Barenaked Ladies Battle Napster (But Not In Court)

Yet Another Smith writes: "CNN is running a story about the Barenaked Ladies' attempt to flood Napster with trojan downloads with ads for their new album rather than the alleged songs. Say what you want about Napster being right or wrong, at least the band isn't just doing the kneejerk lawsuit, and it sounds pretty tongue-in-cheek." I don't listen to the radio, so I downloaded "Pinch Me" from Napster, and based on that (and the fact that I rank Stunt and Gordon among the best albums ever) I bought Maroon the day after it came out (making it the only CD I've bought since the lawsuit vs. Napster started: and for someone that used to buy 5 CDs a week, that's saying something). Personally I think this is a good way to fight (but unfortunately upcoming technology will make this technique less successful) so I've got no problem with BNL doing this.

Comments

X Rated headline !

[scrutty]

I realise its just a band name, but that headline created a pretty strange mental image

"Good way to fight"...?

[Zigg]

This is a "good way to fight"? It seems someone would rather have vigilante justice than clean-cut law.

Ultimately, it seems this is all about just wanting to get free music. Would you buy their music if they sold you MP3s online? Would you then respect their ownership, and instead of passing it around, point others to visit the site?

If someone doesn't want to let their music be passed around, they have every right not to let it be. If someone likes the concept of their songs being passed around, let it happen! It's up to the creator to decide (or at least, it should be...)

Re:"Good way to fight"...?

[Zigg]

You must be using some definition of "clean" with which I'm not familiar.

I'm not talking about the wacky craziness that is some of the more recent "copyright" legislation. I'm talking about what has been accepted to be illegal (immoral?) for some time -- mass distribution of copyrighted works against the copyright holder's wishes.

Paying for downloads is not fair value, because it doesn't take into account modem disconnections, data corruption (whoops, /home was full... lemme delete some stuff and try again), or simple data loss due to human error or hard drive failures

That's a system design issue. If a system makes you pay again and again because you've not completed their download or lost the file, that system is bad. People will not use it (the more likely case) or decide it's worth it anyway, if the artist's works are something they really really want.

There is no "divine right of authors" to tell the rest of the world what can be done with a story. The only reason the record companies can boss me around right now derives from legal and military power, not moral authority.

Ultimately, you're correct. There is no such divine right. There is also no such divine right mass-pass-around copies of a work. We've instituted this in the U.S. and elsewhere in order to encourage the creation of these works.

Bottom line is this: there are artists out there willing to give a system like the one you describe a try. I assume you mean what you say with your support of a voluntary payment system. If you want such a change, then get with those artists and show it can be done. You will attract more and more people. FWIW, I think that would be really cool. But I'm not going to subvert those who don't want me to in order to accomplish my goals.

Re:"Good way to fight"...?

[gimp999]

And IP laws, although still in their infancy (only some 100 years old I believe), are real stupid ones!

Actually, no one has yet come up with a reasonable justification for tearing down IP laws. They evolved quite sensibly out of the invention of printing presses, recording equipment, etc. and the evolution of the middle class. Mass-production of creative work has made it more democratic than ever, yet much of the public fails to appreciate this, thinking artists will produce polished, finished masterpieces without compensation. Without democratic forms of compensation, you have highly centralized forms of compensation (Catholic church, communist governments, corporations, the wealthy elite). You really want to give them absolute control over what gets produced?

I sure hope you enjoy your govt/church/corporate sponsored propaganda..

Will Napster fight back?

[Drathus]

The question is: Will Napster try to sue BNL for 'abuse' of their system?

---
Inquiring minds don't really care.

Re:Will Napster fight back?

[interiot]

Sue for what? False advertising perhaps? There's no money being exchanged though. And I don't see anywhere in Napster's agreement that says anything about using correct file names. In fact, it says this (*):

• Napster does not, and cannot, control what content is available to you using the Napster browser. Napster users decide what content to make available to others using the Napster browser, and what content to download.
• 
  ...
  Napster makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation of this web site, the Napster service, or the information, content, materials, services or products included or referenced on this web site.

So I assume that's a caveat emptor.
--

Re:NOOO!

[Nexx]

Not BNL now too! GRRR....I'm tired of having to dislike bands that I used to like.

Why're you disliking the bands that're trying to make money off of their works? IMO, I see absolutely no problems with bands using Napster as a venue of cheap advertisement. However, when recording companies do this....

I realise that sometimes, the differences between bands and recording companies are a bit blurry at best, though. Comments?

--

And the problem is?

[bfree]

because we knew that tracks were going to end up on Napster, so why not have some fun with it?

