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.'"

15 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    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/warrantapplic ation.html) and there it was, a registration form for a free boat!

    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 ... 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.

    People on the internet are so stupid sometimes.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income by lakeland · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seems to be slashdotted already

    2. Re:Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income by flonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems to me that by putting the files up, they are giving permission to distribute them. Hence, no copyright infringement occurs.

  2. The active music audience by ben+there... · · Score: 5, Interesting
    'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience,'

    So they admit that filesharers are the active music audience.

    They're one step away from admitting filesharers buy more music.
    1. Re:The active music audience by twostar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but the RIAA is going to claim they buy more music because of the ads they're decoying out now.

    2. Re:The active music audience by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know, the disconnect is ridiculous:

      "Damn kids, downloading all these music videos."
      "We can hire a company to seed decoy files."
      "I have a better idea, instead of wasting that file with garbage, we could always put some ads in it."
      "Like what?"
      "Hmmm, how about music videos of our artists!"
      "Outstanding! Here, have another line of coke..."

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:The active music audience by bugnuts · · Score: 5, Funny

      And pretty soon, RIAA will start suing p2p indexing sites for caving and shutting down the index servers, claiming it cost RIAA advertising revenue.

  3. That's what Google said by rbf2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Legal blunder? by SeanBaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."
  5. Stealing has never happened via p2p by krell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?
  6. Monetized = legit? by Potor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they claim this audience can be monetized, how can they consider it to be non-legit?

    1. Re:Monetized = legit? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Funny
      If they claim this audience can be monetized, how can they consider it to be non-legit?

      Actually, from what I read, they consider the audience to be TOO legit. Legally, they are too legit to quit.

  7. Re:If p2p files came with this advertising, by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.
  8. Mystery box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  9. Not quite. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."