Music Business Articles
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Articles - Music Business Articles
rectifier 15th June 2009 12:45 PM
Anti-piracy music deal for Virgin

Virgin has pledged to tackle pirates as part of a deal to offer music to its broadband customers.
Virgin and Universal have signed a deal that will give the ISP's customers access to "unlimited" music.

For a monthly fee, Virgin's broadband customers will be able to download or stream as many MP3 files as they want.

As part of the deal, Virgin has pledged to aggressively police use to stop the MP3 tracks turning up on file-sharing networks.

Virgin said it was in talks to add other music firms' back catalogues to the service.

The service is due to be launched before Christmas 2009. Virgin has not said how much the service will cost every month. But it said it could be comparable to the cost of a couple of albums a month.

Those signing up will be able to put the tracks on any music player and keep the music they have downloaded even if they stop paying the monthly fee.

Artists such as Amy Winehouse, Girls Aloud, La Roux and Just Jack are signed to Universal.

Virgin said it had vowed to try a range of anti-piracy measures as part of the deal. The last resort would be a temporary suspension of a customer's internet connection if that person consistently ignored warnings about their activity.

The deal was announced the day before the UK government releases the final version of the Digital Britain report put together by Lord Carter.

The report is widely expected to bestow new powers on communications watchdog Ofcom that will let it compel ISPs to do more to tackle file-sharing.

It is thought that one favoured solution to discourage persistent pirates will be to dial down their internet connection speed.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Anti-piracy music deal for Virgin
XHipHop 15th June 2009 05:06 AM

Public Domain Donor

rectifier 8th June 2009 12:09 AM
Pirate Party Wins and Enters The European Parliament | TorrentFreak

The Pirate Party has won a huge victory in the Swedish elections and is marching on to Brussels. After months of campaigning against well established parties, the Pirate Party has gathered enough votes to be guaranteed a seat in the European Parliament.
Pirate Party Wins and Enters The European Parliament | TorrentFreak
StereoAtLast 29th May 2009 10:35 PM

I was just browsing the musicians section of the Austin Criaglist and I found this gem...


Pro****infessional Drummer Available
johnnycox 26th May 2009 11:26 PM
Update Your Browser | Facebook

Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, post links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.
Theres all kinds of studios out here in PH City. Its best to look at the good studios in town. Heres a link to a tight studio.
Blue Dolphins Studios- Professional Recording (Audio and Video) | Facebook
CISUM 26th May 2009 12:34 AM

Hey everyone, just read right now that Liberty Devittos, Billy Joels drummer has filled a lawsuit against him for stiffing him out of money from royalties.

Billy Joel Lawsuit
HobbyCore 22nd May 2009 01:41 PM
Nya domare i Pirate Bay-målet | Inrikes | SvD

Efter uppgifter om att den nytillsatta hovrättsdomaren i Pirate Baymålet tidigare varit medlem i samma upphovsrättsförening som den jävsanklagade...
Source: Nya domare i Pirate Bay-målet | Inrikes | SvD

in a nutshell...

Ulrika Ihrfelt was assigned to determine if a judge, Tomas Norström, in the original trial was biased. It turns out the Ihrfelt was a member of the same organization that Norström was a member of. Ihrfelt was removed due to that.

Does not bode well for Norström.
Mike Brown 18th May 2009 10:22 PM
Harvard prof tells judge that P2P filesharing is “fair use” | Ars Technica

Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson is headed to federal court this summer to …
Harvard prof tells judge that P2P filesharing is "fair use" - Ars Technica


I am against piracy & stealing.... but its stupid to try and prosecute the pirates.... I propose a subscription system. Check my other posts in this sub-forum for details.
rack gear 17th May 2009 06:40 AM
SF MusicTech Summit | music. people. tech.

The SF MusicTech Summit brings together visionaries in the evolving music/business/technology ecosystem, along with the best and brightest developers, entrepreneurs, investors, service providers, journalists, musicians, and the organizations who work with them at the convergence of culture and commerce. We meet to do business and discuss, in a proactive, conducive to dealmaking environment.
SanFran MusicTech Summit
SanFran MusicTech Summit - Home (CrowdVine)

All it takes is ONE good idea to change EVERYTHING... and this could all be BS...

Hotel Kabuki
1625 Post Street
San Francisco, CA 94118
Monday, May 18 2009
9am - 6pm + cocktail party!

The SanFran MusicTech Summit will bring together the best and brightest developers in the Music/Technology Space, along with the musicians, entrepreneurial business people, press, investors, service providers, and organizations who work with them at the convergence of culture and commerce. We will meet to discuss the evolving music/business/technology ecosystem in a proactive, conducive to dealmaking environment.

We are only planning one Summit in 2009, but are working hard to make it the best yet!

View a partial list of summit attendees on our registration page.

The Summit will provide 2 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit (approval pending) for attorneys from 9:20 am - 11:30 am.

- 9:10AM

Brian Zisk - SanFran MusicTech Summit, Adam Zbar - Zannel, CEO

- 10:20AM

Zahavah Levine Esq. - YouTube, David Leibowitz Esq. - Gotuit / CH Potomac, Iain Scholnick - ImageSpan, Joshua Wattles Esq. - deviantART (Moderator)


Sean O'Connell - Music Allies, Dave DeVore - FanMail Marketing, Panos Panay - SonicBids, Aaron Clark - Mozes, Jeremy Welt - Warner Brothers Records, Dave Champine - Local Music Vibe

- 10:30AM


- 11:30AM

Larry Kenswil Esq. - Loeb & Loeb, Leron Rodgers Esq. - Hewitt & Rogers, Cecily Mak Esq. - Rhapsody / RealNetworks, Gregor Pryor - ReedSmith (UK)

Joe Kennedy - Pandora, Bill Goldsmith - Radio Paradise, Mike Huppe, Esq. - SoundExchange, Drew Hilles - Goom Radio, Kurt Hanson - RAIN Radio & Internet Newsletter (moderator)

Dean Hudson - SubPop Records, David Barrett - Expensify, Eric Wahlforss - Sound Cloud, Lucas Gonze - XSPF, Tom Conrad - Pandora (Moderator), Adam Fisk - LittleShoot

- 12:00PM

Matt Morris - exclusive private performance

- 1:00PM


- 2:00PM


Layne Fox - DJ 40 Thieves / IRIS / Smash Hit Music, Francis Ten - West Indian Girl, John McDermott - Stroke 9 / ImageSpan, Jean Cook - Future of Music Coalition / Violinist for Jon Langford, Waco Brothers, and Ida (Moderator)

Ted Cohen - TAG Strategic, Josh Hofmann - Vertical Acuity, Peter Yared - iWidgets, James Lamberti - Topspin

- 3:00PM

David Gibbons - Avid, Mark Ethier - iZotope, Bill Putnam Jr. - Universal Audio, Mark Wherry - Remote Control Productions, Martin Kloiber - Euphonix, Justin Frankel - Cockos