And the poll (on CNN) asks:
Do you agree with this Trojan-style approach taken by the Barenaked Ladies?
And the results after 3583 Votes are:
Yes: 57% (2037)
No: 43% (1546)

Really, we have already seen porn banners and usage tracking scams on Gnutella and Napster, here one band is actually using the medium to try and do a bit of self promotion. They (I'm sure) are under no self-delusion that they are going to manage to obfuscate access to the real mp3s of their music, they are just reminding all the people who are hunting for their music that it would be nice if they actually paid for it.

The REAL question is could the RIAA break Napster/Gnutella etc. as a useful tool by bombarding it with files like these (or just corrupt mp3s) and would it be economically viable to do this (just how much bandwidth would they need).

Headline: BNL wins approval of CmdrTaco,

[morris57]

BNL wins approval of CmdrTaco, Canada lets out a collective "Huh?"
Holland, MI (AP) In a post this morning, CmdrTaco gave the nod to the Barenaked Ladies' use of Napster to promote their upcoming album. BNL could not be reached for comment, and Canadians all over the world were saying that it was too early in the day for tacos, anyway.

It's all about freedom.

[malkavian]

Ok, looking through some of the comments here, I find people gettin' a tad antsy about the fact that BNL have posted ads, or, files that don't exactly contain what they specified.
Napster isn't just about swapping MP3s for free.. It's about filesharing. Any file. I heard this mentioned quitea lot in the napster defence, and also that of GNUtella.
So, why oh why slate BNL for pointing out that they are, indeed, free to post whatever they want, even if this is just advertising for them.
They are making a legitimate use of services offered for all, in the same way that Napster uses services offered across the internet (connectivity etc).
Personally, I'd far prefer this to the kneejerk 'call in the legal vultures' to sort it out.
I think they've made their statement pretty well out there.. "We'd prefer it if you didn't rip off our music"..
I'm all for that. It's just them exercising their freedom of speech, in a fashion. I'm not about to slate them for that.

Malk

A start of a parody

[DrQu xum]

"If I had a million dollars...(if I had a million dollars,)
I would flood Napster's network...(and piss off all the script kiddies, too!)
And if I had a million dollars...(if I had a million dollars,)
I'd blow off the R-I-double-A...(and tell their lawyers to screw themselves!)
And if I had a million dollars...(if I had a million dollars,)
I'd produce another CD...(and get a ton of royalties...)
And if you have $17, go buy our CD!

Small point

[SubtleNuance]

A so-called Trojan horse program is typically malicious in nature, designed to conceal harmful code inside apparently innocuous programming or data in such a way that a user can get control or unleash a chosen form of damage. However, the Trojan files deployed by the Barenaked Ladies are not designed to harm a person's computer.

...because they cannot be.

One major problem with this point - outside of what the MPAA would like you to believe, MP3, avi, .txt, .doc*, are not PROGRAMS they are DATA and cannot be Trojanized. The exception would be a piece of data designed to exploit a known bug in a particular program, but data cannot illicit un-designed results (bugs are what a programmer designed, not necessarily what he/she intended though). This FUD is a product of recent court cases. I would expect CNet to be a little more clear, there are allot of luser sheeple who read CNet as their tech news source, and if they cant keep it clear were doomed.

*MSWord '.doc' can contain scripts that are interpreted, but fundamentally anything not compiled(binary) is data - including .perl & .java.

Music Industry & Retail CDs != RIAA

[nuxx]

I wish people would quit equaiting all retail CD purchases with the RIAA. There are many high-quality artists out there who do not like nor support major labels and the RIAA. Not buying CDs as a whole simply because of the whole Napster fiasco is as much of a knee-jerk reaction as the lawsuits purported to in this Slashdot article. Start thinking about what you buy. Read the back of the album to find out what label it is on. Support non-RIAA artists but don't boycott the industry as a whole if you want to stand up for Napster. The music industry isn't all major labels and big name mainstream bands (like the Bare Naked Ladies are).

This will work for all of 10 minutes.

[citizenc]

Um... this plan of theirs will work for all of 10 minutes, then be completely messed. Why? I'll tell you -- part of the idea behind napster is that, after you download a mp3, you turn around and share it for the world. (In my opinion, at least.. I'm talking out of my ass here.)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you download an mp3, and find out that it's not the song, but just an advertisement, are YOU going to keep it around? Well, I would -- but not before renaming it, so that users knew what the content of the mp3 was.

Besides that, I'm sure that once everybody figured out where the trojan (I'm using that term with regret here) mp3s were coming from, then that user would be bannished from everybody's electronic kingdom for ever.


