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.'"
So, like a lot of things on Slashdot, I was interested in this hip new technology. I hopped on eDonkey and downloaded a bunch of Jay-Z until I found the golden ticket.
c ation.html) and there it was, a registration form for a free boat!
... something called an "Average Out of Court Settlement." Yeah, like I'm going to pay you $22,000 for that! As if! I think they want you to pay that if you want a free boat. I'm not stupid though--I know how this scam works--they give you a free boat but after taxes and registration, it's not even close to free anymore.
It was great, it said I had won a free boat! So I went to the URL in the file (http://www.riaa.com/tricks/freeboat/warrantappli
I start filling this out, you know, understandable things like name, address, average household income, what mp3s was I downloading when I won, where they are on my hard drive, which attorney would be representing me if a court case broke out--you know, the usual.
But once I hit submit, I got some law-talking guy spamming my e-mail address non-stop! Trying to sell me some product I'm not even interested in
People on the internet are so stupid sometimes.
My work here is dung.
So they admit that filesharers are the active music audience.
They're one step away from admitting filesharers buy more music.
I go onto a p2p site and download this advert for the concert but mistakenly get the whole thing?
Will I be arrested and thrown in jail?
liqbase
It's about time the record labels caught on somewhat. Just because you give something out for free doesn't mean you're not going to make money off of it. I'm sure Google's business model with youtube will involve this type of thing somehow - giving content to people for free without them realizing they're watching ads.
Though it makes sense from a marketing perspective, this seems to compromise their position legally. If they really don't want people downloading the P2P files, then why are they spending so much money to talk directly to them OVER P2P? Could leave a defense much like the First Commenter said - just walk into court and claim you were downloading all of that illegal music because you wanted to see the ads you heard about on the Internet.
Sean R. Baker
CDT, United States Army
"Lead me, follow me,
or get out of my way."
"Michael Guido --'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience"
Wrong-o, Guido the Killer Pimp. Nothing has ever been stolen via p2p. The words you are looking for is "users are violating the copyright of...".
Where were you when the voynix came?
If they claim this audience can be monetized, how can they consider it to be non-legit?
"But judge, the only way I could get the exclusive pre-release video of [hyper-hyped band/singer-songwriter/pretty face] was to steal random music from a P2P service. I didn't want to, I obey the law and have never stolen anything in my life. But [record label] would only hide the must-have exclusive video in fake song files. I didn't know which songs they were, or which ones were fake or real. So I had to download several thousand of them to finally find the video."
Case dismissed.
I would have second thoughts about hiring any lawyer that can't distinguish between two entirely different sets of laws. I'd half expect Mr. Guido to charge jaywalkers with attempted murder based on his statements here.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Pay. Absolutely, I prefer a pay model. Advertising supported media is an ever declining standard. It starts with a little advertising. It increases until people start turning off. Which means they clutch at more advertising to keep the revenues up. The only thing that keeps standards high ultimately, is a customer base that is willing to pay for the content.
Besides, an advertising supported model is incompatible with owning your music, film, whatever. Afterall, no one will make money by selling you a song that eternally has the same ad for Nike's latest running shoes at the beginning of it year after year. The advertising model only works in a setup where you are fed your media content. And of course there are economic pressures against offering you too much choice. We're going to have to fight hard enough against licensing model media purchases (i.e. You've paid for six months of this song) now that the technology for it is available. Part of that fight will be rejecting models like advertising funded media which tie into it.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Stand back, the music industry may have just grown a brain cell.
Do you have ESP?
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?
.-.
"'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.'"
.. I thought the goal of this was to get people to stop using P2P networks by forcing them to listen to 8 mins of JAY-Z.
Oh
1 min is about all the torture I can take. I guess its back to the record store for me !
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
I hope this backfires. If the media companies can make a legitimate try at making money from P2P networks, then why not the companies they're taking to court?
Method of processing duck feet
It's about time the Industry starts playing the game.
Although this is a very cruel approach to advertising, it gives them the advantage to not only strike back at the community yet be able to advertise for their clients / artists as well.
Now you must stop the lawsuits and expect penalties that come from falsifying files.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
Why do these people still call P2P networks 'sites'? They're goddamn networks, for crying out loud.
such as an eight-minute clip from a Jay-Z concert, the Wall Street Journal reports."
;)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how Wall Street Journal reports, no matter how much emotion one put into their reading, or what background music there might be, could possibly be appealing to the pirate market.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat! You know how much we wanted one of those!
Actually, "those imbeciles" didn't build the $35 Billion industry, their predecessors did. For all intents and purposes, they inherited it. I'd wager that very few of the people who were around during the rise of the large commercial record business are still there. No, I think most of them -- if they have any brains -- have cashed in their stock options and are laughing into their martinis, headed for Bali.
The imbeciles currently in charge of Sony/Warner/BMG were busily driving one of the biggest corporate empires ever created into the ground; it's only quite recently that they seem to have caught up to what a lot of people have been saying all along: there's a whole lot of money to be made in digital content if you play along and don't fight it every step of the way.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"So, then... you don't mind if I -NOT STEAL- your SSN, driver's license info, ATM card # and PIN?"
Ah, the old fallacy used by those who have no idea what "theft" means. You are implying that if it is not theft, then it is OK. Are you not aware that the law books and moral codes are full of many different crimes that are not theft, but are still imagine that!!! wrong? The meanings of words change, but the meaning of "theft" has not.
"and a record is no longer a big, black, plastic disk"
Where did you get that idea? Only records are called records. No one calls a tape, CD, or mp3 file a "record" that I have ever heard at all.
Where were you when the voynix came?
This is what everybody told the music industry for years: Don't try to fight down P2P, understand that these are your customers and give them an incentive to buy something from you instead of trying to force it down their throats. Now, after maybe six or seven years, the message got through.
Just imagine what would have happened if one of the major labels would have done this right from the beginning and what this would have done for their market share compared to the other ones who prefer to sue kids and grannies.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
I always thought a perfect use of the p2p networks was to place low-bitrate files (128kb/s mp3's) with bumpers around announcing the artist. They could talk over them like a DJ. The point is that they get the songs out there as an advertisement to either buy the CD or download a CD quality file. They could do like they used to do and have an album version and a radio version (shorter), except that it would be a p2p version.
Get it on social networks, p2p networks, it would be the same as listening to the radio. It would build artist loyalty, it would get the record companies out of the payola business, it would let them more easily turn a profit on marginal acts because you can narrowcast this stuff. If I can think that stuff up, imagine what somebody who really had a stake in it could do.
But I'm convinced they're so worried about next quarter's profits that they can't build for the future. Oh well. Maybe someboy will be adventurous enough to try it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This doesnt work as a defence for sharing.
I dont think RIAA has ever sued anybody for downloading, only sharing.
Yeah - weird isn't it? It's almost like... allowing people to download music for free... leads to more music sales!
How strange - how "downloading free copyrighted music" doesn't lead to more music sales... but apparently "allowing people to download free copyrighted music" makes them buy more music from you.
Of course, we all know the central issue is one of consent - clearly when people download free copyrighted music that I don't want them to, that hurts my business, even if it leads to more sales. However, when people download free copyrighted music that I've allowed them to download, even when they don't know whether or not I want them to download it, that helps my business.
Clearly there's some magical "spooky action at a distance" going on that means when someone downloads my copyrighted music it only hurts my business if I didn't want them to download it - if I don't mind the downloading it actually helps my-
*head explodes*
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself