Band Leaks Own Album, Blames Pirates

A Cow writes "When the hard rock band Buckcherry found out their latest single had leaked on BitTorrent, they didn't try to cover it up or take the file down. No, instead, they issued a press release. After a bit of research, TorrentFreak found out the track wasn't leaked by pirates, but by Josh Klemme, the manager of the band. In an attempt to cover their tracks, the press release was pulled, but it's still available through Reuters and Google's cache."

Comments

That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Geoffrey.landis]

Sounds like a marketting strategy to me!

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[twotailakitsune]

They get free marketing; while p2p get one more black mark. The RIAA must paid them for this.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

There really isn't a single difference aside from those who recognize it as such...

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[aplusjimages]

True that. I've never heard of BuckCherry, but I'll be damned if we aren't talking about them on Slashdot. That's a manager earning his fifteen percent.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[poopdeville]

Obviously. They work for the RIAA. DUR.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[PJ The Womble]

Surely the band's manager is their agent, legally speaking?

If that's the case, then if the band are the copyright holders of their own work (a fairly safe assumption) and their agent is making it available in the public domain, I'd have thought it legal to download.

No black mark there. I'll be looking out for it on BitTorrent, as they've granted me the right to peruse the download link, I presume.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean mARRRketing.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[leamanc]

Too bad this comment will go down in the annals of Slashdot modded as "Funny." It was 20% Insightful and 20% Interesting, but should have been 100% Insightful. I agree that it is a new marketing strategy, and one that we are likely to see more of in the future: fake "leaked album" controversy to drum interest in a band that most people couldn't give a bowel movement about.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[FatdogHaiku]

Well, if a slashdot posting garners the band some sales then yes, the manager earned his cut today... otherwise he should have to pay torrentfreak and reuters for the bandwidth that we used following the story... personally, this story is not going to cause me to buy anything.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[morgan_greywolf]

agent is making it available in the public domain, I'd have thought it legal to download.

That word “public domain” doesn't mean what you think it means. Public domain refers to stuff that is not under copyright. Just because the Linux kernel is available for free from kernel.org (and countless other places), doesn't mean it is in the “public domain.” It doesn't even necessarily mean that you have the right to download it, either.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[sdo1]

I've never heard of BuckCherry...

You haven't missed much.

-S

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[shark72]

BuckCherry likely own the rights to the words and music (assuming they wrote same), but if their recording contract is like 99% of them, the record label has the rights to the recordings.

Putting it in general terms... if you're a band with a typical contract, you can perform your songs live, print the lyrics, re-record them (once your exclusive recording deal is up), but you CANNOT distribute the recordings without the record label's permission.

"No black mark there. I'll be looking out for it on BitTorrent, as they've granted me the right to peruse the download link, I presume."

If you want to pirate it, just pirate it. Your rationalization, while unintentionally fallacious, is fallacious all the same.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[clone53421]

Hmm, I don't know for sure, but wouldn't uploading one's own copyrighted music imply the conveyance of legal right to have that music? It's not violation of copyright, because you can't violate your own copyright, and the recipient technically is getting the song from the author, so I don't see how it could be considered illegal.

Now, for the downloader to then seed the torrent might be considered illegal, since they aren't licensed to distribute it, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that the file was only intended to be distributed to the people who actually downloaded it from the original owner: the whole purpose of a torrent is to distribute something to lots of people without using as much of the original source's bandwidth.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[charlieman]

No, but people who got the torrent (and if the band is actually good) might want to go to their concerts... and you know... pay for that.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[clone53421]

Oh yes... and if any doubt remains, read that cached link. There's exactly one short paragraph about the torrent... and this press release is nine paragraphs total, plus links to their website and myspace profile, a tour schedule, and contact info.

Seriously... I took one look at it and thought "damn, that's a heck of a lot of advertising."

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[cheater512]

I think by releasing it via bittorrent gives you a implied licence to both download it and distribute it to others.

From a Judge's perspective it can only mean that since they were releasing it to everyone via a medium which requires re-distribution.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[clone53421]

Putting it in general terms... if you're a band with a typical contract, you can perform your songs live, print the lyrics, re-record them (once your exclusive recording deal is up), but you CANNOT distribute the recordings without the record label's permission.

If you want to pirate it, just pirate it. Your rationalization, while unintentionally fallacious, is fallacious all the same.

Torrents are designed to distribute digital media to as many people as possible while minimizing the bandwidth used by the original host. To accomplish this, the peers (downloaders) must also serve as seeds (distributors). By the very definition of the bittorrent network when he put up the torrent he implied unlimited permission both to download it and to distribute it further.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[interiot]

Bzzzt, nope. At least in the U.S., the law says that the copyright owner is the only one who has permission to make copies of their work. So yes, you are allowed to download copies (since the copyright owner is the one who's facilitating that), but no, you're not allowed to redistribute it.

You don't use the term "license" unless there's an actual legal blurb that modifies standard copyright. If there's no such blurb, it's legally covered under standard copyright. Whatever the judge thinks, that doesn't change the law.

(yes, bit torrent does, at a technical level, involve redistribution of the file by peers... from a legal standpoint, either 1) copyright law would gloss over this as it does in-RAM copies, or 2) it would say that end users are still prohibited from redistributing it, unless the copyright owner explicitly distributes their work under something other than standard copyright)

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[clone53421]

That's interesting, but I would argue that by distributing it on bittorrent they were distributing their work under something other than standard copyright. It's not even "at a technical level": it's the whole point of the protocol. Once you put something on bittorrent, it's available to the whole world, and you don't even have to continue hosting it as long as somebody's downloaded it and cares enough to keep it going.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[StarkRG]

These days it's probably more like 20% - 25% or more.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[interiot]

The "whole world" part doesn't matter. When news organizations put photographs up on their website, for free, anybody in the world is allowed to view them, but they're not allowed to redistribute them.

Technically, once the tracker is taken down, no additional people can start downloading unless it's a DHT. It's true that existing users can finish their download. *shrug* I think this is an area of law that courts haven't considered yet, but I'd bet they'd take it to be analogous to non-P2P distribution (there have been companies that use P2P merely as the distribution mechanism that's an alternative to webservers, and they intend to be able to stop distributing their copy of the file at some point)

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[cheater512]

But with Bittorrent, you *have to* redistribute.
With HTTP its not required.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[OAB_X]

If you go platinum and no-one has heard of you, until now.

You sucked, your manager is awesome.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[interiot]

Actually, the main HTTP RFC (RFC2616) covers caching proxy servers. By putting standard-copyright content on a webserver, you're almost guaranteeing that a third-party caching proxy is going to redistribute your content, but the law (so far) has glossed over this detail. Even if courts do eventually address that issue, they're unlikely to conclude that this technicality somehow means that copyright owners intend their works to be redistributed in any additional ways.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[geekoid]

No, he makes a good point. Due to the nature of bittorrent, I don't think it's as cut an dry as you think. Clearly it would be cut and dry if they put it on an FTP server.

Distribution form multiple spurce is exactly how it works, so if you put it on the system, then that must be what you want. There would be no other reason to do so.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[The Dancing Panda]

BuckCherry is a fairly popular band. Slashdot is not a crowd that habitually listens to new music, so you can't say that "no one" has heard of them. No one on slashdot has heard of them, which means absolutely nothing to the real world. Consider them like Ubuntu. It's popular in the slashdot world, but no one else has ever heard of it.

