Slashdot Mirror


Recording Industry's Unexpected Benefit from P2P

Matthew Schultheis writes: "Yahoo / AP is reporting that the record industry is using the files traded on Kazza et al. to track where music is popular. It turns out that they even pay for this information. 'It's the most vast and scalable sample audience that the world has ever seen'" Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...

59 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Razor-sharp irony kills 3, wounds 25.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  2. Eh? by DeadHateMachine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they are sueing us for downloading but yet useing the stats of our downloads? Sounds hypocritical to me.. This really goes to show you that corperations and selfish organizations will stop at nothing to make a profit.

    --
    -Here we are now, Entertain us.
    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Eh? That is what corporations are supposed to do.

    2. Re:Eh? by pvt_medic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and just remember all the money from the lawsuits go to help the hurting artist right... oh no wait it goes into their pockets. I love those ad campaings the MPAA and RIAA have about how it hurts the working man, because i know that they are all benefiting from the legal action being taken.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    3. Re:Eh? by paulthomas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make a good point about corporate hypocrisy and morality... On the other hand you totally discredit yourself with your conclusion:

      You make it sound like selfishness is not a virtue. What drives the world? Certainly not solidarity.

      I agree that the RIAA uses underhanded, evil tactics to this end; I do not condone their actions. In fact, I'm boycotting the RIAA and only buying from indie labels or direct from the artists. (I just bought the new Hot Hot Heat album... 8/10 stars for reminding me of the Clash)

      -Paul

    4. Re:Eh? by illuminata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      God dammit, we have yet another bleeding heart anti-corporate post.

      Instead of crying about how every single company wants to exploit the consumers, why not just hold each one accountable for their own actions? People need to quit acting like anybody with money is dying to fuck them over. Hold each group accountable for their own actions instead of making broad generalizations.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    5. Re:Eh? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You make it sound like selfishness is not a virtue. What drives the world? Certainly not solidarity.


      Selfishness is a character flaw, not a virtue. Unfortunately, it is also human nature. If not for selfishness and greed, we could have a true altruistic society; one where everyone worked for the good of the community instead of themselves. In other words, selfishness is why communism is only good on paper.

      --
      ymmv
    6. Re:Eh? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "What drives the world? Certainly not solidarity."

      I think you'll find that we're genetically hardwired to be co-operative social animals, even when it's not in our best interest to be.
      Scientific studies have shown [and I'm sure someone can find links] that people want to co-operate with others, despite it making better sense to be selfish.
      Selfishness may provide benefits, but these are generally short-term. To claim it's a virtue, is crass.

      You claim the poster to whom you respond doesn't understand what drives the world, but I doubt you have any a clearer view.
      Selfish acquisition drives some people, but to claim that that's all there is by way of world-wide motivation is ignorant.
      Solidarity does indeed exist, and is responsible for the great pool of knowledge we have; science, medicine, spirituality and culture.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    7. Re:Eh? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Your analogies don't really fit the situation. True, if someone said it was hypocritical for the RIAA to benefit from something they are trying to destroy, then your analogies do fit this exact wording.

      However, in the examples you use the "benefit" is knowledge on (a) how better to fight the phenomenon, or (b) how to fight off similar phenomenon. There is no net benefit to humans in this example, but rather information on how to reduce the likelihood of bad effects from these phenomena. For example, learning how to better fight viruses has no inherent value other than to fight viruses. We'd much prefer that they just go away, then there'd be no use of such information.

      In the RIAA case, the information they are gathering is not to better fight P2P, they are gaining information that would be useful independent of whether or not P2P existed. In other words, if P2P did not exist, they would have a good business reason for wanting it to exist.

      It's a subtle, but important, difference.

    8. Re:Eh? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2

      You're right on. I was in the music industry in Nashville for some time, and still have friends that are professional songwriters. None of them have seen a dime for the RIAA's "efforts." The funny thing about it is they're all gung-ho behind the RIAA. My assumption is that's because it's their publishing companies' corporate line.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    9. Re:Eh? by iconian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Social cooperation does exist and selfishness is detrimental in some cases. An example are vampire bats.

