainted with a virus. Malicous hacks seek to receive attention, even if it is annonymous. It's been proven over and over again. In such cases, there would be no need for the record company to be at all involved in such unlawful activity.

 

[Cheiron]

Maybe Senator Hatch was onto something with his 'lets just get the ability to do a cyber launched attack on people who download albums, and have this cyber attack actually physically damage the computer!'

 

[The Fiddler]

Once again, anyone with one eye and half a brain need only invest, or illegally download some decent anti-virus/spyware/malware,etc software and scan any potential downloads to combat this.


Also, do you think someone simply wouldn't find a way to provide a more "secure" download site if these virus-laden mp3s hit the web?


And again, your idea ignores the many law-abiding people who would most certainly be negatively affected by carelessly putting more viruses out there.

It's convenient that you totally ignored the point about new viruses taking days or weeks to identify, during which time the virus is free to spread via a torrent. But I give you credit in acknowledging that it could happen, which would mean more risk for your supposedly fail-safe technique for scanning viruses. I'd suggest you apply for patent on that fail-safe technique for blocking 100% of viruses, you'll make more money than Metallica ever had or will have.

Law-abiding people who purchase their music legally directly from the source would have absolutely nothing to fear. Law-abiding people are not abiding the law when they illegally download music via a torrent.

 

[eaeolian]

Law-abiding people who purchase their music legally directly from the source would have absolutely nothing to fear. Law-abiding people are not abiding the law when they illegally download music via a torrent.

Your arguments are starting to read like some sort of vigilante manifesto, not any sort of real business plan.

Next...

 

[skyrefuge]

It's an antiquated system that is short sighted for our situation today. I would be more interested at an albums overall sales as opposed to how it did the first two weeks. Get the reviews online when its released and then let them trickle into print media (that most read when taking a shit now a days).

Cool. Maybe more people will listen when you say it vs. when a crazed downloading nutjob like me says it. Actually, since I've been trying to spread this idea, some bands/labels HAVE done this, but none in the metal world as far as a I'm aware. I like #6 too, but it requires a realization and acceptance that the horse has left the barn and is never coming back. And although more and more labels are tilting that way (EMI going DRM-free is a big indicator of that acceptance), it's still going to take some time for others.

Record labels sending out viruses? Didn't you read Glenn's Dimmu Borgir example where the labels realize that they can only go so far in combating piracy, until even they realize that further combat will hurt them more than doing nothing? Sony basically proved something like this is a terrible idea years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit

Neil

 

[rms]

I don't have a link... but just think about it...

so.. you want to pay with less than 10 dollars:

The Artist
The Label
The Distributor
The Retailer

+The production costs of an album.

yeah, totally doable...

Well I thought you were credible, I figured right.

 

[The Fiddler]

Maybe Senator Hatch was onto something with his 'lets just get the ability to do a cyber launched attack on people who download albums, and have this cyber attack actually physically damage the computer!'

All it would require is for a hack to download a major release by a major artist (say Madonna) before it's official release, infecting the mp3s with a new virus, and uploading them to torrents across the internet. If the attack upon potentially hundreds-of-thousands of downloaders is successful and recieves worldwide recognition, the copycat wannabees will come out in force seeking their hard-earned and deserved 15-minutes of fame. Of course, in today's media, that 15-minutes of fame will be played over and over and... adding just that much more to a hack's incentive.

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

I realize I'm more Don Quixote-like than most people. I tilt at windmills all the time. I fight for underdogs. I...well, let's just say I value right and wrong. (The Andy Griffith Show was my favorite TV show. Give me Mayberry any day.)

So I know Glenn is right. So is Zod. People are going to do this. They will illegally download and justify it -- to themselves and to friends.

However, I don't like the fact that people have gotten so self-centered that they'd intentionally harm independent record labels, struggling bands, and a music industry just because today's technology enables them to do so. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I think Glenn's alternative has merit. However, I still think those with the mindset that it's okay will continue to do it and won't pay a dime. Labels can set up systems, and try to make things fair, and plead with people to at least chip in something...but if people know they can get it for free, and are convinced it's okay to do so, then $2 or $3 is too much for them to spend.

I've never been one to do something just because everyone else is doing it. Other people, other states, other countries -- doesn't matter. If it's not right, ethically, I don't want to do it. (Yeah, "courtrooms and churches." I get the cynical point made in response to one of my posts.)

Also, as a general rule, I'm not one for downloads of any kind. If an album cannot be obtained any other way, I'll buy its digital version from iTunes or Amazon. But I much prefer to hold something in my hand. I love great artwork, lyrics, credits -- the whole nine yards. Give me a physical album any day. Maybe that's part of the answer. Maybe if bands didn't post lyrics and credits and artwork on their web sites people (at least people who valued such things) would be forced to obtain the physical item.

I'm behind anybody who can come up with a plan to level the playing field. If people's selfishness cannot be changed, then we should at least create a system that pays the bands and labels something. Yet, writing that makes me cringe. It's like we've sunk to the level of begging thieves to let us keep some of what they're about to steal. It's pitiful, man.

 

[The Fiddler]

Record labels sending out viruses? Didn't you read Glenn's Dimmu Borgir example...Neil

Again, No. Again, individuals. Didn't you read my threads about individual hacks with their own agendas?

Dimmu's Borgir's record label should be shamed for not standing up for what they believe in (and what is rightfully theirs) and caving into one major magazine in Europe. With the internet spreading all corners of the globe, does any label seriously believe no press by one major magazine written in German is going to cause the collapse of Dimmu Borgir? Really, now? When it is revaled to the public that the magazine is boycotting or badmouthing Dimmu because they took appropriate legal action against a magazine that violated their rights, is everyone still going to hold that magazine in high-standing? Will they feel no sympathy for Dimmu Borgir?

If the record labels are not going to use the legal tools available to them and cave under such threats from individual media outlets, then they deserve to crash and burn. Had the magazine individual been fined major bucks, with the future threat of increased fines for repeat offenses, how long do you think the magazine is going to keep leakers on it's staff employed?

 

[rms]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103

Just found this link, interesting

 

[The Fiddler]

Your arguments are starting to read like some sort of vigilante manifesto, not any sort of real business plan.

Next...

No more than the manifesto employed by hundred's-of-thousands of individuals around the world who's "business plan" is to pay for nothing for a product when they can obtain it illegally for free.

Fight fire with fire, I say. One good crook deserves another good crook.

 

[rushzil2112]

I don't know how many cds, at least 400 cds that I have sold to a used cd stores because I bought an album somebody told me was a must buy and overtime decided to get rid of it after it never hitting me. With how picky I am with what I listen to I just don't go blow money on cds because of a buzz or from heresay. I have to hear at least a couple songs myself before even purchasing a cd. I admit I download music every single day because I like to check out every band i can in many many genres(I'm sorry if i don't have labels mailing me promo copies to give reviews and whatnot, I would love to be a reviewer and receive promos, but even then I will still go buy the real cd to have the digi-pak and so on). I just bought the new soilwork, behemoth, circus maximus, arch enemy, alter bridge, which to me are the only good new releases I have come across in the last few months. Next on my list to buy is the new Unexpect, Pagan's Mind, Opeth(live), and that is about it. To me personally there isn't enough good releases anymore to buy blindly from a band I have never heard. When I was first getting into metal years ago there were plenty of cds to buy, but there just aren't anymore, just generic power metal album after another generic power metal album, after another boring prog album from these new guys who are amazing musicians and it sounds like they are playing music from my 5th grade music book in a cardboard box. When your Opeths, Dream Theaters, Symphony X, Nevermore, Soilwork, In Flames, Pain of Salvation, Amorphis, Between the Buried and Me, and so on put out an album i will buy it in a heartbeat(but I will still download it early if all possible because i am impatient, and if all these reviewers get to hear albums before me I personally think it is unfair to all the rest of us music freaks). If it is ready for reviewers and so forth then it is ready for me so send it my way. If I was to have a song recorded and mastered I would send it out that day because i want it to get out as soon as possible. If you cut out all the downloaders downloading an album from their favorite artists because they come across it before it releases, how can you blame them, because they are going to go buy it the day it comes out anyways(that is exactly what I do).

 

[The Fiddler]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103

Just found this link, interesting

That "study" is nothing but a JOKE! It's a survey based 100% on heresay. It's probably conducted by a 20-something grad student who has always had music available to them for free (illegally), and is looking to push his/her own agenda (i.e. record labels should do nothing to hinder illegal downloads which makes the downloader's life easier and less expensive).

The absolutely insanse thing about this "survey" is that the researchers asked for absolutely no physical proof that the people surveyed actually purchased the music they downloaded illegally. The surveyed weren't asked to present a sales receipt or the actual physical CD to prove that they are not lying. And wouldn't it be human nature to lie about illegal activities to the face of the surveyor, even though the surveyor doesn't know your identity?

And it's interesting that the study didn't bother to justify how it's verbally documented increased CD sales result in once-thriving retailers like Tower Records going out of business, not to metion the countless, smaller mom-and-pop music stores that have perished since the age of high-speed internet.