Their most popular song is probably "Crazy Bitch", which anyone who listens to rock stations on the radio has heard. Their newest is "I'm sorry", which is a pretty catchy ballad.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Anonymous Coward]

Help me out here. In your third-party proxy server example the third-party isn't a human. It's just a repeater station for HTTP. But with the Bittorrent example it's a redistributing service for human clients. So from a Judge's perspective (having to rule on existing laws) placing a work on Bittorrent intends people to download and distribute, while placing on a webserver only intends download. Right?

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[OAB_X]

I listen to the radio, and I haven't heard them (new rock/alternative/indie).

Of course, I'm not in the US so I'm not corrupted by ClearChannel Communications choosing what will be the next popular song.

eg: reliant k. Debut album stared at #15 on the billboard top 200. I heard that song maybe ... 4 times on the radio? Total flop.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Anonymous Coward]

And then a fool posts this on /.

I applause at this marketing machine, I bet it's got a pretty wonderful bang per buck.

Just goes to prove that social engineering is still the greatest feat of man, not electrical engineering.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Dan541]

I think it might be an issue if you publish a .torrent file yourself, but using the original .torrent would be ok because it is published with the understanding that all downloaders will also contribute the distribution.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[remmelt]

Interesting points. Still, I don't see the analogy. Caching proxies are one thing, but their users don't get sued by the RIAA. I don't think that half the people on the internet know that "releasing" their (c) photos/whatever means that the content will be cached and redistributed by proxies. I think most wouldn't really care if they knew.

Bittorrent is (in)famous for copyright infringement. The copyright owner's intention counts for something as well. Technically, you have a good point, and the copyright does not magically end when something gets released onto the net, but when leaking an album to bittorrent, in this day and age, with the probable intention of getting more attention to the performer, I don't think that the bittorrent uploaders could be sued.
(It could even be argued that once the copyright owner uploads the work to a bittorrent tracker, he knows that it will be copied to other trackers as well. You need only a little knowledge of the current tracker culture to understand this. Thin ice: when leaking to bittorrent, he implicitly let go of part of the distribution monopoly.)

Re-redistributing is another matter entirely. I can't sell the downloaded and burned CD to anyone.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[nospam007]

That word "public domain" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Curtman]

it is published with the understanding that all downloaders will also contribute the distribution.

Except in this case. It was published with the understanding that nobody would find out they released it themselves, and they could generate hype and look like the victim all at the same time.
It's a good thing their music is terrible or I would feel bad about never listening to it again.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Dan541]

But they now have no argument to pursue filesharers since they did publish it themselves and they published on a medium that guarantees that others will also distribute it, as required by protocol.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Curtman]

Yes, so they got caught in their lie. It's still a malicious lie nonetheless.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[LarsG]

Bull.

There is a specific exception for "caching only" both in US and EU law. See 512(b) of the DMCA and Article 13 of Directive 2000/31/EC

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[vagabond_gr]

Next week's news: the involvement of the band's manager to the leakage wasn't revealed by TorrentFreak but by the band's marketing director.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Dan541]

I agree,
things could have turned very nasty they just happened to get caught.

They could have used it as a form of Honeypot.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Dan541]

But the user would not be in the wrong since its the content "owner" who released it making the honeypot... fraudulent (or similar)

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[freddy_dreddy]

wouldn't uploading one's own copyrighted music imply the conveyance of legal right to have that music?

Nope, you need explicit approval.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Curtman]

I wish the people who discovered this had kept it quiet until the RIAA sued someone for pirating that song. I love seeing the RIAA look rediculous.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[something_wicked_thi]

Wow, you people have done a lot of digging here. Let me try to pull you all out of the little hole you've made for yourselves.

First, a nitpick: It's not a safe assumption that the band holds the copyright to their own work. It's pretty common for bands to turn over the rights to their work to the record company. You'd need to know the details of the band's deal with its studio to know who owns the copyright. If they don't own the rights to their work, then they cannot distribute it any more than any other P2P user.

Second, other people have corrected you on the "public domain" thing, but there seems to be some confusion about whether this means that the band has granted you an implicit right to make a copy. This is a very interesting idea coming from Slashdotters because it also relates to the RIAA lawsuits. Let me explain.

The RIAA claims that people who share things on bittorrent are "making available" a copyrighted work and that is a violation of copyright. This theory is currently contested. However, that is precisely what this band is doing. For the sake of argument, assume the band does own the rights to its work. In that case, by the RIAA's own argument, the band intended the distribution which is their right as the copyright holder. Thus, you could argue that anyone is legally allowed to download the songs.*

Alternatively, if we discard the "making available" theory, then it is the downloader who made the copy, not the supplier because the downloader initiated the transaction. In this scenario, the case could be made that the downloader has illegally made a copy because he had no right to do that. The only argument you'd have is that the supplier gave you an implicit right to do that by publishing it. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if that would hold up in court, but I suspect it would. But with comparisons to leaving your door unlocked coming up, who knows what would happen?

Anyway, the interesting thing here is that, by the RIAA's argument, you're probably* doing nothing wrong by downloading from this band. However, if the opponents of the RIAA have their way, then this theory ends up on shaky legal ground.

My own opinion on the matter (which may not be how the judges end up ruling) is that "making available" is bunk, and that anyone who downloads something from bittorrent can reasonably expect that the data is allowed to be distributed by bittorrent. What this means is that the person seeding the file has full responsibility for verifying that the file is legally redistributable, and that the RIAA must prove actual damages and show actual distribution rather than simply showing that the files are available for download.

* This is a little shaky because "making available" is a fuzzy term that the RIAA claims is equivalent to distribution. You could argue that making available does not give an implicit right to create a copy.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[rohan972]

wouldn't uploading one's own copyrighted music imply the conveyance of legal right to have that music?

Nope, you need explicit approval.

If the RIAA tried that argument in court, I imagine it could be used as a defence against infringement suits also. "I didn't give them explicit approval to download that song from my computer, I just posted a torrent, same as copyright holders do when they don't want you to download". In the end, they won't be able to have it both ways.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[History's Coming To]

The RIAA paid them? No chance, this is an argument FOR P2P. Whilst I'm firmly in the "downloading copyright material illegally IS theft" camp, my flatmate's band release a lot of stuff under a CC licence meaning it can be freely distributed under those terms. We're looking at P2P as am additional way to do this....and the more legitimate uses P2P has the more difficult it will be to simply block it on the grounds of piracy. It's a great bit of technology that needs as much legal, mainstream use as possible to take it out of the hands of the troublemakers and protect it for legit usage.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[clone53421]

I'm amazed nobody else has made this comment...

When news organizations put photographs up on their website, for free, anybody in the world is allowed to view them, but they're not allowed to redistribute them.

When a band releases a CD, there's a © on the package. The terms are explicit. When the news feed puts a picture on their page, it has a © notice at the bottom, which is a legal notice that you can download the image but you can't distribute it yourself, as you stated. By putting the file on bittorrent, though, they implicitly allowed any normal bittorrent use, i.e. downloading the file and providing it for others to download. No copyright terms were specified, so I don't think they can enforce any now that it's been done.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Froboz23]

In order for a honeypot to work, you have to actually put honey in the pot. It doesn't work as well when you use shit for the bait.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[CobaltBlueDW]

Musicians advocating free p2p distribution as a form of advertisement? That's doesn't sound like a black mark to me.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[shark72]

What do the manager's wishes have to do with it? It's not his permission to give... no matter HOW sure you are that he wanted to make it available. He could have wanted to distribute it more than anything in the world. Distributing the music via BitTorrent could have been more important to him than curing cancer. But none of these things change the fact that if Buckcherry's contract is like most, the record company is the only party that can legally authorize the distribution of the recordings.