      Vampire bats have notorious energy demands. They can die if they do not feed on a daily basis. Now occasionally there are nights when a vampire bat fails to find food. So what normally happens is that the bat is able to bum food off of a non-related buddy. Obviously, that buddy is losing resources when it gives food away. But the lost in the buddy is trivial compare to the gain in the bat that didn't find food that night.

      People who say selfishness is a virtue implicitly assume that resources and need-fulfillment are linear. In nature, the resources and need-fulfillment relationship is asymptotic; if you already have amount of resources, the need that each additional resource fulfill is marginal. In other words, $1 to a person who only has $1 is a big deal but $1 to a person who has $4 is less of a big deal especially if the cost of not have $1 is death.

      Going back to our bat example, let's say night two rolls along and the buddy bat fails to find food that night. Let's also say that the bat who didn't find food the first night was successful. Buddy bat tries to bum food off of the latter bat. The latter bat can either give or not give. If the latter bat chooses to give, then all is well for the buddy bat. However, if the latter bat decides not to give, then the buddy bat dies. The latter bat will invariably give. The reason is because the rest of bat community will black-list the latter bat for being selfish. There will come a night where the latter bat will not find food and will not be able to get help from others. On an individual level, selfishness is a bad thing. I leave it up to you to draw the parallels in humans.

      Do a search on google for "vampire bats altruism" for more details. If you are interested on the evolution of altruism, go google for "david sloan wilson". Evolution is not always about being selfish.

  3. hmm... by Hi_2k · · Score: 5, Funny

    We could abuse this: Everyone, start sharing plenty of Polka, 80's pop, and Barney. Now lets talk about targeted marketing!

    --
    When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
    Sluggy Freelance.
  4. Ironic... by danielrm26 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they treat it like it's a child porn network in their PR statements and then turn around and find a way to make money off it.

    That's big business for you.

    --
    dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    1. Re:Ironic... by danielrm26 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Evidently the concept of irony is not lost on most /.ers. I have seen like 5 posts that look identical to mine in the last minute. :)

      --
      dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    2. Re:Ironic... by fleener · · Score: 4, Funny

      Evidently the concept of irony is not lost on most /.ers. I have seen like 5 posts that look identical to mine in the last minute. :)

  5. You mean... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    P2P is just like radio, only the people actually listen to music they _like_ instead of shit that the stations are payed to pimp out as top 40? Fucking amazing. These guys are geniuses.

    1. Re:You mean... by paulthomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oddly enough it serves as a mere extension of corporate radio's long arm. How do you discover new music on P2P? Geeks may know about things like iRate Radio, but your average P2P user is going to download the trash that the radio tells them to like. And next, listen to this new Madonna/Britney smash hit! -Paul

  6. hmmm.... by Smitty825 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Where have we seen this before?

    --

    Doh!
  7. Benefitting from a crime... by SUB7IME · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have absolutely no legal background (that statement goes way beyond IANAL), but I'm sort of thinking that benefitting from a crime must be illegal. If the RIAA considers filetrading (of their copyrighted files) to be illegal, and the legal system agrees, then nobody should be using that data to then profit.

    (Just as we do not, for ethical reasons, use information that the Nazis gleaned from their experimentation on the Jews in World War II. Clearly the magnitude is nowhere near the same, but the underlying ethical principle is similar.)

    1. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by jonblaze · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have absolutely no legal background (that statement goes way beyond IANAL), but I'm sort of thinking that benefitting from a crime must be illegal.

      Usually, the perpetrator cannot benefit from his own crime. Thus, if an heir apparent kills his intestate parent, slayer statutes will often prevent the killer from receiving his parent's estate.

    2. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by DarkSarin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are mistaken in one thing though--we DO use the information the nazis gleaned from their experimentation. Sorry to bust your bubble, but they made vast advances in the medical fields with their very unethical methods that would take us much longer today.

      DON'T get me wrong, though. I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING, CONDONING OR APPROVING OF, what the nazis did, their methods, or of utilizing such procedures. It is one of the most dispicable acts in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, it is a fact that society uses the information they obtained through these methods.