Geoff Ralston - LaLa, Ali Partovi - iLike, Anthony Batt - Buzz Media, Dave Allen - Pampelmoose / Nemo Design / (former) Gang of Four, Chuck Fishman - Cisco

Bear Kittay - Music for Democracy, Zac Matthews - Musician (former) Hot Buttered Rum, Maureen Herman - Project Noise, Joyce Williams - Zazzle / Music National Service / MIN Entertainment

- 3:30PM


- 4:30PM

Terry McBride - Nettwerk Music Group, Bob Kohn - RoyaltyShare, Robb McDaniels - INgrooves, Antony Randall - Tour Pro, Kristin Thomson - Future of Music Coalition, Heather Rafter - RafterMarsh USA

Michael Papish - Media Unbound, Stephen White - Gracenote, James Miao - The Sixty One, Paul Lamere - The Echo Nest (Moderator), Alex Loscos - BMAT

Ge Wang - Smule, Darryl Ballantyne - LyricFind, Jeff Annison - UndergroundLabs, Rob Pegoraro - Washington Post, Bart Decrem - Tapulous

- 4:45PM


- 5:45PM

Ian Rogers - Topspin, Jim Griffin - Choruss, Tony Van Veen - Disc Makers, Fred Von Lohmann - EFF, Celia Hirshman - One Little Indian / KCRW (Moderator)

Heidi Richman - HRMP Lifestyle Marketing, Rick Farman - Superfly Presents, Jeff Daniel - Rock River Music, Robbie Lloyd - Silva Artist Management, Charlie Moran - AdAge

- 8:00PM

COCKTAIL PARTY - Sponsored by LyricFind
TheRealRoach 17th May 2009 06:37 AM

Download Decade - The Globe and Mail

A pretty exhaustive interactive discussion and chronology of the download age. Lots of audio clips, video interviews/shorts, and text to read.
PlatinumSamples 12th May 2009 06:50 PM
French net piracy bill signed off

France passes a law to combat copyright piracy by disconnecting people who illegally download films and music.
BBC NEWS | Technology | French 'net piracy' bill passed

France has passed their piracy bill....
chrisso 12th May 2009 01:52 AM
Call to 'disconnect file-sharers'

Persistent illegal file-sharers should be cut off from the net, says an alliance of the UK's creative industries.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Call to 'disconnect file-sharers'
LAstudio 11th May 2009 01:22 PM
H.R.4789: Performance Rights Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Official government data, breaking news and blog coverage, public comments and user community for H.R.4789 Performance Rights Act
Hi all,

Here's my letter to the President and my representatives urging their support of the Performance Rights Act. A vote on it is imminent. If you support it as well, please write to the President and your representatives... and please share your letter here as well!!!!


Dear President Obama, Senators Boxer and Feinstein, and Represetative Berman,

I am writing you to strongly urge your support of the Performance Rights Act.

I am a California-based performing and recording artist, as well as a co-founder of a burgeoning record label focusing on new artist development. Surely you are aware of the very difficult challenges facing recording artists and their record labels. We are at a critical juncture where the very future of music -- particularly from independent artists and labels -- is at stake.

Consider the fact that consumers are increasingly moving towards individual downloads -- whether obtained legally or otherwise -- in lieu of traditional full-length albums of material. Also consider the detereriorating state of brick-and-mortar music retail. Finally, consider the consolidation of radio broadcasters. All of these make for "the perfect storm" in the music industry for performers and rights-holders.

With fewer and fewer opportunities for new (and legacy) artists to sustain their livelihood, and with mounting challenges to the survival of the record labels who support those artists, we have reached a point where it has become almost insurmountably difficult to bring new music into the world. And without new music, from where will the next "soundtrack of our lives" come?

Without enabling new artistic expression to extend its voice into our admittedly uncertain future, from where will the songs that reflect the pains and hopes of this and future generations come -- songs to give us a shoulder to cry upon when days look dark... songs that unite us in hope and solidarity... songs that grace us with a glimpse of what bright day is yet to come?

In this spirit, I urge you to support the Performance Rights Act to give our recording artists and rights-holders a fair share of the fruit of their labor, thus sustaining artists' unique gift of reflecting ourselves to ourselves at a time when we need this perhaps more than ever in our history. Indeed, to "know thyself" is the chariot of that bright day yet to come.


spaceman 9th May 2009 03:52 PM
Radiohead's management advised them to split | Music |

The band's manager admits he encouraged them to call it quits while making In Rainbows, one of their most successful albums
Somebody made a thread about this already, but it was kind of confused so there's wasn't many reactions to it. I'm reopening the case..

The Blanket Fee Tax (called Licence Globale in France) is the MOST advocated solution to piracy here. It's pushed by many people, including some in the government. There have been numerous and constant discussions about it, but it's also higly controversial, and heavily criticised by a lot of people (me included).
For some reason, very few people outside of France know about this concept.

I have serious doubts about it (wich i will explain later), yet sometimes i wonder if it's not the only pragmatic and rational solution to piracy. The only one that makes piracy totally useless. I feel it's important that it gets discussed, especially by people outside of France, as this concept is supposed to work everywhere.

So here we go. I will use France as an example for the calculations , but you can adapt it to your respective country.

A- a compulsory small sum, say 6 euros per month , will be slapped on every internet subscription in the country. It will be either be payed by the internet subscriber , or absorbed by the ISP themselves.

B- This monthly tax is multiplied by the number of Internet subscribers in the country. In 2008, France had around 18 millions internet subscribers. So this tax will generate an annual sum of 1,296,000,000 euros . So that's a bit more than a Billion euros annualy (or a thousand million if you prefer)

C- In 2008, the annual total sales of music in France was 1,049,000,000 euros (digital and physical sales). So it's a Billion euros annualy too.
Therefore the annual blanket fee tax generates more than what the industry makes annualy.

D- Music downloads on P2P will become legal. No more chasing pirates.

E- This annual generated sum will be split among copyright holders and artists based on the pro-rata of their downloads. So let's say your album represented 20% of all downloads in that year, then you will get 20% of the annual sum of money generated that year by this tax.

F- Who will be in charge of this ? A neutral entity. Either your government, or an already existing society of authors and composers, like SACEM in France or ASCAP/BMI in the US, etc... (Or even a brand new organisation)

G- How will the number of downloads be measured ? Now this is one of the MOST controversial aspects of this concept. I will simply list the ones that have been proposed at this time. :
* 1 : By a limited panel, like the way they measure television audiences (and radio ?) , It could be a panel of a few thousands people.
* 2 : By measuring all music downloads in said country, like companies like BigChampagne does (a file swapping monitoring site that measures what and how much is being downloaded on p2p networks)). How precise are they, i don't know...
* 3 : By creating an "official" p2p network and tracker. This will lead to very precise counting of what track is downloaded and how many times. People will be encouraged (or forced ?) to download on this official p2p.
* 4 : By a combination of all the above.