------------
CitizenC

And the supposed potential problem is...

[American AC in Paris]

BNL is using a hot, high-volume, free and open forum to distribute promotional ads for their music.

Napster has no rule against what you can and can't distribute as an MP3; after all, it's just an indexing service, right?

What, then, warrants the "I've got no problem with this" qualifier? What problem is there in the first place? What aspect of BNL's actions even begins to enter the realm of problematic, or even unethical, for that matter?

BNL isn't battling Napster; they're actually using it to their advantage. It's free advertising to a decidedly interested market, and they have every right to take advantage of it as such.

The trojan

[mwillis]

This is a pretty a funny way for them to use napster to promote the album.

There is a 50MB download called "newtrojan.wav" which you can listen to on the CNN web page:

http://www. cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/09/18/trojan.music/new trojan.wav

Banter:

Do I have to write "run"?

I spilled a coffee on my flow chart.

We fooled you, huh? We're sneaky like that. You can never trust a Canadian. Next thing we'll be supplying your natural resources.

By itself Napster is NOT good for artists...

[crovira]

By itself, Napster is not good for artists as anything but advertising.

If you add micro-payment collection from the download receiver (cutting out the RIAA, the MPAA, the record companies and otehr pimps who had no hand in promotion or distribution,) then Napster is very good for artists.

The price for consumers would be VERY nice too.

A trusted source to weed out the jokers (like BNL and others which less noble motives) who spam the p2p broadband, somebody like MP3.com, is all that's needed.

Untrusted Peer-to-peer is fine, if your peers are weirdoes, nuts, anybody who wants to spoof you, infect you and abuse you.

Napster by itself is going to become commercial community television. Its going to go the same way as the news groups... Spammed to death.

This world NEEDS editors (the human sort) and trusted sources...

Finding the 'trojan' mp3

[citizenc]

The mp3 with the commentary is 5:35 in length, while the regular song is 4:44. Sounds like the BNL aren't as innovative as some people claim ;)

(Ironic point of note: I'm listening to Yoko Ono, on cd, as I type this =)


------------
CitizenC

Trojan MP3s and embedded ads

[NYC]

Embedding ads in MP3s has been discussed before on Slashdot, as well as using trojan MP3s to combat Napster, but this is the first time a major artist has choosen to do so.

Will this be Napster's future? Will it become just a big online radio that will have nothing but ads and Top 40 cr@p?

Also, do you think the band or the record company had the most to do with the using of trojan MP3s? I would like to think it was the record company's doing, but it was the band that recorded the ad...

--weenie NT4 user: bite me!

Typical BNL

[RabidMonkey]

To those of you who are lashing out at BNL for doing this, you obviously aren't fans. This 'stunt' is typical BNL like stuff. They aren't doing it to be malicious, they are doing it cuz it's funny. Sure, its free advertising, but who cares?

This MP3 is a great addition to my collection of rare/live songs of theirs I have. I've had this version of it for about a month now, so those of you who say 'it will never work', it's been working for a MONTH. I went looking for the song the day the single was released and found this one, laughed my ass off, and went on my merry way.

So stop your whining. Just because someone did something inventive, and utilized a service used to steal music to decieve a bunch of people doesn't mean they should be attacked.

As I said, if you know BNL, you'll understand that this is just the kinds of things they do. I've been a fan since they used to busk in downtown Toronto, I have seen them in concert 11 times, own all their CDs, including the rerealeased ones, and I assure you, this is their style of humour.

laugh kids. you were tricked.

We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us.

Battling Napster -- The Pearl Jam Way

[StoryMan]

Another way of battling Napster -- and probably more effective than what Barenaked Ladies are doing -- is the Pearl Jam Method: simply give fans what they want and price it reasonably.

Pearl Jam is releasing 25 "bootlegs" -- obviously not bootlegs since they're "official", but that's beside the point -- of their European tour shows. The sound quality on these things -- all of which have been pre-released to fans of Pearl Jam's Ten-Club for around US$10.98 each [for 2 CDs!] -- is fantastic -- just the right mix of band and audience so that (if you're a PJ fan) the shows are pretty damn electrifying.

Moreover, the shows are largely uncut. No post-concert fiddling -- overdubbing, editing -- they even include long stretches of applause, fan-chanting, lyric-flubbing, etc.

Now I realize this doesn't mean much if you're not a Pearl Jam fan -- and to release 25 live concerts, well, that's a hell of a lot of music.

