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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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*

[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]

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*

[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*

[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*

[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.

Viral Marketing for Dummies

[gooman]

Example found in the chapter: What NOT to do.

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]

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

[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

[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.

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...

[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: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: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?

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

[bky1701]

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

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!

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...

[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...

[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: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?

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

[LeafOnTheWind]

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

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.

"Hard rock"?

[InspectorxGadget]

BuckCherry is flaccid rock, at most.

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."

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.

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

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."

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.