That's it.
What do you think about it ? Do you see it possible in your country ? Can this be really the ultimate solution to music piracy ?

EDIT: It seems that other people are warming up to the idea. Radiohead's manager seems to be in favor of a Blanket Fee Tax according to this :Radiohead's management advised them to split | Music |
doulos 9th May 2009 06:39 AM

this I think will be one of the newest threats and largest to file sharing copyright protection etc.

YouTube - Microsoft Surface - The Possibilities

even in the commerical it shows how easy its going to be to flick mp3s to a new device
chrisso 8th May 2009 02:55 AM
Murdoch: Web sites to charge for content -

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch expects News Corporation-owned newspaper Web sites to start charging users for access within a year in a move which analysts say could radically shake-up the culture of freely available content.
I see a parallel between the music industry and the news media.

This week Rupert Murdoch announced a 47% slide in News Corp profits.
A major move by advertisers to the web and away from newspapers, and the popular rise of bloggers over traditional news organisations were both blamed for the dip in profits.
The debate over whether people will continue to pay for quality news, or expect to get their news freely and faster via online blogs, has been raging in the news media for several years already.
Organisations like News Corp are scrambling to come up with a new business model, just as we are batting around new business models for the music industry here.
Murdoch claims the internet free-for-all is over. He plans to charge for access to his websites, and to charge for content:
Murdoch: Web sites to charge for content -

On the other hand I picked up this story about an IBM report from 2004.
It seems they think professionally provided content may have had it's day.
In the future the consumer will be both the content provider and the content consumer. In other words, little Johnny from New Jersey will be uploading his home recordings, and will be downloading similar home made recordings made by other web users.
This is in effect what has happened with news.
The pseudo amateur bloggers have become more popular than Barbara Walters and Wolf Blitzer, and advertising revenue has shifted from the traditional news media to online services.

"Massive changes in the terrain of media and entertainment over the next five to seven years will force tectonic shifts in the business models of broadcast and film companies, predicts a report from IBM Business Consulting Services (BCS).
The report, Media & Entertainment 2010, unveiled today, says that by 2010, the landscape of the industry will change so dramatically that, in order to survive, media companies will have to move to a truly open environment, allowing consumers around-the-clock access to protected media content for variable fees and the ability to largely control their own media and entertainment experiences. The report recommends that companies convert all content to digital formats and open digital doors to let consumers contribute, produce or author dynamic content."
So do you hang in there with Rupert, or agree with IBM's opposite view?
rack gear 8th May 2009 12:14 AM

Good times...

Goldman: Still Lovin' Warner After Last Quarter? — Digital Music News

During an earnings call Thursday, Warner Music Group chairman Edgar Bronfman, Jr. painted a bad picture. Digital sales growth continued, albeit at a slower pace, losses widened to a glaring $46 million (45 cents per share), and investments in both Imeem and LaLa demanded write-downs. Year-ago losses totalled $37 million (25 cents per share).

Specifically, digital sales improved 7 percent year-over-year to $166 million, far lower than year-ago gains of 48 percent. Physical sales tanked 25 percent, dragging the broader music picture southward 18 percent to $537 million.

And the digital investments? The company wrote-down its entire $16 million investment in the beleaguered Imeem, and more than half of its $20 million injecting into in LaLa. "We do not intend to make more digital venture capital investments," Bronfman relayed.
equallyscrewed 7th May 2009 09:28 PM
So, after banging my head against a wall and coming against discrimination that would make any civil rights court shriek in another thread...I'm punting this out there.

Who here still holds the opinion that artists will always lose money from tours and that the only way to "save" the industry worldwide is to stop piracy so the artists can get the whole dollar that they got before from a $17 album.

As i say in all the threads : I'm 100% ANTI piracy, i dont think any one has the right to steal anyone elses art.

I do however see touring as a valuable life line for most bands. Dont take my word for it though...

"The top 10% of artists make money selling records. The rest go on tour," says Scott Welch, who manages singers Alanis Morissette and LeAnn Rimes.

So what do you guys think????

Anyone can post in this thread regardless of position, experience or age. Except Digitar or DrBill untill they e mail me their CV (email address available on PM)


9th Ward Records 4th May 2009 05:37 AM
You may be jailed for spamming

You may be jailed for spamming - New York: Beware! Sending a spam is enough for police to take you to jail. A federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday...
In response to "FREE MUSIC", I'm quadrippling my prices. You heard right, quadrupled! KNOW WHY? Cause I don't think MY music should be free. In fact, I think it's worth $150 an album- and that's the bottom line cause it's MINE and YOU don't set my prices. I DO.

But seriously;

Music has been recorded (on paper) and sold since the 1500's. In the 1800's there were player piano's- and pianists sold rolls of paper. In the 20th century they sold records, tapes, CD's and now it's MP3's...

Do you really think this is going to last long? Remember when the internet started? (It was a huge free for all- people did anything they wanted.) But as each day goes by, new restrictions and laws get passed. Today, you can get jailed for spamming. Now how long do you think it will take until there is a BLANKET LICENSE, that you have to pay to transmit or download files with the .mp3 extension? Seriously, resistance is futile, bitch. (My favorite toy was my ****en firetruck, bitch!)

  1. There's a lot of people that don't like the current system. (musicians, labels, producers, etc...)
  2. There's a lot of people that stand to gain from restrictions. (government agencies, radio stations, night clubs...) You heard me right, bitch, night clubs! There was a day when people were social, way back when it was fun to go to places called night clubs to hear new music.
These people will hire lawyers and pay huge legal fees to make their money. Will you pay legal fees to keep your music free? (That's what I thought.)

Now, I know it's hypocritical, but I'm only human: I pirate movies here and there... Yep, I sure do. (I watched Wolverine yesterday... Good movie, but I sorta feel bad). So how can I justify pirating movies? I can't. I'm a dick. But if I woke up tomorrow and couldn't download a movie off the Pirate Bay, I wouldn't give two shakes. In fact, I'd probably be happy because I could be more productive at work. I simply don't value movies for any artistic value. To me, they're secondary and a waste of my time. IN FACT:

I feel like movies should be free because of all the SPAM they feed you. (That's how weekly newspapers work. They're paid by their advertisers so they can give them away for free). So is the film industry losing out on money? Probably, but not from me, because they got me with their spam even though I would have never gone to see Wolverine in the theater in the first place. I only go to the movies if I'm on a a date. (Theaters are good for blowjobs only.)


I'm glad you asked...

The people saying "Music should be free" (and bla bla bla...) simply don't value music like we do. To them, its secondary. They group us in with the spamming film industry. They don't don't give a damn about the years of pain some of us suffer that drives us to make songs. In fact, they feel like we owe them something. We've all heard it- bring up a song or a band in conversation and someone has to try and break it down and reduce it to next than nothing. Everyone's a critic, AS IF th song was written for them and it didn't live up to their expectations.