A few of the PJ bootlegs have been "blessed" by the band as their favorites of the 25 (there are little symbols on the backs of the "blessed" concerts) so you can at least zero in on what the band considers to be their better performances (but all the performances -- at least the 10 that I've heard thus far -- are fantastic.)

But it dawned on me when I ordered 10 of these of things at once that, yeah, these are the first CDs that I've bought in over a year. And not only did I not mind spending the 100+ US$ to get the 10 concerts, but I did it with pleasure. I couldn't wait to buy these things. The thought of getting the MP3s on Napster just filled me with repulsion: I mean, not only would I not get the full concerts on Napster, but I'd have to contend with bad rips and crappy normalization by neophyte rippers who wouldn't take the time to carefully rip the tracks.

I hope all this Napster-mania puts pressure on labels not so much to get with the program and start releasing official MP3s (I mean, there is nothing drearier, in my mind, than paying $2.99 for an official MP3) but to realize that the problem isn't Napster, isn't the internet, isn't fans wanting something for nothing -- the problem is the chokehold on product.

Fans of any good band -- PJ, Springsteen, Dylan, Neil Young, you name it -- love live performances. And, yes, getting a CD of the performance is not the same thing as actually being there but my hope is that this move by Pearl Jam will make the companies realize that battling Napster -- and winning against Napster --- starts not with fucking around with stifling technology but with simply giving the fans more of what they actually want: more music and better prices.

It seems *really* simple. I wonder if anyone is inside these record companies preaching this kind of (what I assume to be) common sense. Fans want product -- and they'll pay for more product -- and because of an increased emphasis on performance (thanks to Napster) there is no excuse for not releasing more product since (for the most part) fans (and even casual fans) really dig the live stuff.

Re:They better not flood Napster from MI. (felony!

[-brazil-]

Uploading ads disguised as MP3s sure sounds like an "unauthorised use" to me.

Bullshit. There's nothing unauthorized about it - the user who downloads it authorizes the download quite explicitly. If he doesn't get what he wanted, tough luck - Napster sure as hell doesn't implicitly or explicitly guarantee that the content of a file is what its name might lead you to expect.

BNL is actually quite MP3 tolerant

[erinlee]

From a longtime BNL fan: BNL have actually been pretty tolerant of mp3 boots of their live shows: there are several well-known archives of full shows, free for download, and they've been around for years. And what a lot of people are after is not the 18000th live rendition of "Brian Wilson," but the improv bits and between-song banter the band does on the live shows (a lot of fans, myself included, think it was criminal that these were left off their official live CD).

Most of the fans downloading the song knew it was pre-release and tampered with: hell, that's *why* they downloaded it! Once word got out about it everyone wanted to hear the interruptions, transcriptions of the jokes appeared in the mailing lists and newsgroups right alongside the song lyrics, people speculated about the identity of Morpheu_10 (sp?) the source of the downloads, etc. The fans loved it, and really, who else cares? It was done wel and in good humour. A lot of bands could do this badly, but I'd like to think BNL set a good example. Not bad for a band that claims that the Internet doesn't really exist ;)

BTW: anybody who thinks they can just look at the song length is wrong. I have two different versions of the "Pinch me" ad and one is the same length as the song.

Re:But why bother?

[Ian Wolf]

A great proposal except that the majority of society is made up of leeches who don't want to pay for anything. They'll download all the MP3's on the album and never buy a thing. While I wish your model was indeed the case, it will never happen until there is a fundamental change in attitude of the average person. I just don't see that happening.

Why RIAA flooding would have little effect

[Trickster Coyote]

The REAL question is could the RIAA break Napster/Gnutella etc. as a useful tool by bombarding it with files like these (or just corrupt mp3s)...

I doubt that the RIAA flooding Napster, etc. with corrupt or trojan files would ultimately have much much effect in polluting the the system. The reason being that these phoney files will be immediately deleted by the downloader after discovering their nature and not left on their computers for redistribution to others. These are PEER to PEER file trading systems and Peers Won't Pass Along Phoney Files to Peers.

Therefore the only source of corrupt files will be the RIAA moles themselves, meaning they will always be a tiny minority of Napster users. In addition, known mole user handles can be publicly posted on black lists to warn people against the dubious nature of their offerings.

As for the Barenaked Ladies promotion, I think their fans will get a kick out of it, since it features some witty banter from the artists themselves (instead of just some corporate commercial) and they will actively seek it out. It could definitely ending up working in favour of promoting the BNL album. At least it is not as likely to piss their fans as Metallica's tactics in fighting Napster.

Trickster Coyote
Reality isn't everything it's cracked up to be.