The nature of BitTorrent has nothing to do with this; it's all contract law. The distribution mechanism could be peer to peer, quantum spinning, carriier pigeon, you name it. I'll give you that their manager WANTED to distribute the recordings, more than anything in the world that anybody could possibly imagine. But did he have the right to? No. And do you have permission to download it because he broke the law? Well, you know the answer to that one.

It's just a $10 album, guys. If you'd rather save the money and pirate it, then go forth and Godspeed. You don't need to invent authorization when none exists.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[shark72]

I guess I didn't make it clear enough in my original post that the permission isn't his to give.

You argue that he implied unlimited permission. Here are a couple of other examples where I might imply unlimited permission:

I break into Fred's house. I take some stuff. I post a note on Craigslist inviting everybody to come to Fred's house to take whatever they like. I even sign the post "I hereby give everybody reading this unlimited permission."

Do you have the right to take stuff from Fred's house, either legally or morally?

I punch you in the stomach. Why, who knows -- let's just say that I think I have permission to do so. I then announce that everybody should follow my example. Perhaps I even hold you down and post a sign that reads "eerybody punch this fellow in the stomach."

Do others have the permission to do so, either legally or morally?

The ugly reality of most record contrats is this: only the record company has the right to distribute the recording, or say who else gets to distribute it. What the band's manager might do -- whether you consider his permission to be implied, explicit, implicit, boiled, baked, fried or stewed -- makes not one bit of difference. He does not have permission to distribute, and he cannot give you permission to download or distribute.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[clone53421]

I guess I didn't make it clear enough in my original post that the permission isn't his to give.

How so? I'd consider him to be a legal representative of the band, and the copyright is registered to the band, so I really don't see your point.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[stephanruby]

Clever legal arguments aside, does it really matter in the bigger scheme of things? Countless numbers of songs and software are released in this way by their own copyright owners. And yet, only a tiny fraction of those copyright owners are caught doing it (or will admit to doing it).

By releasing their materials in this way, they're effectively putting their "intellectual property" in legal limbo. They probably won't enforce their rights to this one particular track they just released (but I can assure you they'll release every other track they own, if they haven't done so already, they won't get caught in those other instances, and then they'll be sure to play both sides of the law).

Microsoft has done this. Macromedia has done this. It pays to release your stuff through the back door, and then yell bloody murder afterward, especially because the civil damages are not awarded based on actual real damages.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[something_wicked_thi]

Countless numbers of songs and software are released in this way by their own copyright owners.

Really? Please provide proof. Typically, most copyrighted software comes from dishonest OEMs (at least the stuff that's released early). Movies get there through demo tapes. I find it hard to believe that most artists are savvy enough even to think of this, and I can't see it doing much for any big-name artist. And the smaller artists don't have the ability to go after people in the courts. Plus, anyone who thinks the RIAA is making money off the lawsuits is smoking some strong stuff.

And yet, only a tiny fraction of those copyright owners are caught doing it (or will admit to doing it).

That's probably because most of them don't do it.

By releasing their materials in this way, they're effectively putting their "intellectual property" in legal limbo.

No, they haven't. You don't lose copyright by refusing to enforce it, and you can stop distributing it at any time, so your argument is bunk.

They probably won't enforce their rights to this one particular track they just released (but I can assure you they'll release every other track they own, if they haven't done so already, they won't get caught in those other instances, and then they'll be sure to play both sides of the law).

Caught? It sounds like they're doing something illegal. If a copyright holder distributes their own copyrighted work on a P2P network, that's their right. If they sue someone else for distributing it, that's also their right. That other guy isn't allowed to do it.

Microsoft has done this. Macromedia has done this. It pays to release your stuff through the back door, and then yell bloody murder afterward, especially because the civil damages are not awarded based on actual real damages.

Pretty much all the legal cases where they made a buck were from suing big pirates who stamp their CDs and sell them en masse. You don't make money suing individuals. The proceeds just don't offset the legal costs. The RIAA sues people as a scare tactic to discourage people from using P2P. They don't actually make any money directly from the suits.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a studio album, than the copyright is most likely held by Atlantic Records, not the band.

Almost all studio recordings' copyrights are held by the recording company. This is what allows them to take such a huge chuck of record sales, throwing a small percent at the artist.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[GrassyNoel]

Yep. If he puts himself out there as being their agent, whether he intends that or not, then according to the law of agency he is their agent. Anything he does in respect of that agency is then the band's responsibility.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[stephanruby]

You don't make money suing individuals.

They don't have to (and by the way, I didn't say that). They only have to release their own pirated software to individuals. Those individuals get used to their software, and then they use it in their company.

You don't make money suing individuals.

In any case, right now the RIAA is making money from some individuals. I know at least three University students that have paid or will pay $3,000 to settle their copyright infringement cases. Right now, it seems they're mostly going after University students and University department laser printers, but it's just a matter of times before they get to everybody and sue everyone. Now it's really just a matter of refining, building up, scaling up, and lobbying up their legal threatening infrastructure.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[mattwarden]

Ok, but if the manager doesn't hold the copyright and made the music available on p2p, wouldn't the record label have to sue the manager who released it to defend the copyright?

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[Rvd. Coinflipper]

You don't have to. You do have the choice to be a jerk and leech, or you can be a good little p2p'er and return the favor 2-3 times over.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[sm62704]

then if the band are the copyright holders of their own work (a fairly safe assumption)

I'm afraid it is NOT a safe assumption. US copyright law has stated since the 1950s that phonorecords are "works for hire". The record label owns the copyright, not the band.

Want you to sign your contract
Want you to sign today
Gonna give you lots of money
Workin' for MCA

-Lynard Skynard

The Offspring wanted to post MP3s of Original Prankster on the internet when it was first released. Their label wouldn't let them, but finally consented to letting them post one song off the album.

P2P is good marketing, which is why the majors want to kill it. They have radio and empty-v; the indies don't. Destroying P2P is about destroying the competetion.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[MilesAttacca]

Actually, our local college rock station refuses to play "Crazy Bitch" (their manager, no coincidence, is a woman :P but she's a really nice radio personality). But they do play "Everything," which is to me a rather touching song.

Re:That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

[freddy_dreddy]

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, Rohan. The creator of content implicitly holds the copyright. He can publish it wherever he wants, giving its readers/users access to the content. Someone else does not have the right to reproduce or redistribute this content without the author's explicit consent.
Re your counterexample: copyright law has been created to protect the producer of content, not the person who wants to redistribute it. No approval from the copyright holder -> no case in court.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the hard rock band "BuckCherry"

I don't know about you, but I don't want them bucking my cherry. *puts on chastity belt*

Re:Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago, a friend of mine was reading a musical artist with "awards" for the year. "Worst name of the year" award went to "Cherry Popping Daddies." My friend asks me "What's so bad about that name?" And then I had to explain to him what the name could imply... he agreed it was, in fact, a bad name.

Re:Uh...

[retchdog]

Yeah, I remember the newspaper referred to them as the "CP Daddies" despite there easily being enough space for the full name. We got a laugh out of that.

Re:Uh...

[palegray.net]

Hey man, as a member of the Zoot Suit wearing community, I think you need to calm down with all that jive talk about the band's name. Why don't you just throw back a bottle of beer and relax?