Why? Well, for the "Download Generation"- they're accustomed to listening to a song, bashing it, and then on to the next. They don't get it. To us, music is an art and, it's the realest substance in the world and and it's all we live for. The reason they got so far with pirating is because we're not as financially obsessed as say, the film industry. So now I'm taking matters into my own hands. I'm raising my album price to $150 and I'm going to start slapping people that say they've pirated mp3's... Starting with myself.


Not unless it goes:
"Baby I love you
I know this sounds gay,
but baby I need you
to buy me an iPod today". thumbsup

(in my opinion, that is.)

XHipHop 4th May 2009 05:29 AM
Topspin Media

Topspin helps musicians and filmmakers grow their audience and sell their work. Topspin widgets play music and video, give away free downloads and sell stuff in all the places your fans are: YouTube, Facebook, on blogs, your own website and even MTV.

Enjoy, friends.
orangeoctane 1st May 2009 06:28 PM

Interesting move related to content sharing...

Disney Joins Hulu

spaceman 28th April 2009 03:25 AM
Quote: - Peter Gabriel on the digital revolution - Jul 22, 2004

Four years ago, former Genesis frontman Peter Gabriel co-founded UK online music distributor On Demand Distribution (OD2). It was sold to U.S. company Loudeye in June for $38.6m (?21.1m).
ok, i'm just dreaming out loud here, this is highly utopic..

We are the creators, the artists. We know the truth about our condition. We've been defending this truth, explaining it, debating it over the past days on this forum, and some of us before on other forums and websites. We've been telling our truth to all sorts of people here, including to some weird emissaries from the so-called "Pirate Party"
Yet all over the planet, the public and parts of the media are living in a sea of myths, fantasies, lies, misconceptions and misinformations about who we are, how we work and create , how music gets financed and how we make a living, or just what being a musician is.

There is a huge void between us and our public.

How did we get in this situation ? How come people like the crooks from Pirate Bay gets their propaganda all over the planet , brainwashing everybody, and our truth doesn't get heard ? How come their lies became truth, and our truth became lies in the eye of the public ? How come we got in this situation where everybody has been convinced of myths like "Piracy helps the artists / We're only stealing the evil corporations / real artists don't ask for money / all artists are freaking rich anyway / artists don't make any money out of sales anyway / insert your own myth here "

How come these lies have become the norm ?

Maybe it's , in part, our fault.
WE have let the pirates, the corporations, the politicians, the bloggers, the thieves, the lawyers speak for us during all these years.
WE have let all sorts of liers, exploiters, destroyers, manipulators spread their myths and their propaganda, and speak for us.
We have let all sort of people speak for us, or about us, but is was almost never us that really spoke directly to the public.

We are supposed to be communicators, creators of sounds and words and images. Yet we haven't managed to communicate our truth to the public.

A few years ago (2004), i read this interesting interview with Peter Gabriel. some of his words were prophetic :"if artists aren't smart enough to get off their arses and change that now, then we deserve what we get, because we have the opportunity [to change that]."

Artist are individualists , they have their own little worlds and idiosyncrasies, and express them through their art. And that's also their weakness. They can't speak as one voice. Even if their existence depended on it.

So let me dream out loud for a moment.

An open letter to the public. Without any anger, or frustration , or patronizing. Without even solutions to piracy.
Just explaining our side of the story, our thruth, our condition , and removing some of the lies and myths. Not speaking through record companies , representatives, "thinkers", bloggers, etc. No, directly from artists to the public.
Just explaining , and reminding that those mp3's are not made by some vague abstract entities, corporations, or by the internet itself (!). But by people, flesh and blood like them, with the same interrogations and hopes. It's not "we and them". We are them.

This open letter to the public would be translated in as many languages as possible, signed by as many artists as possible from all over the world, big and small, major and independants, from every style and genres of music.
It would be then published in as many newspapers, blogs, websites as possible.

Enough rambling.. i know that it is going to be close to impossible to get everybody to agree on every word of this letter. I think we'll see men landing on Mars and building shopping malls there before that happens.

it was just me dreaming out loud here... still, it was fun
XHipHop 27th April 2009 01:33 AM
In a digital age, vinyl's making a comeback - Los Angeles Times

Neil Schield knows the grim state of the music business as well as anyone; last May, he was laid off from a company at the vanguard of digital music distribution.But this month, Schield began an
In a digital age, vinyl albums are making a comeback - Los Angeles Times
chrisso 27th April 2009 12:54 AM
What we have learned courtesy of our Pirate Party member SwedishPirate:

Originally Posted by Swedish Pirate View Post
The bands earn their money from concerts anyway.
Only the big ones can make a living from royalties.
This is just factually incorrect.
I wonder how many political movements can survive or thrive with views based on very easily debunked theory?

Originally Posted by Swedish Pirate View Post
in the belief of the party, (free copyright) doesn't hurt anyone except possibly big record labels.
Again, I guess it's an honest belief. However it is supremely naive. It's really of a level of proclaiming black is white.

Originally Posted by Swedish Pirate View Post
If you can copy chocolate with no extra cost of making another bar you should be allowed to make chocolate identical to that made by chocolate manufacturers. It will obviously hurt them but their outdated business model of selling something which is now an unlimited resource can't be protected at any cost.
Of course, there is a recipe for chocolate which someone worked hard on. The pirates would take that recipe without even feeling guilty.
Secondly, the fact this statement hides behind is that they are taking someone else's work, and taking away their freedom and choice.
The honest recipe for replicating chocolate is to make it yourself.
You need the knowledge, the equipment, and some skill. Pirate party supporters don't acknowledge they are bypassing those hard won requirements.
But if they did make their own 'chocolate'..... aka: artistic works made to be given freely, I would support them and vote for them.
In the end, if the Pirate Party was true to their beliefs they would be buying up original art prints, copying them with computer scanning and printing and distributing them freely around the world.
Why don't they do it?.... because it's more costly in materials than copying digital music, and because they are avoiding every creative group (writers, film makers, photographers and pictorial artists) waking up to the threat and falling in line against them.
The Pirate Party talk about the big record companies, which are popularly disliked, but individual painters and photographers have their livelihood protected by copyright. Those people haven't yet been targeted on the huge scale musicians have.
It's only a matter of time.
Originally Posted by Swedish Pirate View Post
You don't understand the concept of a free economy?
Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a market economy price is decided by supply and demand.
When supply is infinite price will be 0.
Sadly most of the public are not interested in the politics and political theory.
The public have discovered a way to acquire music free of charge and aren't really interested in the dabate over free market versus trade restrictions.
However, almost all the musicians I know, and many of the young music consumers are passionate about sustainable producing and the role of corporations like the supermarkets in destroying sustainable production to suit their bottom line.
Let music consumers now know, The Pirate Party supports the ultimate end game in corporate trade, where the market decides the ultimate asking price and suppliers (in this case musicians) are completely powerless.
This model completely mirrors the supermarkets practice of pushing prices down as low as they will go (to increase their own profit margin), and pricing competitors out of the market.
Any individual musician who charges a fee for their music is being priced out of the market by the pirates (you can't compete with free) and hounded out of existence as the pirates have flooded the music consumer with freely available, and free to buy product.
If supermarkets were to do this, which they would love to do, there would be widespread protest around the world. And many of those protesters would be young music consumers, obviously unaware that The Pirate Party have the exact same philosophy as Microsoft, Walmart and McDonalds = saturate your competitors with enticing goods at a price your competitors can't compete with - - - kill all competition.
End result, complete victory for capitalists (which the Pirate party freely admits) and an end to fairness which has been hard won over 100-200 years of world trade.
Interestingly, outside of the music business, this is the 21st century trade model most artistic people and most young people ascribe to and support:
People for Fair Trade - Australia
drBill 25th April 2009 07:56 PM