      This is not an uncommon situation. In psychology there are a LOT of classic expirements that would not be performed now due to ethical concerns. That in NO WAY limits the usefulness of that information or the fact that is has been used as the basis for a lot of theoretical framework. An example would be the researcher at John Hopkins Medical Center who conditioned a young child to be very phobic of anything that was white and fluffy. Such experiments are not ethical, but much of what we know about phobias and treating them is a result of his research.

      Flame me if you wish, but we DO use information gathered in an unethical manner frequently--as long as it is regarded as accurate, which the data gathered by the nazis is. They were, if nothing else good can be said, very methodical in their research.

      Once again, I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT THEY DID.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    3. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just as we do not, for ethical reasons, use information that the Nazis gleaned from their experimentation on the Jews in World War II.

      Really. I think you should read up on Operation Paperclip. Science/Information is still science/information no matter ( or perhaps in spite ) of whoever uncovers it. At least the government is wise enough to understand this.

    4. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by Saeger · · Score: 3, Funny
      DON'T get me wrong, though. I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING, CONDONING OR APPROVING OF, what the nazis did ... Once again, I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT THEY DID.

      anti-semite!

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by MacJedi · · Score: 2
      --
      2^5
    6. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2

      "Just as we do not, for ethical reasons, use information that the Nazis gleaned from their experimentation on the Jews in World War II. Clearly the magnitude is nowhere near the same, but the underlying ethical principle is similar."

      Erm...they still used the research. In fact Werner Von Braun got a lovely corner office despite work in Peenamunde, while we in the UK got the fruits of the biochemical warfare research.

      You seem to be suggesting that government is ethical.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    7. Re:Benefitting from a crime... by mantera · · Score: 5, Interesting


      i don't know why you feel you have to clarify time and again that you do not condone or approve or whatever... the nazis were a product of a situation and an era... the "final solution" if such a thing existed was a result of the age of reason that saw such a course of action as rational... the catholic church and pope weren't even vocal enough about it... now some people continue to deny much of the atrocities and say they were grossly exagerated... i don't know about that, maybe, maybe not... but i know one thing... losers tend to be vilified and winners write history books...

      Just consider for example the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments; google for it... For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 illiterate black men who were lied to and a disease such as syphilis was deliberately allowed to take its awful course on them without treatment. here

      While you're at it you might wanna also google for the CIA mind control experiments during the cold war... they experimented on soldiers and mental patients, gave them high doses of drugs, hundreds of electric shock treatments per individual within a few days... and stuff like that...

      most importantly, had you or the person you responded to been living in nazi germany, you would've probably done the same. Just see the Milgram experiments ... google for them if you don't trust the source

      don't exonerate yourself; given the situation, we're all guilty

  8. Maybe a smart lawyer could so something with this. by FatSean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean...profiting from illegal actions, right?

    --
    Blar.
  9. Why doesn't an enterprising label..... by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    work on creating a community site where bands can pay $5-$10 a business quarter to be listed with samples that can be streamed, that connects the bands to venues for say..... 5% of the proceeds and that lets users post comments about the band and rate their music? Then said label gets out of the old business of being a content producer and a service company for musicians providing them everything from merchandising to recording studios to instruments to music software? Basically become a service/product Walmart for musicians and fans as opposed to the current model of milking bands for records.

    1. Re:Why doesn't an enterprising label..... by femto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't you mean the Internet Underground Music Archive? (since 1993)

  10. Optimistic Aren't You? by femto · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...

    Naah. They'll use it to reduce the quality of the music down to the 'most efficient level', whereby the quality of the music is just above the level at which it stops selling.

  11. Kazza? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Be careful how you spell it, Kazza is a recording industry frontend where you fill a form with your name and e-mail address. You probably mean Kazaa.

  12. Glitch in the Matrix by Gyan · · Score: 3, Funny


    Goto's should be avoided in programming. So far, it has gotten this story posted 4-5 times already within the last few months.

  13. the better article by noah_fense · · Score: 4, Informative


    has been around for a little while . . .

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/fileshare .html

  14. Yo, to all of you Alanis' out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stop telling us how ironic this is. It's not. It's just fsckin' sad.

