Slashdot Mirror
Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Ad Vehicles
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Some record labels hire outside companies to plant fake files on peer-to-peer sites. Now, labels are turning these decoy files into vehicles for marketing to music pirates by inserting promotional material into the files, such as an eight-minute clip from a Jay-Z concert, the Wall Street Journal reports." From the article: "'The concept here is making the peer-to-peer networks work for us,' says Jay-Z's attorney, Michael Guido. 'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience,' and 'this technology allows us to market back to them.'"
There's marketing and advertising on teh internets?
In other news, the Sun rises in the East.
I could be wrong, and if I am someone will point it out (along with corrections to my grammar, punctuation and font size), but downloading copyrighted material isn't a violation. The violation is sharing the material without permission. Now, I suppose the MPAA might argue that the DMCA forbids circumventing DRM by using P2P, but they would be SOL because now you can claim you were intending to download the MP3 from JZ, but hey IANAL, I just like acronyms (a lot).
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
I tend to buy a CD AFTER I download the songs to listen to.
If I like the songs, I go out and support the artist.
I really don't see why the RIAA is bitching about how delaying the sale of the material for a few days is crippling the music industry as a whole. p2p file sharing is the best free advertising you could possibly have, why else do startup bands release their music on the 'net?
.-.
They're one step away from admitting filesharers buy more music.
I rarely buy any music and I'm a huge filesharer but I also don't pirate any music. I listen to music that is free to distribute. There are plenty of bands out there to listen to that are free and open about their live stuff.
Live music not only showcases how the music *really* is (not overprocessed and mass marketed) but depending on the recording (mixed AUD/SBD and full blown AUD) gives you a sense of crowd response.
Support those bands and not the fucking trash that the RIAA panders. Fuck illegal P2P and check out http://www.dimeadozen.org/ or http://archive.org./
Ignorance of the law (or actions) doesn't absolve guilt of said action.
This is wrong. Ignorance of the law does not absolve you of guilt, but a lot of the law takes into account the intent of a person (ignorance of the criminality of a given action). It is the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, for example, if you're firing a gun in the woods. In the case of copyrights in the US, it is very, very hard to get any sort of damages if the person copying a work had a reasonable expectation that the copy was legal. For example, unless you send a notice to a Web site informing them that some material on it is infringing your copyright and they do not remove it in a reasonable timeframe, it will be a wonder if you get any compensation should you take them to court. You might notice this is why YouTube and Google video are not constantly paying out damages.