I like the idea, but am a little concerned about "two wrongs don't make a right". I do think that it's a great tool for raising awareness though. And I think it should be posted here. Any other thoughts?


PS - thanks to Richart Gibbs (ribbs) for brainstorming and putting this up.
nativeaudio 25th April 2009 07:33 PM
Chris Anderson is not so free - One That Knows

On Wednesday Chris Anderson gave a lecture at Media Evolution in Malmö as a part of a seminar organized by Sydsvenskan. In an article about the seminar Resume (”He speaks about free for half a million”) discovered an interesting thing about Anderson’s lecture. Anderson got 500,000 SEK (about 60,000 USD) for his lecture.
I saw that lecture (there's a movie clip on internet somewhere), and he explained that the reason he promoted 'free' but charged a lot for his lectures was that if he had to spend time away from his family, he wanted as much money as possible for it. In the same lecture he talked about why musician should have a day time job, and how one could try to make musicians/composer to charge less for their work.

I wonder if he ever thought of why composers and musicians shouldn't have the same rights as him to 'charge as much as possible' when they spend time on their work? If we should follow his suggestions, we should both have a daytime job, and make music when we come home fro work.... we'd definitely also have to spend time away from our families, but unlike himself, we shouldn't expect to get paid for that.

I don't remember where I saw his lecture in Sweden on "free", so if any of you come across it, please post a link. It was so unintelligent and meaningless that I kind of have to see it again.
author 25th April 2009 10:57 AM
Originally Posted by Ribbs View Post
Last night I hosted an amazing meeting at the Woodshed with around 30 people in attendance, among them Gavin Lurssen, Rick Rubin, Anthony Kiedis. Plus a host of very savvy tech types. All were blown away by the system that Payartists and Nexicon has developed.
Inspired by the post above, I visited Nexicon's site: DigitalRanger | Nexicon

I like! heh

I particularly enjoyed this: 'Customers can then pursue larger monetary settlements from the pirates, directly turning piracy into profit.'


Maybe pirates are not so bad after all. Maybe we should actually encourage them? Support your local pirate -- he supports you!

(First I was going to keep this to myself, but why not SHARE -- there's enough for us all! )
fwdkfwdkfwdk 25th April 2009 07:18 AM
Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right | Ars Technica

Those who download "free" music from P2P networks are more likely to spend …
My 2-cents...

I love how people throw around the word "thieve".

People have gotten' use to getting free media. Youtube, flickr, myspace, etc. Pictures are free, videos are free, and some music is free. Why shouldn't it be? Of course there is premium content, but people have the option (most of the time) to get these premium option if they see fit. Its like either having a mona lisa painting on your wall, or it being a free wallpaper on your desktop.

Downloading music has become so easy and cheap, most sane people would turn to that before anything else. Why? Not because we are immoral, but we are rather lazy and don't want to work to get CDs and rip them or work 1hr @ work to earn 1 CD. If people are presented with an even easier, more efficient, and more satisfying product for a good price, people would be inclined to pay for it. Any true music artist would pay $10 a month to have access to 5 million instant-streaming lossless music files.

I must ask people to think logically and dismiss the idea of morality when it comes to file sharing. I don't know one person who wants to download items because it hurts someone. Not even after the RIAA began suing its costumers. We do it because we are selfish and us geeks beg for innovation that has only come through the internet and P2P sharing.

Many on this forum believe that we have the choice to download music illegally in the same way we choose not to hijack someone's car. Hijacking a car is immoral, but when people trade hijacked cars and bypass the overpriced middle man making 90% of the population happy, when does morality become subjective?
- To add to this idea, when a car is hijacked, someone looses property. When a CD is downloaded, a copy is made; no property is stolen.

Wasn't ripping CDs illegal a couple of years ago? Are downloaders the new generation of thieves? There will always be some sort of media crime... are these always going to be criminals, or innovators? We are having this discussion now about The Pirate Bay: Criminals or Innovators? Napster: Immoral kids, or programmers who wanted to make useful software for the masses?

I do not download music illegally because I love lossless. I also don't buy music because it costs to damn much for me. I would trade CDs with friends for lossless files. Am I a criminal? I believe this is subjective...

BTW, a new study finds music pirates tend to buy more music:
Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right - Ars Technica

...of course, there is always an argument of correlation rather than causation, but I can say that downloading music "illegally" has allowed me to find great artists that would never be on the radio or perhaps, never on CD. At times, I gladly give money to these artists.

Correct me if Im wrong, but pirates are people/peoples who create physical manufactured products and distribute them as if they were the same product? This differs from the general fan/"criminal" of music.

Love to hear some opinions...
XHipHop 24th April 2009 11:29 PM
Musicians in line for cash boost

Ageing musicians could receive a financial boost after the European Parliament votes to extend the copyright on sound recordings.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Musicians in line for cash boost

New plan for 70 years.
bgrotto 24th April 2009 03:34 PM
Musicians and fans join together to get albums made - The Boston Globe

Found this article today; it's encouraging stuff.

I actually have a couple clients right now who are raising money this very same way; it's been slow-going for them, but between that and their regular income, they've afforded themselves enough to get the ball rolling.

It would be interesting to see this approach take off; I wonder how it would affect peoples' attitudes about illegally downloading if they felt that their own contributions were being taken? Or would they happily pay their favorite artists to democratize the free distribution of music?

I also wonder how it would affect larger artists; would their fans be less-willing to help them make records, because they feel that the artist is already too rich? Or maybe we simply wouldn't see as many mega-star millionaire musicians?

It's a cool concept, and I hope it's successful and expanded upon.
CISUM 24th April 2009 08:17 AM
Anyone try this site before?
MS-PRO :: Created By Music Supervisors For Music Supervisors

I made the biggest mistake once and signed up for TAXI, and then i learned I had to pay for the submissions etc.