  15. Re:Better music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    I think "Hey Ya!" by Outkast is one of the best songs I've ever heard in my life.
    Hi! Sorry to be the Spelling Nazi, but I think you misspelled "overplayed." Just a friendly reminder that you might want to have a look at your dictionary file. :)
  16. They spent 4 years... by thumbtack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    trying to prove that P2P had no substantial no infringing use. Case closed.

  17. it's really not that hypocritical by nudicle · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Guys, I'm on the anti-riaa, etc boat with you guys but I don't think it's that hypocritical. The music industry currently finds itself in a world in which there's massive p2p going on. If it can keep the control it once had (eg win the legal war or develop some effective technical self-help), well, then it sees that as the best. So we have the lawsuits and the DRM attempts.

    But then there's also the first part of the above sentence -- the world as it is now features p2p and music sharing. Even if this isn't the world as they want it, they need to figure out how to exploit it as best they can. Hence, makethe most of (from their perspective) a bad situation, and mine p2p for some useful data.

    They're trying to maximize their profits. If there's money to be made scouring p2p data then they'll buy the research, but just because they are scavenging some benefit out of it doesn't make it hypocritical for them to want it to go away .. it just makes them pragmatic.

  18. Read this carefully... by Entropy248 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "When someone plops down 99 cents to buy a single, that shows a higher level of interest than just getting it for free," Welt said.

    As any 1st year marketing major could tell you, this data will not be as useful as one might imagine. Knowing who wants a product (in this case, a CD) in no way relates to knowing who is willing to pay for a product. Some consumers want Ferraris; not all of them will buy one (for reasons of Price). Without a clear way of associating user names with demographic or psychographic data, this will not even help to more clearly define the target audience for an artist. All this data represents is the number of computer literate people who are actively sharing a song; this may or may not be related to whether they actually enjoy the song; this may or may not be related to whether they would/could pay for the song; this may or may not be related to the fake files that are being posted on KaZaa (that song's popular? Shove a couple thousand fakes online; discourage lots of people). Move along people, nothing to see here...

  19. isn't it ironic? by professorhojo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You hear it all the time - and, most of the time, actually no, it isn't. Hypocritical and/or cynical, more likely.

    prof. hojo

  20. Where do I send my bill? by psoriac · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've downloaded dozens of songs today alone... to whom do I address my bill for services rendered?

    --
    I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
  21. Re:If RIAA music is soooo bad.... by Exiler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you haven't found out already that the masses are both stupid and like bad music you must be almost as clueless as the RIAA...

    --
    Banaaaana!
  22. Re:This is why we have Avril Lavingne... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Avril Lavigne isn't underage, douche-nuts.

  23. Piracy is not the reason. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, as you can see, the file trading networks aren't all bad-news to the poor artists, like the RIAA would have you believe. But then, some people are aware of the real reason that the RIAA wants to kill filesharing, and it's not piracy.

    What? Not piracy? Then why in the world would they want to kill a system that is so beneficial to them?

    Because of a problem that they consider bigger than piracy: The growing number of independant artists, many of whom are becoming increasingly popular. Yes, that's right folks. The RIAA doesn't want to protect its poor artists from the piracy that is putting them in the poorhouse. On the contrary, the RIAA is the one putting its poor artists in the poorhouse. No, no, no, folks. The RIAA is doing this to take business away from the artists that the RIAA is incapable of putting in the poorhouse, because it is incapable of stealing their money, because they didn't sign their soul over to the RIAA.

    That, my friends, is why the RIAA wants to kill filesharing.

  24. No Need For Better Music by MisterMook · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...
    There's no incentive to put out better music though, when aggressively defending your cartel's monopoly gets you all the money that you need. And hey, let's face it: paying up a few million a year for lawyers and lobbyists to pass legislation and extort money from money poor students is chump change when you compare to the costs of changing their business model.

    If telephones had never been broken up, would we have ever had cellphones today except maybe in Europe? A powerful media outlet company has even more and broader powers than other sorts of monopolies, because of better access and because they're business is controlling what people want and think. I truly don't think that the music industry is evil, but they're as inertia-bound as any other large incestuously linked series of codependent corporations. If suing customers and softcore porn Britney clones make shareholders happy then thats what we get.