Re:Uh...

[Nimey]

That reminds me of a troll on k5 whose nick was "bloody vagina uncle".

Re:Uh...

[GXTi]

A significant improvement. Captain Picard would approve.

Re:Uh...

[Alex Belits]

gb2/b/ -- you, parent and especially the journalist who wrote that newspaper article.

Re:Uh...

[neonmonk]

Uhmm..... CP in some circles stands for "Chold Porn"

Re:Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who could possibly care about that comment?

Re:Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's chilly/cold porn now?!

Ignorance is bliss...

[Lord MuffloN]

...and the hypocrisy paramount.

Not as bad as movie stars.

[Sybert42]

Movies deal in 100% artificial scarcity--they don't even have technical support! At least music acts generally tour.

Viral Marketing for Dummies

[gooman]

Example found in the chapter: What NOT to do.

Re:Viral Marketing for Dummies

[sleeponthemic]

If it is what not to do, Why do I now know their name?

(Please don't play that it is bad publicity. Nothing could embarrass them more than their bandname).

Re:Viral Marketing for Dummies

[roguetrick]

Aye, anyone who makes a play on the legendary Chuck Berry and has to do this garbage to get noticed is a real piece of shit.

Stands to reason

[loomis]

It stands to reason that such a talentless and disposable band would stoop to such dishonesty. Show the band how you support such underhanded tactics by making sure that you never buy any of their albums (not that you would anyhow).

Re:Stands to reason

[dahitokiri]

Crazy bitch.

Re:Stands to reason

[d34thm0nk3y]

It stands to reason that such a talentless and disposable band would stoop to such dishonesty. Show the band how you support such underhanded tactics by making sure that you never buy any of their albums (not that you would anyhow).

Don't download it either, sucks when people don't even want your stuff for free!

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please tell me some more of my opinions, please?

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

To the douchebag that modded this person down, Crazy Bitch is a name of a Buckcherry song. Slashdot mods - new levels of stupidity every day.

Re:Stands to reason

[colmore]

Harvey Milk are about a bazijillion times better anyway.

Re:Stands to reason

[_Sprocket_]

Could you please tell me some more of my opinions, please?

Sure. You also think your... I mean... "the band's" talent has been greatly under-appreciated over the past few years.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. All mods should know about all unknown songs by all unknown bands!

Re:Stands to reason

[DigitalHammer]

Show the band how you support such underhanded tactics by making sure that you never buy any of their albums.

Huh? You can buy music? :P

Re:Stands to reason

[mitgib]

Exactly. All mods should know about all unknown songs by all unknown bands!

Listen to the song Crazy Bitch, it's really quite funny, and if you've had a woman, would know it.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

To the douchebag that modded this person down, Crazy Bitch is a name of a Buckcherry song. Slashdot mods - new levels of stupidity every day.

Mods on cocaine?

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

they're actually not a horrible band, but still, I'm disgusted by their metallica style antics and won't be supporting them. Blaming the "pirates" and proclaiming they wanted the "real fans" to get it first.. who do they think are downloading it? The fans. So don't insult your fans in a circuitous way.

Re:Stands to reason

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Listen to the song Crazy Bitch, it's really quite funny [...]

Not after the hundredth time on the radio. That song is just annoying...

Re:Stands to reason

[ystar]

More like Suck Cherry.

Re:Stands to reason

[Lord Fury]

You're right, the song is funny in that it portrays my last girlfriend perfectly. She sang the same four lines over and over again three times an hour 7 days a week for several months.

Re:Stands to reason

[crywolf]

Indeed. Hearing it overplayed that much has convinced me to never buy a BuckCherry album. I'd have to gouge out my ears.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. You're pretty keen on breathing, you like to eat something at least several times every day, and you're unhappy with the price of gas. Oh and you also like getting on /.

Re:Stands to reason

[MadnessASAP]

Not necessary, part of the new /. UI is a windows that opens with every single bit of trivia known by every single /.ter onl;ine at that moment so that we may prevent future screwups such as this. Lord knows us mods have a heavy burden to bear and we do strive to do our best.

Re:Stands to reason

[rm999]

So any time anyone makes a reference to anything, no matter how little wit it has, it's funny? Welcome to the Family Guy generation ;)

Re:Stands to reason

[mooingyak]

Thank you. I checked the comments for absolutely no reason other than to see if someone made a 'Crazy Bitch' reference.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

No, douchebag, I modded him down because he used a Buckcherry song title on slashdot. He deserved to be punished, for there is no higher level of douchebagity than this.

Re:Stands to reason

[LordLucless]

Well, no, but you can pay money to a record company for the privelege of listening to it, which they can revoke at any time. You can't actually own it.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply not true. There is no such window.

Re:Stands to reason

[bh_doc]

You expect mods to RTFA?

Re:Stands to reason

[ScreamingCactus]

No, but they shouldn't mod down something they don't understand.

Re:Stands to reason

[bogd]

and if you've had a woman, would know it.

You sure picked the wrong audience for that comment...

Re:Stands to reason

[TriggerFin]

How are they to know they don't understand it? It looks like flamebait, and would be anywhere else, so it is here, unless the poster makes it clear that it isn't.

Re:Stands to reason

[TriggerFin]

Um... as an insult, I'm pretty sure that gets a "fail." Just another sex act, isn't it?

Re:Stands to reason

[YttriumOxide]

Breathing: Correct
Eating several times a day: Usually not - generally just once a day
Unhappy with the price of gas: Not really, I fill up around once every three weeks, and get paid pretty well, so the price doesn't bother me much
Like getting on Slashdot: Correct

I suppose 50% isn't bad!

Re:Stands to reason

[zotz]

"You can't actually own it."

Oh, no, I can sell you some that you can own pretty much as far as it can be owned in the US by anyone. I know that's not the thrust of the comment you responded to though. ~;-)

all the best,

drew

Re:Stands to reason

[DigitalHammer]

WHOOSH! :P

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with the mods. Seriously, that comment is insightful not funny.

Re:Stands to reason

[LordLucless]

No, I got the joke. I just decided it was well worth making a cutting remark on the back of it.

Re:Stands to reason

[Tweekster]

The capitalization was a dead give away.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia: "with Buckcherry created by taking the first letters in Chuck Berry and rearranging them. "

So it's not referring to a sex act. Neither is GP, that's called "making a joke".

Re:Stands to reason

[TriggerFin]

No, it's an attempt at an insult, not a joke. Anyway, the source of the letters is irrelevant, or "fothermucker" would still be an obscenity. Wait... it almost is... um, how about "yuck fou"? Yeah, that one.

Re:Stands to reason

[TriggerFin]

Capitalization? First word, but not the second. That makes it not a song title.

Who does the RIAA represent?

[orionop]

It seems that not only the bands, but the managers of the bands want the music to be heard through any means, with a chance of being bought; rather than going through the normal channels. The RIAA is being fought from the inside and out!

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[Pincus]

Is the manager technically represented by the RIAA or is he simply an employee of the band represented by it? If he doesn't fit into the RIAA hierarchy officially, they would be best served to go after him. After all, haven't we decided it's best to go after the drug producers and major dealers instead of the runners and users?

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[clone53421]

You can't violate your own copyright, though. It's not legally possible.

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[Pincus]

But does the manager own the copyright? What if he has gone rogue and offered the song without permission? And if he does own/have the rights to it, once I download that song, am I free to make it available as I please since it's already been make freely available?