Just wondering whats the best way to get the music out to music supervisors in the industry, and thought maybe the site might be a good one finally? but didn't know if anyone had any input on to that,

chrisso 24th April 2009 12:19 AM
I keep coming across these misconceptions, so I thought I would put some facts in one place.
The music industry is run by greedy, fat cat major labels.

Maybe this is partly true, but I rarely listen to major label music myself.
Since the late 70's there's been a wealth of independent labels, but they are also targeted by free downloaders.
Some of my favourite music comes from:
R & S Records Shop
Sonar Kollektiv

Not a greedy, fact cat in the house as far as I'm aware.

Recorded music can be paid for by live shows.

Well it already is for the big name acts like Madonna and Coldplay, and for young indie bands who are prepared to tour for much of the year in poor conditions and for poor wages.
But a lot of amazing music is produced by musicians who can't or wont tour:
Apollo: Atmospheres & Soundtracks: Brian Eno: Music
Gorillaz: Gorillaz: Music
Martes: Murcof: Music
The Remixes 1997-2000: Jazzanova: Music
A Meeting by the River: Ry Cooder & V.M. Bhatt: Music
Music for a Darkened Theatre, Vol. 1: Film & Television Music: Danny Elfman: Music
Brüder des Schattens - Söhne des Lichts: Popol Vuh: Music
Koyaanisqatsi: Philip Glass: Music
Tom Hakala 24th April 2009 12:05 AM
Grooveshark - Free Music Streaming, Online Music

Grooveshark provides free music streaming, online radio stations, and lets you connect with artists and friends.
Grooveshark gave me zero search results here in GS.
Are you aware of this?

Grooveshark -- Listen to Free Music Online -- Internet Radio -- Free MP3 Streaming
XHipHop 23rd April 2009 09:06 PM
Global music sales tumble by 8%

Global music sales fell by more than 8% to $18.42bn (?12.67bn) in 2008, according to the body that represents the record industry worldwide.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Global music sales tumble by 8%

There was a global rise of 16.3% to $802m (£548m) in money received by record companies for music being used on radio and TV and being played in public.

SurveillanceP 23rd April 2009 04:27 PM
Larry Lessig on The Colbert Report | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Found this buried in another thread. Top stuff.


bs lol.

My Dad pirates christian music occasionally and he is an Anglican Minister.

(While I find that hilariously funny, it is not a joke.)


Of course it would be morally reprehensible of me not to provide the follow up link!

YouTube - Colbert / Lessig Remix - Mouth of Madness Memix

author 23rd April 2009 10:20 AM
BT blocks off Pirate Bay | News | PC Pro

<strong>Exclusive</strong>: BT and other mobile broadband providers block access to notorious BitTorrent site
This is getting better every day!

PC Pro: News: BT blocks off Pirate Bay
bof 23rd April 2009 09:29 AM

I found this interesting interview with Toby Marks. It breaks down the costs and percentages at each level of the production stage of getting a CD to a customer.

It seems that the biggest misconception about profits in record companies arise from where the percentages are taken. The record company's percentage is taken from the sale price to the distributor. The artist gets their percentage from the published price to the dealer. The PPD is a much higher figure than the cost to the distributor so, in this breakdown, the record company makes just over 6% of retail price whereas the artist gets nearly 9% of retail price.

Out of this, the record company has to pay for mastering, artwork and wages to freelancers - I guess the artist pays for the recording.

I'm sure these figures can vary case to case, but if this is even a ballpark figure, then the 'record companies keep 85%' argument is dead in the water. Just because the artist only gets 15 percent doesn't mean the record company gets the rest. It would seem from this example that the artist takes a bigger cut than the record company.

If the artist also happens to be the writer, then they get an extra 3 - 4.5% of retail on top of that.

What if the major labels are also the distributors? If that's the case then the figures are a little different. The distributor gets just over 13% of retail, added to the 6% makes a total to the record company of 19% of retail, from which they have to pay several to many times the costs of getting a CD to market than the artist.

These figures add up to a theoretical maximum to the artist of 18.5% and a theoretical maximum to the record company of 19% of retail price.

Y'know. If these figures stand up, it all sounds perfectly fair to me. Infact, I'd go as far as to say the artist gets a pretty good deal considering the amount of work they do. But that last bit's just my opinion.
chrisso 23rd April 2009 08:25 AM
Pirate Party plans election raid

Sweden's Pirate Party believes it can get into the European Parliament on the back of strong anti-corporate feeling.
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Pirate Party plans election raid

It'll be interesting to see if the Pirate hype translates into actual support.
slaves666 23rd April 2009 05:09 AM
BT Blocks Pirate Bay, P2P Sites Shut |

U.K. telco BT and other mobile providers have blocked access to P2P BitTorrent trackers including the Pirate Bay.
BT Blocks Pirate Bay, P2P Sites Shut
April 22, 2009 - Global | Digital and Mobile | Legal and Management

By Andre Paine, London

U.K. telco BT and other mobile providers have blocked access to P2P BitTorrent trackers including the Pirate Bay.

However, the move is a result of the content that such sites link to, rather than the issue of copyright infringement or the April 17 court verdict against the Pirate Bay in Sweden.

"BT and the other U.K. mobile operators have agreed and implemented a voluntary code of practise for mobile content that restricts access to content unsuitable for customers under the age of 18," said a BT statement. "The list of sites and content that is restricted is compiled by individual operators themselves. The warning that BT provides links to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) website for information on the code only."

BT customers who wish to have access to particular sites reactivated can do so by calling 150 in the U.K.

Meanwhile, the Pirate Bay verdict has had a knock-on effect on other P2P services. Another Swedish site, NordicBits, posted a message on the day of the verdict stating that it had closed and "the biggest reason is the Pirate Bay."

Other sites including PowerBits, PirateBits, MP3nerds and Wolfbits also appear to have shut. "The Swedish anti-piracy agency has triumphed over us," reads an administrator message on the Wolfbits forum.

BT Blocks Pirate Bay, P2P Sites Shut

If it is that easy........why do ISP feel the need to allow access to the sites?

Do they think people will switch ISP's????

This might the beginning of better things.....
Sound Chaser 23rd April 2009 02:33 AM
Canada deems P2P downloading legal - CNET News

Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal but uploading files isn't, say Canadian copyright regulators, who also impose a $25 fee on some MP3 players. A CNET article by John Borland, Staff Writer, CNET News. Published on December 12, 2003 2:20 PM PST.
It seems downloading for personal use is legal in Canada.
Canada deems P2P downloading legal - CNET News
The record companies are fighting this but, a Supreme court verdict in April of 2004 declared personal use as legal.
dalshim 22nd April 2009 10:48 PM

Hi folks,

I did some homework for you. I hope that, this time, some pips will be interested.