  25. Hacking the Tracking by Maestro4k · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Perhaps my mind's a tad devious, but from what I read in the article about how BigChampaigne is operating, the "research" they provide to the record companies is very hackable. It looks like they're tracking requests on the Kazaa network, even if they only track requests to actually download a song (and is this even possible? I'm not up on the technical specifics of how Kazaa's network runs), then all someone needs to do is generate a lot of bogus download requests. No need to actually download anything, just as long as BigChampaigne's software logs the request. A fairly small group of people with access to lots of IP addresses could completely screw the statistics up in short order. Even a home user with DHCP could screw with the stats some, by sending out lots of requests for download on one IP, then requesting a new lease for a new IP. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    Now there's an idea, we could create a company that indy groups pay to have their songs spike higher in the download charts. Nothing illegal about it (well Kazaa's owners might not like it), since you wouldn't actually download the files. Ahhh, to toy with the minds of the RIAA, it'd be such fun. :)

  26. Skewed sample? by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Isn't this going to be skewed towards music that people like enough to listen to (or even are just curious about), but not necessarily enough to buy? For example, I might download some Top 20 crap, because I've heard it and sometimes it's amusing (or even catchy). But the stuff I buy has to have a bit more replay value than that.

    Also, with these lawsuits going on, isn't that also going to affect the sample pool (by selecting out those computer savvy enough to change their shared folders, and increasing the proportion of people outside the USA)?

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  27. Better music? by gamgee5273 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...

    I don't think there's a lack of good music being recorded - I think there's a lack of good music being marketed.

    For every John Coltrane or Cibo Matto or Ani DiFranco song being downloaded over P2P, Britney Spears is being downloaded at rates 100 times more. Do you know how difficult it is to find the Seatbelts' (Yoko Kanno's soundtracks for Cowboy Bebop) music over P2P? And Bebop's a relatively popular anime over here. What about music that doesn't have that sort of avenue to market itself? I suspect the "better" music isn't being downloaded.

    And the stats the recording companies get show that, which reinforces the audience's "obvious need" to see Britney chasing Madonna around a bedroom in a video. Thus, they continue to market said brand of music, and we continue hearing it and thinking we want it.

    If you want to see the market shift to "better" music, then this is a case where you have to get people to not only download things over P2P, but to make sure that they buy the albums they like (yes, I said "buy" because even the little labels and the self-published artists are spending money to record - it's not free (yet)). That will help bring better music to the marketplace, but I doubt we will ever see a truly diverse popular music scene...

  28. It's called by KalvinB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    making the best of a bad situation.

    Yes it's terrible some of these things happened but it would be even more tragic if we refused to gleam some good out of it. They would have been tortured and murdered purly for evil. Many people died in horrific ways but because of the information many more are saved. If I'm going to be tortured I'd certainly hope something good and useful was learned in the process.

    I'd roll in my grave if the cure to cancer was found by committing some horrific experiments on me and society refused to take advantage of it. I'd also roll in my grave if those who committed the horrific acts (and those who encouraged them) weren't seriously punished and denied any and all financial reward from their discoveries.

    There's nothing hypocritical about it.

    I'd be more surprised if the RIAA wasn't trying to get something good out of this situation.

    It has exactly zero to do with condoning the rampant piracy.

    There's nothing wrong with making the best of a bad situation. There's something seriously wrong with you if something bad happens and you just whine about it and play helpless victim.

    Ben

  29. Why Pay? by shione · · Score: 2

    Couldn't they just look at the download logs on their servers serving fake songs?

  30. Given the great number of ... by SiliBelgian · · Score: 4, Funny

    people who share their entire hard disk on Kazaa, this could result in the production of the Biggest Hit Song of All Times...

    The name would be somewhat like explorer.exe...

    --


    "Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun."
  31. Marketing? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Since they are obviously profiting from our services as a test subject, don't you think we should be able to charge them for this? Maybe it could work out so that we get to use P2P without fear of lawsuits, and they get to watch our habits.