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[tftp]

However if anyone downloads the music it will be legal because the music was uploaded by the copyright holder, and there is no purpose in uploading other than to facilitate downloading. Since the upload was through BitTorrent (which uploads and downloads at the same time) all consequent uploads are probably also permitted.

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[commodoresloat]

After all, haven't we decided it's best to go after the drug producers and major dealers instead of the runners and users?

No doubt, man, the major dealers are the ones who always have the best stuff!

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[clone53421]

The manager is a legal representative of the band, am I not correct? Since the copyright is registered to the band, he's entirely within his legal right to give their music away.

Re:Who does the RIAA represent?

[Rary]

Since the copyright is registered to the band...

Is it? Usually the copyright is held by the record company.

Ever notice that it's record companies, not bands, that are suing P2Pers? They're the copyright holders.

Plus, even if the band holds the copyright, the manager is just an employee of the band. He doesn't have the authority to single-handedly dictate the band's distribution policy without their consultation.

Let's get this out of the way...

[Enderandrew]

I didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit!

I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure the beowulf cluster is in the cloud.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[momerath2003]

You forgot that email is for old South Koreans.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[TheNucleon]

I didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit! Mod Parent Up!! There, fixed that for ya :-)

I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one mention of the tyrannical acts of the Microsoft Corporation? No one had a chair thrown at them? A CowboyNeal option?

You fucking amateur.

(and its GNU/Linux, asshole)

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[machine321]

First post!

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to petrify Natalie.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Eudial]

I didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit!

I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

You need to work in the frequently referenced pasty-white-parents'-basement-dwelling-virgin stereotype there somewhere.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[artifex2004]

I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[yomegaman]

OOG SMASH HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD! There, fixed that for you.

PS: Man do I fucking hate the "fixed that for you" thing.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[chord.wav]

I'd like to add:
OMG Ponnies!
and:
[Insert favourite flying chair Ballmer joke]

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

SHARKS WITH FRICKEN' LASERS.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: Man do I love the "fixed that for you" thing.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[rivetgeek]

you forgot "will it blend"

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL and didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit!

I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it? Fixed that for you.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[bky1701]

You, sir, must turn in your geek card. You missed the goatse first post!

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[houghi]

1) Make jokes about the standard jokes on /.
2) Point out the ones that are forgotten
3) ???
4) Profit!

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention that the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam (unless and until Netcraft confirms otherwise).

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[shutdown -p now]

No Bush. You lose.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[KevinIsOwn]

Sorry, I was unable to read your post. My internet tubes are clogged. Anyone got a race horse or a lotto ball?

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Anders]

Get off my lawn.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Barny]

Now you just need to post it every 2-3 days, that way to get the dupe quotient, now how does one fit the "slow news day for kdawson" requirement?

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[YttriumOxide]

I just had a bizarre mental image of some very confused Japanese people in the ministry of Agriculture calling up Netcraft and asking why they've just confirmed the ministry is in charge of Gundam after all. I hereby apologise for sharing this mental image.

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[Landshark17]

The old South Koreans aren't import, he forgot BOOBIES!!!

Re:Let's get this out of the way...

[roman_mir]

There goes karma, in Soviet Russia naked OOG with lasers on his head petrifies Goats {#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

This makes a lot of sense

[Carbon016]

Buckcherry has released an official statement regarding the song's unscheduled arrival, declaring, "Honestly, we hate it when this s*** happens, because we want our FANS to have any new songs first."

So basically, either none of their fans use the internet, their definition of "first" is different than mine, or they inhabit some sort of crazy universe with non-linear time.

I think they were "Too Drunk...." when they wrote this press release.

Re:This makes a lot of sense

[farkus888]

too drunk to write original music! every time I hear them at when out at the bar I go request the dead kennedys. it seems the regular dj at my regular bar has an aversion to much superior original versions of songs.

Re:This makes a lot of sense

[Anonymous Coward]

clearly, their fans are the people who give them money.

Re:This makes a lot of sense

[bky1701]

You insensitive clod! I live in linear-non is time where universe a!

Re:This makes a lot of sense

[pimpimpim]

So basically, either none of their fans use the internet,

well, one of them is on vacation to Amsterdam at the moment, and the other one had his internet cut off because he was behind on his payments.

Re:This makes a lot of sense

[BlueParrot]

You insensitive clod! I live in linear-non is time where universe a!

Ahhhh! They confused be by difference in future and past. This explain may, why great jedi master in strange order speak.

Nothing new

[deathtopaulw]

The only news in this article is that it has become news, and therefore publicity.
The leaking of albums has always been a marketing tactic used by the record companies.

Oh, the irony...

[bakuun]

The irony is that by actually having been found out like this, the publicity and attention they got increased dramatically. Would it have been posted on slashdot if they hadn't been the ones uploading in the first place?

1. Leak single to torrent site
2. Complain about it in press release
3. Get a little attention
4. Make sure that people find out that you actually did #1.
5. Get lots of attention
6. ???
7. Profit!

Re:Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

like a meta viral marketing?

another web 2.0 term is born!

Re:Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the profit part got ripped right out of their hands. IANAL, but does the copyright possessor posting his own works on a free distributed nextwork such as bittorrent imply the right to download?

Also, the captcha for this post is scruple, which the band obviously has not.

Re:Oh, the irony...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yes, marketing stuff on slashdot is the wet dream of all record label's. i'm seeing how sales are going to increase exponentially in 3...2...1...

Sounds like the manager isn't a fan

[Anonymous Coward]

They never blamed pirates. They merely stated that they like their fans to get first cuts.

Up Until...

[Authoritative Douche]

...I heard about this, Buck Cherry were one of my favorite bands. I would kill to have Josh Todd's voice. Alas, they are one more thing for me to boycott. Fuck.

Re:Up Until...

[slack_prad]

Don't you usually like or dislike a music band for their .. I don't know .. music?

Re:Up Until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Music? Have you listened to Buck Cherry?

Re:Up Until...

[Opportunist]

Yes and no.

Yes, I usually like bands for their music. I also usually like game studios for their games.

When I feel tricked and cheated by them, whether or not I like their product becomes secondary. I don't want to do business with a company or people who try to cheat me.

Re:Up Until...

[PJ The Womble]

There used to be a band in the late 70s/early 80s, here in the UK, called the 4 Skins (there were 4 of them, and they were skinheads, in case y'all were wondering).

They played some damned good punk rocking stuff. Then people labelled them as fascists (accusing them of being aligned with the British Movement, a UK Nazi organisation), and it wasn't cool to like them any more - even though they were still playing the same music. After that, the band published a statement saying that they weren't fascists at all, they just liked a good fight on a Saturday afternoon with (basically) anyone who was up for it.

So then it was okay to like the music again on the basis that they weren't fascists, but you couldn't enjoy them if you were a pacifist, I guess!

Re:Up Until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you usually like or dislike a music band for their .. I don't know .. music?

Try telling that to the Radiohead fanboys.

Remember wear your hazmat suit, too.

Re:Up Until...

[Kingrames]

Not really. I consider the music separate from the band completely. after all, anyone can play the songs.

Re:Up Until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. I consider the music separate from the band completely. after all, anyone can play the songs.

you must be listening to some really shit music then.

Re:Up Until...

[fyoder]

I don't want to do business with a company or people who try to cheat me.

Tried that. Wound up naked living in a hole subsisting on juniper berries. Then some bastards stole all the berries.

