Slashdot Mirror
Music Doesn't Feature In the Pirate Bay's Top 100 Biggest Torrents
journovampire writes Good news for the industry's anti-piracy efforts? Or rather embarrassing for music's appeal in the big, wide world? No single music release features in the Top 100 most-torrented files. From the article: "MBW has analysed TPB’s Top 100 most-pirated files in the 48 hours since its re-emergence. And although you’ll find plenty of movies and a smattering of porn in there, you won’t see a single music release. The Top 4 most-pirated files over the weekend were all movies, led by new Jason Statham vehicle Wild Card. It was followed by three more Hollywood releases – The Interview, American Sniper and Nightcrawler."
You can find it on YouTube or Spotify, to name but two sources. Full-length movies are harder to come by in this fashion.
Current music sucks so bad Pirates don't even want it.
plenty of movies
its to be expected. Sitting through 20 minutes of mandatory trailer before my bluray starts actually playing the movie i paid for is nothing short of a war crime.
smattering of porn
ew.
but in all actuality the lack of music is likely due to spotify, soundcloud, and pandora not to mention bandcamp and the rise of unsigned, independent artists using a 'pay if you want' model. stream rips from Youtube are also popular. If you're expecting to see the top 40's in the pirate bay you're mistaken as to their purpose. Top 40 music is played 3 times a day 21 times a week for 5 months because you're being conditioned to like it. Katy perry and other artists write lyrics at the 3rd grade level not because theyre illiterate, but because their producers and writers are targeting the widest potential demographic for the song.
Good people go to bed earlier.
> A whole generation has grown up who believe that music is "free".
It's not just the current generation. This has been going on pretty much for as long as there has been broadcast media. This "it should be free" thing goes back to the genesis of radio.
There is nothing new about "payment avoidance" when it comes to Music.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Does music cost $20 a song and come with a 5 minute unskippable warning against piracy, and 10 minutes of unskippable trailers for other songs? But for some products if you want quality you have to pirate it. I know some people who will buy a movie to be legit/support the industry, and then pirate it because it is less trouble than the CD.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Or how about the following three factors:
1. I can buy the tracks I want for a sensible price with no DRM, so I can listen to it how and when I want.
2. Lots of streaming services if I don't want to buy.
3. An almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
Basically street years of getting brutalized by pirates, the music industry wised up and started selling people what they wanted to buy rather than treating people like criminals to be milked for as much cash as possible.
Oh that and YouTube.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Now that I can actually own my own music downloaded legally from iTunes and play it on all of my devices, I have no reason to pirate it. But I still pirate movies and will continue until the DRM issue is resolved.
"With 1828 ‘seeders’ and just 76 ‘leechers’, True is a fair distance behind the 100th most popular torrent overall: PC game Far Cry 4, which has 1604 ‘seeders’ plus 1260 ‘leechers’."
Keep in mind that:
1) Once a "leecher" finishes downloading, they become a "seeder"
2) Nearly all clients will stop being a "seeder" once a predetermined share ratio is reached
Considering a typical music album is FAR smaller than a game (probably 100-200MB at most, depending on bitrate for encoding, vs. multiple gigabytes for a game - FC4 is over 10GB I'd guess, I can't view TPB to check from my current location), "leechers" become "seeders" far faster, and "seeders" disconnect from the torrent due to hitting the share ratio cap of the client (kTorrent defaults to 1.30 for example) far faster.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Let's hope vinyl or increased quality isn't just a passing fad.
I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a CD and vinyl or tape were your only options to get a full album. I do not miss for a moment vinyl records and all the hassles involved with them. If you think vinyl is great you either A) did not grow up with vinyl records or B) you have a fetish for obsolete technology which interferes with your ability to remember why we don't use it anymore.
Let me remind of just some of the reasons rational people gave up on vinyl records years ago:
1) Vinyl only sounds good when operating perfectly and most of the time it does not, particularly if the record has seen meaningful play.
2) Vinyl is absurdly easy to damage and virtually impossible to keep intact with meaningful use. They are flimsy and scratch easily. See point 1 above.
3) Vinyl is bulky increasing it's propensity to get damaged (see point 2 above) and takes up unnecessary space.
4) Vinyl record players rely on needles which wear out and regularly damage the very media they are intended to play.
5) Vinyl stores a relatively small amount of music and does so in a very bulky and non-portable media
6) Vinyl cannot easily or conveniently be copied to any portable player
7) Vinyl does not come with digital track data that can be copied conveniently to other players
8) Vinyl cannot easily be utilized in conjunction with other media such as putting a song into a video.
9) Vinyl cannot easily be used for other purposes. I can use a CD or flash memory to store other types of data. Not practical with vinyl.
10) There are non-lossy digital formats which are indistinguishable from even the best vinyl in double blind tests. (If you claim otherwise I'm going to call you a liar)
Increased quality? I'm on board unless it requires vinyl. If it does then screw increased quality because it is not worth the hassle of vinyl.