    I dunno, but I might just be willing to give them all the marketing data/interviews they need if I didn't have to worry about lawsuits or anything like that and got to continue to download all the free music I want.

    Oh wait, they can get the marketing data AND sue us, so I guess its more profitable that way.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  32. Re:Who do they pay? by me.nick() · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are several companies providing this new service which they refer to as 'online media measurement'. One is BigChampagne . According to DMusic ,the labels pay upwards of $40,000 a month for these services!

    The hypocracy of the RIAA to condemn P2P as an illegal activity and then actually use it towards its own gains just further confirms its selfish motives.

    I'm not an expert in US law by any means, but can't this be useful in court against the RIAA somehow?

  33. iRate radio. by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 2, Informative
    Everytime something like this comes up I'm reminded of iRate radio (I know its slightly off topic but it still comes to mind). From the iRate homepage:
    iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering client/server mp3 player/downloader. The iRATE server has a large database of music. You rate the tracks and it uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music.
    So there you have it. Now you can cut the RIAA out of the loop entirely.
  34. Re:Their arguments are stupid by micaiah · · Score: 2, Funny

    I retract the above post as my friend thought it would be funny to post something stupid because I made the error of stepping away and forgetting to lock my workstation.

  35. wow by unitzero · · Score: 2, Interesting

    gotta marvel at the RIAA's ability to come up with new and innovative ways to shit all over us. just when I though I couldn't possibly be more disgusted with the recording industry, they come up with something new. the funny thing is, though, that the joke is still on them... I haven't bought a single CD in at least four years, and I really don't think that there's anything they can do to stop P2P, much less illegal music sharing in general. Any digital media which you are able to play back using a PC is inherently not copy-proof, and short of storming my home and confiscating my machine and my cable modem, I just don't see how they can actually stop me or anyone else from swapping music with someone else.

    --
    - unitzero Who needs sleep, or food, or daylight, or human interaction, when you have a handful of ritalin.
  36. The RIAA does what these days? by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That just prooves how useless the recording industry has become, their only purpose in life is to drive arogent rich people to studios and back to their hotels and then to hype what ever they sing, The internet is a million times better at that job, even one big website could handle most major musicians. There would be no middle-man to take profits and anyone that the public actually liked would be spread by word of mouth and would have packed concerts. You could even order the limo online - total job redundancy to the RIAA.

    There are afew such websites around i think but no major (as in RIAA mainstream) musicians are involved so its shadowed by the big guns, and because most RIAA musicians are in it #1 for the money (people dont dream of being famous on some website they dream of being on every tv and having shit loads of cash, i know i do). Interesting things have a habit of spreading around the internet quickly (memepool), ie. people are always sending eachother links to the latest flash game that lets you slap bush etc, and interesting things could easily include music so if you did start a band and produced music that everyone liked whats to say you couldnt make it big in afew weeks just through word of mouth and email?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  37. While we're on this topic by shomon2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A few weeks back I pointed a friend to the creative commons website, so that he could look up information on copyright and see how it was moving forward. He was quite surprised and glad to see that things aren't the way he knew them to be in that area.

    The same happens with musicians. They don't tend to know about this. Especially young, talented people who don't necessarily get much chance to get on the internet. I remember as a teenager I would read in all the music magazines about the dream of one day being signed to a major. Nowadays to me that means mostly negative things - problems. Like a big bank loan and surviving on gigs, giving away your rights etc. But to others the dream goes on.

    Is there a good URL to point people to so that they can get clear concise guidance on why *not* to sign for one of the RIAA companies? Or even that showed what the options are, and examples of people like Ani DiFranco or companies like magnatunes and how to achieve their musical dreams and still avoid bad business decisions.

    The URLs I find are always centred on how bad the RIAA is, or on the consumer side but there isn't to my knowledge a good musician centred site...

    Ale

  38. False Recordings. by titaniafq · · Score: 3, Funny

    So now the recording associations are going to think that the following is their most popular artist. teen anal cum xxx hot God help the record stores when a kid asks for that!

    --
    -- Do not bite the bait of pleasure till you know there is no hook beneath it.