Advert: if you ever read one of my 50 previous posts, you already know how bad my english is. So, if you see some non-senses or hazy sentences be sure it come from me. The original text is very smooth and accurate.


By Philippe Axel

Why does the blanket fee so frighten?

Government have decided to present the hadopi text again the april 29th.Mrs Alabanel, minister of culture, even envisaged its resignation in case of defeat.

Despite (of) a call to real demonstration on Saturday, April 25th, the opposition of the Internet users and the political opposition, which seems henceforth ready to use this subject of campaign for the European elections, it is apparently not enough to make the president of the republic, very upset after this humilation, change his mind.

But our main problem, when we propose a solution like a "creative contribution, isp's tax or Global/blanket fee/license" is that even the opponents of the repressives solutions have difficulty in realizing this logic.

Because they quickly think at a collectivist system. Here are some answers to the main arguments of those who, often with sincerity, are worried about what they consider in twists as a complete change of paradigm which would question in a too rough way the current balance of the sectors of music and cinema.
And who seem to ignore that, unless eliminating Internet, this new support of communication is going to upset many other sectors although no detailed economic studies measured the calculated incidences, at this time.

In the confusions and the doubt which arouses the digital economy, we have a theoretical certainty which should be logically the base of the reflection of the strategic and economic studies on the subject: the digital file is a "non-rival" good (ndt: duplication is NOT the production, it's not the cd, but the music) And it is enough to understand the natural tendency
of the unity sale towards the stream and the free access. It began with the photography, the video game, the music, then the information, and tomorrow the cinema, the television, the software, the comic strip, the literary edition etc.
All this is going to stretch out towards free on-line, that we want it or not, unless forbidding e-mails with attached files, USB keys, Wifi, the bluetooth, the cables of connection, the engravers and hard disks.
As well as start-up enterprises …

Is the global fee a collectivist concept?

Not more than the general principle of the (ndt: french) copyright, which is the one of the implementation of indirect transfers of resources towards the creation, resulting from lucrative manners which take advantage of the artistic works. Not more thus than the private copy tax organized by Jack Lang (ndt: and in many others countries as well) or decrees Tasca allowing
to finance for half the French cinema today. These measures, actually, supported and fed the market in our country rather than opposed to it. I have still read nobody to propose that the state salarie the artists as the civil servants of the Ministry of Culture. There is thus there an inequitable distrust.
A direct resource assigned to the authors could even feed their activity in the form of auto-entrepreneur, a very interesting status.

Would the global license precipitate the fall of the sales of CD and DVD and cinema entries?

Yes, no doubt for me for CD and DVD, if they are not worked again in depth in their added values, compared to what we can find free of charge on the web. But this fall has already begun for years, simply because these supports are obsolete at the time of the internet. We cannot force the consumer to buy what he does not want to buy any more. We are far from the drying up of
the innovation in the domains of the cultural by-products. There will be consumers attached to objects. And thus physical, well rival objects, to sell for whom will know how to create them and sell them.

For show or cinema entrances, it is to be estimated yet, but the first tendencies are far from being negative.
For the live performance, we know that it is rather positive, even if it is true that the musical CD was upstream to the shows.
Thus, what I call new rites of selections of the artists will have to be born on the web, to bring to the foreground those who among them will motivate the spectators to pay to see them in concert.
For cinema entrances, it will depend on the price of tickets and on the quality of the services
proposed by the exploitant, which will have to be more attractive than the home cinema which risks hardly to still develop in a impressive way next years, in particular by the exploitant, which will have to be more attractive than the home cinema which risks hardly to still develop in a impressive way next years, in particular by new systems of projection or immersifs viewings at home.

Will it be necessary to pay a 30 or 50-€ fee a month to finance everything as Pascal Nègre says it everywhere (ndt: the boss of Universal in france)?

The music and the cinema it is approximately 131 billion a year in the world.
There are 5,3 billion subscribers with Internet ( 1,3 ) + mobile (4 ).
3€ of participation a month only on each of these subscriptions to finance the contents would already report 191 billion by the years, it is more than the total CA of these two combined industries.

It is a quick calculation but I remind that Philippe Aigrain made his in a very precise way in his proposition of Creative Contribution .
I thus insite so that all the professionals of these sectors read his book without preconceived idea, study which we can download free of charge.
According to him, the French Internet users should settle a sum from 5 to 7 € in their isp's subscription to help in the technological transformation of the music, but also the cinema.

But once again, it is not about replacing a global recipe by another one by a strict effect of communicating vessels. Because nothing would prevent the record industry from finding the other products to be sold and the cinematographic industry to continue to sell cinema entrances for example. Nothing would prevent them either from continuing to perceive fees of use on the
lucrative manners for the digital radio or the television. Thus a global license would have no vocation to be the unique source of the creators of contents.

On the other hand, it seems necessary to me, and I already underlined it in the propositions at the end of my book in 2007, to study right now an extension of this principle in the other domains which will need transfers of resources by the free access to the non profit exchanges on the web. Not by global compensantion, but once again, by support.

How to redistribute a global fee in a fair way?

ask this question for the web, it's settle it in the same way for the current fees paid by radios and televisions and thus for the SACEM (ndt: association of composers and music publishers to protect copyright and royalties) for example.
For web there are said, not intrusive processes, (watermarking or "tattoos"), which will allow,
not only to redistribute according to the true manners, but in a much finer way and on a plate much wider than today for the radio and the TV. It mean that many artists will be paid. A not intrusive process being a method of drawing of the contents which does not require to establish a file making the link between a content and a private individual, as it will be the case of the files of Hadopi (ndt: french repressive law). Because even if we speak to us of taking in only the IP addresses, within the framework of Hadopi, the IP address will had inevitably to be converted in name and address at one time or another in the process of control and saving of the data in a file after the first warning. Thus, the global fee is much simpler to set up technically than Hadopi, and less problematic in the surveillance. (ndt: P. Axel speak about only one way for file watching.
There are some other)

More to come if I see some interest:

Why not let the market do it by itself?

Why to charge everybody while only 37 % of the Internet users download on the P2P?

Why not let a market of the subscriptions be set up? (uuuhhhrgh, an interesting one)

Why not to count simply on the advertising market which quickly develops on the web?

jihadjoe75 22nd April 2009 10:22 PM
Quote: - View Single Post - I steal music.

Post 4124580 - Forum for professional and amateur recording engineers to share techniques and advice.
Work is slow right now and I feel like ranting...

I'm a college student who makes $8 an hour for my campuses IT support dept and quite frankly, I cannot afford to pay $10-$20 for a CD. Yep, I'm a pirate and I have been for a very long time. Although I do buy music on occasion. This last month, I've bought two CD's. One being Frontier Ruckus's new album and Cursive's new album, both absolutely worth my $14.