Re:Up Until...

[geekoid]

Maybe it's just a mistake? Maybe they didn't know their manager had did it?

Anyways, let me give you a clue:
Never look into or read about your favorit band. Eventually they will do something that just pisses you off. Everybody does sooner or later.

Let it go...

Re:Up Until...

[roguetrick]

Shouldn't be listening to gutterpunk if you're a pacifist, though I'm more of the Symarip fan myself.

Re:Up Until...

[Jesus_666]

It might also help to occasionally read up on bands you refuse to listen to. Example: Within Temptation released the music video to their song "Ice Queen" and I happened to come across it. From the tacky animated band logo to the pseudo-tough band member scenes the whole video was like a big sign reading "We're a bunch of posers who like to pretend they're an actual band". I immediately decided to ignore those jokers from then on.

Later I was told that they actually share my opinion of the video. That allowed them to regain a bit my of respect and I checked out one of their albums. Turns out they're not quite bad, even though as a symphonic metal band they're overly dramatic and have an unhealthy love for the word "scream" even if using it destroys a rhyme - I think that's an industry standard.

But I still won't touch "Ice Queen".

Re:Up Until...

[Anonymous Coward]

Buck Cherry were one of my favorite bands. I would kill to have Josh Todd's voice. Alas, they are one more thing for me to boycott. Fuck.

Man, I used to boycott things this easily too, but I ended up with nothing left to buy and then had to go live in the woods to survive. And then the woods almost killed me, so I had to boycott them. And then I got mad at myself for being so stubborn, and so I had to start boycotting my own thoughts. Next thing I remember was waking up in the asylum for petty boycotters, where I now sit.

Let this be a warning to you.

Re:Up Until...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know... Crazy bitches...

Re:Up Until...

[mattwarden]

Possibly, but the fact that Nickelback has fans is strong evidence to the contrary.

Obligatory. . .

[zach_the_lizard]

1. Leak album to pirates.
2. Blame pirates for leaked album.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Obligatory. . .

[Ansoni-San]

They didn't quite make it to 4 though did they. I guess 3 must have been "FAIL!" this time.

Re:Obligatory. . .

[figleaf]

3. Garner more publicity -- Release an expose that the band released its own album on P2P and blamed pirates.

Re:Obligatory. . .

[Vectronic]

"They didn't quite make it to 4 though did they [yet]."

We'll have to wait to see how trials and settlements go, as well as what the album makes on its release. (16 September 2008, according to the Wiki)

Double “uh”.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no “could imply” about it. “Cherry Poppin' Daddies” explicitly addresses deflowering.

The sum of my feelings

[v3lut]

Who?

I'd have never heard of them if not for this article.

Re:The sum of my feelings

[Koiu Lpoi]

That's the point, son. This is all a way to get their name out there. I, for one, will by boycotting them in response.

Re:The sum of my feelings

[TheRaven64]

I won't be boycotting them. It would be giving them too much attention. Instead, I will be passively failing to buy (or download) their music.

Wikipedia edits

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "It turns out that the uploader, a New York resident, had only uploaded one torrent, the BuckCherry track. When we entered the IP-address into the Wiki-scanner, we found out that the person in question had edited the BuckCherry wikipedia entry, and added the name of the band manager to another page."

Well, a certain person, who has coincidentally both edited the BuckCherry page, and added a name to a radio station page, has also added a couple of questionable contributions.

Re:Wikipedia edits

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Mr. Klemme is in need of a good maxillofacial surgeon.

Re:Wikipedia edits

[LeafOnTheWind]

My god - the edits to the Zoophilia page are gold.

Re:Wikipedia edits

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what my ISP thinks of these pages I'm visiting

Re:Wikipedia edits

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a certain person, who has coincidentally both edited the BuckCherry page, and added a name to a radio station page, has also added a couple of questionable contributions.

So, why does that all have to be the same person again?

Let Jesus Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwSrr3pEtbw Not as off-topic as you might think...

Using...

[Maverynthia]

Can we use this article as a basis to say all those other game companies and the like really leaked their own stuff and it wasn't pirates after all? Perhaps I should say, if enough people call pirates and there are no pirates, soon people will stop believing them and the pirates really will take the sheep.

So doesn't uploading to bittorrent...

[mysidia]

Imply unlimited permission to distribute?

Seeing as unlimited redistribution (uploading, and eventual seeding by downloaders) is inherent of bittorrent protocol, DHT, etc, and to be expected by anyone uploading via bittorrent.

Oblig. Zen Question

[kmkznobeikoku]

If a no-name rock band falls on it's face, and there's no one to hear it, .....do you care? Awaiting flames in T minus 5...4...3...

Any publicity...

[everynerd]

The great thing about public relations mishaps like this is that even if they're viewed negatively, the band is still getting media attention and in turn creating buzz about an upcoming album. You can sit and bash the band for their music and their mistake, but the fact that we're talking about it means they're doing something right.

Re:Any publicity...

[Antaeus Feldspar]

So, logically, the solution would be to distort the name of the band so that their name-brand does not increase as a result of the media buzz, right? Shame on you for pulling this stunt, BookBerry!

Entrapment?

[New_Age_Reform_Act]

Smells like it. Another dubious attempt to boost RIAA credibility.

"Hard rock"?

[InspectorxGadget]

BuckCherry is flaccid rock, at most.

License To Download

[tony1343]

Since the band put the album on bittorent, sounds to me like they implicitly gave everyone a copyright license to download it. No reason to buy it now; it's free. If they didn't grant a license, I'm going to record myself screaming into a microphone, burn cds of it, then hand it out a Walmart and then sue people for copyright infringement for taking it. Sounds like almost as good of an idea as the Underpants Gnomes scheme.

Re:License To Download

[nawcom]

sounds to me like they implicitly gave everyone a copyright license to download it.

What the hell?

You need to learn what a copyright is. Just because something is free doesn't mean no one has rights over it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

In fact copyrights are used to determine "who is not given rights" over the certain material, and that is decided by the exclusive owner. While p2p doesn't "intellectually" copy something, it does physically copy it. This comes down to stuff the RIAA argued over; whether loading an mp3 into memory is essentially copyright infringement.

So I assume what you meant is that they implicitly loosened the limitations of their copyright - when you purchase something you don't get any license; you simply lack limitations set on you by the copyright owners when it comes to physical ownership, hence not "infringing" it.

This is all based on me reading up a little of copyright law, so if i misunderstood a part of it please correct me.

Re:License To Download

[clone53421]

Yeah, but since the whole point of torrents is to distribute to as many people as possible while minimizing the bandwidth used by the original uploader (i.e. the peers are supposed to share with others), I'd say it was definitely implying the right to distribute.

Re:License To Download

[everynerd]

Well first of all, it's just a single track, not the album. And second, being in a position of authority with a band and releasing copyrighted material like this does not immediately make it free from that legal contract. It just means the pirate happens to be the manager.

downloads

[immorak]

If one downloads the song could they not be a fan hearing the tune first?

I think

[Sycraft-fu]

They are basically using a silly sort of reverse logic. They want to leak the song, because they know it'll generate more interest. However they are worried if they do, that people will choose to download it and then not buy it. So they then come up with the idea that "Hey, we'll pretend like we didn't leak it and hate on those that did. That'll shame the fans in to buying it!" After that the discussion was probably something along the lines of "Fuck yeah I am a philosophy logic ninja MASTER! Pass the bong man."

