Slashdot Mirror
The Chumbawamba Factor
putko writes "Chris Dahlen has written about BigChampagne, a company that looks at peer-to-peer downloading to provide marketing data to record companies. By analyzing what folks are downloading, when and where, BigChampagne can tell the record companies what people like, what other records they like and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars. As mentioned in the article, record companies started using this information (secretly) even as they were trying to stop filesharing via the courts."
Lots of crap music that sounds mostly the same keeps being marketed by the suits. One of the most heard phrases when it comes to justify downloading copyrighted music off the net: "I just download the crap that's not worth paying for."
Hmmmmm...
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Does this mean that at last we can get charts which really reflect what people are listening to?
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
Wouldn't this market analysis reveal which music people are willing to pirate rather than purchase?
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
You happen to have answerd part of your own question. They are, after all a businesses and they exist to make money.
Regarding artist integrity. When was the last time you heard an artist really singing about artistic impression and look at the lyrics of any popular song and hear or feel any of that? The new hip-hop artist of the day for example. All they sing/rap about is how many Hoes they can or have slept with and how much money or "bling" they have. Most of the music out there is about the same things. Why? Because that's the kind of music people are interested in.
musicians who actually create the stuff should be making at least as much as they do because without the artist, the business is nothing.Have you seen how many of the artists out there write their own songs? Not too many. Artists are the expendable part of the business. You've got song writters and producers that are doing all the behind the scenes work. The artist themselves are just the pretty face that has to go on tour and loose their "private life" to people like the you and me that want to know everything about them. I'd like you to find a songwritter (mostly nameless and faceless to the general public) who has done songs with popular artists that donesn't have any money. If Brittney Spears decided never to return to music, they'd just find another pretty face to sing all the same songs.
Ahh, my rant is now over. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
So the RIAA et al are trying to put an end to P2P, while hypocritically using P2P stats to know what's hot; they have crossed the threshold from tyranny into absurdity. What judge, knowing this, will still side with the RIAA in the future? Does this not set a precedent that the RIAA sees value in P2P?
Because they are gaining stats in something that's not acceptable in the United States? Would a judge not side with the police getting stats on drug users to see where they congregate and what kinds of drugs they prefer?
It's the same thing to them.
To us, yes, it's shady and yet another reason you shouldn't support them or the music they promote.
P2P as an immoral behaviour that corrupts society, because the fruit from the tree has poisoned their self-professed purity.
They can claim whatever the fuck they want to claim as long as no one stops them. Unfortuantely no one will stop them because they have started to win the publics' (and the courts') opinion that this is "wrong".
Sad but true. Listen to free music by bands that don't need the RIAA.
The only problem with that idea is that it makes another point for the RIAA to look hypocritical. The record companies KNOW that a good number of P2P downloaders buy CDs from artists they download (I'm not saying everyone does to defend them, so don't flame me for all the actual media pirates). I just think that our lawsuit craven culture supports more excuses to sue little Cindy-Loo-Hoo out of her lunch money.
If the RIAA was really serious about getting rid of all p2p, they wouldn't have ANY part in it. You can't fight to abolish something while getting kickbacks on it (at least not ethically, but that doesn't seem to stop too many people lately).</toungeincheeck>
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com