Re:I think

[Mix Master Nixon]

This band fails at the Internet. Also music.

Press release

[Anonymous Coward]

NEW YORK, NY, Jul 22 (MARKET WIRE) --
Eleven Seven Music/Atlantic recording group Buckcherry has announced
early details of its hugely anticipated fourth album, "BLACK BUTTERFLY."
The album -- which follows 2006's RIAA platinum-certified blockbuster,
"15" -- arrives in stores at all digital retailers on September 16th.

"Too Drunk...," a featured track from "BLACK BUTTERFLY," recently appeared
online at a number of BitTorrent sites. Buckcherry has released an
official statement regarding the song's unscheduled arrival, declaring,
"Honestly, we hate it when this s*** happens, because we want our FANS to
have any new songs first."

In response to the leak, the band quickly cut "a down and dirty video" for
"Too Drunk..." which can be viewed on www.Buckcherry.com. With its sexy,
slinky groove, "Too Drunk..." offers a new facet to Buckcherry's trademark
hard-rocking sonic approach. "I just wanted something that was funky,"
notes lead singer Josh Todd, "so we all collaborated on it and turned it
into something with a lot of space to breeze along and tell a story."

"BLACK BUTTERFLY" is now available for preorder via www.Buckcherry.com.
Fans who preorder the Limited Edition Fan Pack will receive the track "Too
Drunk..." at the time of their preorder. The ringtone for the track is
also available on the band's website. The album -- co-produced by longtime
Aerosmith collaborator Marti Frederiksen (the co-writer of Buckcherry's
top 10 smash, "Sorry") and Buckcherry's own Keith Nelson -- will be
offered in a standard CD package; a "Limited Fan Club Edition" version,
which comes with bonus tracks and a one-year membership to the Buckcherry
Fan Club; and a "Limited Fan Club Edition" bundle which adds a "BLACK
BUTTERFLY" T-shirt to the previous package. For more information, visit
www.Buckcherry.com.

The newly updated www.Buckcherry.com also features the "BLACK BUTTERFLY"
album art, as well as links and information regarding the band's current
role in this summer's "Cruee Fest." The just-underway North American tour
sees Buckcherry lighting up stages all summer long as part of a
multi-artist bill which also includes Moetley Cruee, Papa Roach, SIXX:
A.M., and Trapt (see below itinerary).

True road warriors, Buckcherry will follow "Cruee Fest" with a full-scale
co-headline tour alongside Avenged Sevenfold, slated to kick off in
mid-September, running through the beginning of October. (See below for
announced dates; additional dates to be announced at a later date.)

Buckcherry was featured in a recent Billboard cover story which declared
the Los Angeles-based band to be "a platinum-plated redemption story,
years in the making." Powered by four enormously successful multi-format
hit singles, "15" firmly established Buckcherry's status as America's
preeminent hard rock outfit. "Crazy Bitch" -- the album's Grammy
Award-nominated first single -- caused a radio riot upon its 2006 release,
reaching #2 at Mainstream Rock and #3 at Active Rock. A string of further
rock and alternative radio hits followed, including "Next 2 You,"
"Everything," and the CHR/Top 40 crossover smash, "Sorry." The singles
have all blown up online, with cumulative digital sales now approaching 1
million. In addition, "Crazy Bitch" spent over a year in the Nielsen
RingScan Top 30 -- the only track to do so in the chart's history. The
track has since been certified as a Platinum Master Ringtone by the RIAA.

What's more, Buckcherry spent nearly two full years on the road,
performing more than 300 live shows in support of "15." A full-scale
headline tour behind "BLACK BUTTERFLY" will be announced shortly.

Buckcherry is: Josh Todd - vocals * Keith Nelson - guitar * Jimmy Ashhurst
- bass * Stevie D. - guitar * Xavier Muriel - drums.

For additional information, please visit www.buckcherry.com
and
www.myspace.com/

This was prone to backfire.

[Opportunist]

No matter how it ends up.

The "direct" damage, by having the tracks downloaded, is easy to keep under control. Having a torrent means jack if nobody seeds. Just because there's a .torrent file doesn't mean the file is available on BT. It only means someone created a hash.

But, well, to recoin an old phrase, imagine it's torrent and nobody leeches. What does that mean, essentially? That nobody wants the crap! It's available. For free. To be taken. And NOBODY bothers to do just that! It ain't even worth the bandwidth necessary to DL it.

If there's any lesson in this, it's don't do that! The first thing a (reputable) record mag would have done when this info came out, provided it was genuine, was to check with BT. And see that nobody uploads/downloads the tracks. And then write about a band that nobody wants. Not even for free, delivered right to your computer.

Why lie about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why they won't just release a debut song on bittorrent sites to promote the album. Why lie about it?

Re:Why lie about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gorilla Marketing

Re:Why lie about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

the word you are looking for is guerrilla.

guerrilla marketing

Re:Why lie about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer Gorilla.

Worst Concert Band Ever

[BurfCurse]

This band must have one hell of a producer. I'll admit that their studio music isn't that bad. I've seem that play twice at music festivals. There concerts are freaking terrible. I mean embarrasing terrible. I don't even know how they ever got signed.

Yeah, back before the war...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Don't you usually like or dislike a music band for their .. I don't know .. music?

Yeah, back in the old days when they weren't fighting a War on Sharing against their fans...

Bullshit

[MiKM]

I won't believe a word of what you said until Netcraft confirms it.

Special Notice to All GNAA Members:

[Eco-Mono]

Special Notice to All GNAA Members:

You have new orders. I want a pro-GNAA version of this press release on my desk at 0600 hours.

Actually, make that two male prostitutes and a pro-GNAA version of this press release.

Actually, you can skip the press release if you want to.

- timecop

To hell with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can just have our music.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ufedjuamrmj
www.caestles.com

Following the script of "The Heavenly Kings"

[6350']

This band seems to be following the script of the semi-movie-semi-mockumentary Hong Kong film "The Heavenly Kings," in which the band decides to upload their main song to P2P networks, then complain of the leak in a press release as a method of getting coverage, hype, and attention.

Never was quite clear just how much of the film is real, and how much is fictional (the actors in the movie did in fact start a cheezy boy band, as depicted in the film, and seemed to, on one hand, draw inspiration for the film from their experiences, at the very least).

Anyhoo, the second I read the blrb, I instantly realized these guys have probably watched the film in question.

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/reviews_2/heavenly_kings.htm

What are we gonna call this new kind of marketing?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about mastorbation?

Interesting precedent.

[Anonymous Coward]

The manager has effectively shown:

a) That internet piracy doesn't represent a significant reduction in actual sales of the music

and

b) Freely sharing music is an excellent way to promote a band and therefore can increase sales.

The RIAA won't be happy about this at all.

Just for that stunt...

[Jane Q. Public]

I will probably steal the song rather than pay for it. I like it... but they deserve to lose over that little piece of bullshit.

They love their cocaine... they love their cocaine

[cakkafracle]

They were all 'lit up again' when they came up with this plan seriously tho, they really suck and could use the publicity to sell some shit. poor schmucks. i mean, they REALLY suck. and are a great example of the crap that radio stations love to flog... blecchy

Sorry

[Trepidity]

I'm sorry I'm bad, I'm sorry you're blue
I'm sorry about all the downmods I gave to you
And I know I can't take it back
I love how you post, I love all your sounds
And baby the way you make my world go 'round
And I just wanted to say I'm sorry.

Let me fix that for ya...

[BattleApple]

"Honestly, we hate it when this s*** happens, because we want our FAN to have any new songs first."

Re:Let me fix that for ya...

[Fred Ferrigno]

That's why you're supposed to refer to her as "the fan base".

Submitter is also the band manager.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any proof that Submitter isn't the manager, too? Why was this greenlit?

A little off topic but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea of IP (Intellectual Property) is bullshit. Music has been around throughout human history and only recently, within the last 100-200 years, have the musicians been paid for it (at least in stored form). Now the RIAA claims that music wouldn't exist if the artists weren't compensated.

Maybe they wouldn't get rich off of it, and have large mansions, but people would still make music. The music would probably be better too since they wouldn't be concerned with marketability or money, they would just do it for the love of the art. Some would be crap and some would be good, but isn't that the way it is now?

hey your crazy

[flahwho]

bitch... but you f'd yourself good by creating hype that never was there. Buck cherry? didn't their singer get turned down by slash before Velvet Revolver formed?
Crap. Simply Crap.

Will you download it?

[interactive_civilian]

If it is what not to do, Why do I now know their name?

Will you download the album? I deliberately will not, even though I know the name now. Why? Because they are trying to game the system for free publicity while also trying to make P2Pers look bad by blaming them for the leak. I find this kind of underhanded attempt at publicity dishonest and obnoxious and will therefore not even bother to check out their music.

If they had just put there music out on BitTorrent with a press release announcing they had done so, I would have thought that was cool and would have downloaded their album to support the idea and to check out their music.

But with this kind of tactic, they have completely lost me as a potential listener.

Re:Will you download it?

[commodoresloat]

I unfortunately already did download the album before I heard about this. (Maybe it's just because of my recent relationships but I love that one song)... But they didn't even have to do it the honest way like you describe for it to be a respectable gimmick, IMHO; I would have loved to see them release it on bittorrent, pretend they didn't, but issued a press release thanking the pirates for getting their music out there and encouraging people to download it to see if they like it and then come to a show or buy a CD or t shirt or whatever. But this is totally despicable.

Re:Will you download it?

[dino2gnt]

No sir; refuse to download the album because they *SUCK*.

Re:Will you download it?

[TriggerFin]

No sir; refuse to download the album because they *SUCK*.

They may, but does the album?

I mean, I actually downloaded that free piece of carp from Nine Inch Nails a while back, thinking there'd be music in it. Even if I didn't like it, I could give it to someone who did. Haven't found that person yet.

Re:Will you download it?

[YttriumOxide]

Hmmm... I really enjoyed it.

Re:Will you download it?

[TriggerFin]

What, the NIN album? Point is, it is completely un-NIN-like, based on whatI've previously heard from them. It sounds like something waiting to be turned into proper music.

Brilliant!

[russotto]

They got publicity by

1) Releasing the track on BitTorrent
2) Whining about pirates releasing the track on BitTorrent
3) Getting caught lying about #2.

If intentional, worthy of Machiavelli.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

we've decided to go after drug producers and major dealers? seriously kid, get a grip on reality. the producers and majors are still pushing the dope. however they are running out of peons to go to the wall for them because the US had more than 1 in 100 American adults incarcerated at the start of 2008- that is OVER 1% there are a LOT of those that are minor drug offenses, and murderers,etc walk free.

Nothing New..

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for a major label, this is what New Media does. We leaked set up tracks, and then put out the strong single.

Surprised it took this long to come to light. This is standard operating procedure. Big Champagne numbers (Soundscan for p2p networks) are carefully watched by execs. Even if they don't fully understand them.

This happens a lot in South Korea ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the major talent agencies in South Korea regularly leak entire albums of their artists onto the Internet to build up advance publicity, too.

It makes sense to do so because music sales (especially physical disc sales) have, well, imploded there. Hit albums once moved as many as 2 million copies each as recently as 2000; these days, even sales of 25000 copies are pretty respectable. The talent agencies--who scout for, train and produce just about all the major artists in the country--have high overheads and cannot survive with sales figures like that.

So, the music has become just a loss leader for the agencies to build up their artists' popularity, with which they can then bank on to land as many drama roles and product endorsements as possible. Those are much more lucrative than selling music. Failing that, many artists (even A-list idol groups like SNSD, the Wonder Girls and Big Bang) will sing live anywhere and everywhere--at university fairs, sports events and trade shows.

Even free is not good

[zygotic mitosis]

They can't pay me $5 to willingly sit through a Buckcherry song. Their music is worthless, even when it's free.

Anyone saying, "Hey, at least they're getting some publicity, right?", has probably never heard their bland cock-rock. It's Nickelback for the hard-rock inclined. Yuck.

Weak.

[Jesus_666]

How can you make such a post without mentioning my freelance gig in front of a Mac? It took the Mac twenty minutes to copy all those references from one post to another!

BitTorrent Leak

[neural cooker]

I'm concerned that someone at BitTorrent actually divulged the IP addresses of the uploader, regardless of this story. I don't know but the article implies that they don't normally do this as a rule. I'd think that privacy concerns would be more important than finger pointing at who uploaded the torrent.

Hard rock?

[writermike]

That's hard rock??

I am officially old.

FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

"rock" band is more appropriate.

Metallica, or Wagner

[PhreakOfTime]

METALLICA

Although it was probably the most amusing thing in my life, when I saw the bands members in front of congress testifying about file sharing. You know, the band that performed the song MASTER OF PUPPETS

I know many people who dont like the classical music of Wagner because of his later association with the Nazi party(not his fault), and his overt racism against Jews(very much his fault). Sometimes things are more than one dimensional.

Both of those scenarios are examples of how liking or disliking an artist can go far beyond just their music.

17 USC 512(b)

[tepples]

By putting standard-copyright content on a webserver, you're almost guaranteeing that a third-party caching proxy is going to redistribute your content, but the law (so far) has glossed over this detail

Glossed over? One of the riders to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act set out rules for the operation of automated caching proxies in the United States. See 17 USC 512(b).

"Making available" == offer to distribute

[tepples]

This is a little shaky because "making available" is a fuzzy term that the RIAA claims is equivalent to distribution.

Fuzzy how? I read "making available" as meaning "making an offer to reproduce or distribute". Copyright law defines "reproduce" and "distribute", and contract law defines "offer".

Re:"Making available" == offer to distribute

[something_wicked_thi]

The problem is that the RIAA made up the term "making available", so it's kind of hard to define. They claim its tantamount to distribution, so they sue people who do it for copyright violation. But just because it's tantamount to distribution doesn't mean it's the same. You could try to argue in court that anyone who is making available a copyrighted work has done something that only someone with the right to distribute has done, but it is neither an offer nor a grant of a right to make a copy.

Personally, I don't buy it. If they try that, then it weakens their case, it seems to me. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think it comes down to this: there's nothing in copyright law about making something available, so the RIAA has to claim it's distribution or an offer to distribute. Which means that, if the copyright holder does it, then it's legal to take them up on it.

In short, I agree with you. I'm just saying that the RIAA isn't necessarily going to agree with us.

Happy birthday IPv4

[tepples]

Well, a certain person, who has coincidentally both edited the BuckCherry page, and added a name to a radio station page, has also added a couple of questionable contributions.

IPv4 addresses get reassigned often. If the number of Wikipedia contributors in a /24 is a significant fraction of the 250-odd possible addresses in a /24, the birthday problem makes it unreliable to pick out long-term trends associated with a particular address.