If music is free and I'm short on cash, I'm absolutely going to download it. Even if all of a sudden the main stream music industry started putting out genuinely quality work, I would still not buy it -nor would 98% of the other people my age. Hell, I can personally say that I do not know a single person my age that does not steal music.

Morally, there is little difference from stealing a CD in a store that stealing it online. It's just that when your sitting in your bedroom clicking through TPB or Demonoid it simply does not feel like stealing, especially since you know that your chances of getting caught are very, very low.

It's been said a million times, but the days are changing and the recording industry is not. It's unfortunate considering the amount of people that feed their families through this industry, but maybe in the end of all this people will start focusing on their art, rather than money. If piracy continues, maybe more really great art could come out of it. Art obviously doesn't necessarily feed a family though, but was it ever supposed to?

Now, dear recording industry, if you can give me an unlimited library with lossless songs... hell, I'd probably pay twenty-sum bucks a month for that. Unfortunately, I'm assuming the other %90 of the population that can't recognize the difference between a lossless file and one of those bull**** 128kbps songs you can pay a dollar for on itunes. So yea, in regards to making money with music, we musicians are mostly just effed. I'd start promoting your concerts more and make a few nice t-shirts, cause that's usually what people my age spend money on when they support a band.

In the mean time, I will personally be giving my music away for free, because it is, quite frankly, not worth $10 for an album. I just like it when people listen and enjoy my songs.

Thanks for listening to my rant. It's been a long day.

With love,
Joe Hertler


I've read tons of your messages so far and I would first like to say thank you very much for commenting on my rant. I know it came off as inconsiderate and arrogant and I apologize for that. If you'd like, I wrote a response to all of this on page four. It's a bit long, but I'd ask you to read the whole thing if you get the chance. I didn't mean to offend anyone and I hold great admiration for those on this forum who have taken the plunge into professional music and succeeded.

You can read my response by clicking here.
Sophic 22nd April 2009 07:37 PM
Study Finds Pirates Buy 10x More Music Online than Non-Pirates -

A study from the BI Norwegian School of Management has found that those who download free music from services like BitTorrent are also the biggest legitimate…
Didn't see it posted...what do you think? this was posted on another forum i post at.

Study Finds Pirates Buy 10x More Music Online than Non-Pirates - : IF IT'S HOT IT'S HERE!

A study from the BI Norwegian School of Management has found that those who download free music from services like BitTorrent are also the biggest legitimate consumers of downloadable music.

In fact, among all 1,901 study participants (all of whom were over the age of 15), it was found that those who downloaded "free" music were 10x more likely to download pay music. In other words, music pirates are the music industry's largest online consumers.

Note: "Free" music obviously implies pirated music, but it also encompasses legitimate free music download services.

The findings also included that, in the 15-20 age range, 50% of participants had bought a CD in the last six months. So that trusty format isn't dead quite yet.

rack gear 22nd April 2009 05:12 PM
RIAA drops lawsuits; ISPs to battle file sharing | Internet & Media - CNET News


The recording industry has decided to stop suing customers and has instead decided to make deals with ISPs to help thwart file sharing. Read this blog post by Greg Sandoval on Internet & Media.

Copy of RIAA's new enforcement notice to ISPs

The recording industry dropped some big news Friday, announcing that it will no longer take a broad approach to litigating against alleged filed sharers. The Recording Industry Association of America has enlisted the help of internet service providers to act as a sentry and help discourage customers from pirating music.

Below is a copy of the form letter the RIAA will send to ISPs to inform them one of their customers is accused of file sharing. The notification is similar to those the group has sent to college campuses for years and shows very clearly that the group retains the right to sue people for copyright violations.


Sir or Madam:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member music companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate music sold in the United States.

We believe a user on your network is offering an infringing sound recording for download through a peer to peer application. We have attached below the details of the infringing activity.

We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this illegal activity. Specifically, we respectfully request that you remove or disable access to the unauthorized music.

We believe it is in everyone's interest for music consumers to be better educated about the copyright law and ways to legally enjoy music online. The major record companies have actively licensed their music to dozens of innovative services where fans can go to listen to and/or purchase their favorite songs. A list of many of these services is available at

It should be made clear by this letter that downloading and distributing copyrighted songs via peer to peer networks is not an anonymous activity. Not only is distributing copyrighted works on a peer to peer network a public activity visible by other users on that network, an historic 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed the unmistakable unlawfulness of uploading and downloading copyrighted works. The website contains valuable information about what is legal and what is not when it comes to copying music. In addition to taking steps to notify the network user at issue about the illegal nature of his/her activity, we strongly encourage you to refer him/her to this helpful site.

Please bear in mind that this letter serves as an official notice to you that this network user may be liable for the illegal activity occurring on your network. This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft. We assert that the information in this notice is accurate, based upon the data available to us. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.

Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at, via telephone at *Phone Number*, or via mail at RIAA, 1025 F Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20004. Please reference *Case ID* in any response or communication regarding this matter.



List of infringing content
*Infringing Content*
Infringing Work : XXXXXX
Filename : XXXXXX
First found (UTC): XXXXXX
Last found (UTC): XXXXXX
Filesize : XXXXXX
Network: XXXXXX
Protocol: XXXXXX
spaceman 22nd April 2009 02:32 PM
BitTorrent Trackers Close En Masse After Pirate Bay Verdict | TorrentFreak

Several private BitTorrent trackers including Nordicbits, Powerbits, Piratebits, MP3nerds and Wolfbits, have closed down after the Pirate Bay verdict came in last Friday. Other trackers are set to follow this example in what could be the greatest voluntary tracker collapse ever.
BitTorrent Trackers Close En Masse After Pirate Bay Verdict | TorrentFreak

Several private BitTorrent trackers including Nordicbits, Powerbits, Piratebits, MP3nerds and Wolfbits, have closed down after the Pirate Bay verdict came in last Friday. Other trackers are set to follow this example in what could be the greatest voluntary tracker collapse ever.
So it seems that it's working even better than we thought !
Soulbrother 21st April 2009 03:51 PM
A nice summation of the whole Pirate Bay debate, and piracy in general:

The Sick Bag

Any thoughts?
XHipHop 21st April 2009 09:36 AM

Off-topic, but relevant...

Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time for a re-write. It's insane that it still exists as it was first written.
Daedalus77 21st April 2009 04:16 AM
I believe in property, especially intellectual property. And I agree this is a contentious issue. But I also believe that this debate is not a simply dichotomy between those believing in property rights and "pirates" who do not.

I'd propose checking out the work of Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, who has written eloquently on this issue in several books and is the founder of Creative Commons, an organization (and concept) that offers a particularly compelling "alternative" to a simplistic understanding of intellectual property rights in the digital age.

Check out his site:

And take a look at his publications, especially Free Culture (2004) and Remix (2008).

Worthwhile reading on this subject.
lhm1138 20th April 2009 07:38 PM
More asshattery from the ButtPirateBay:

> Dear Frederik,

It's spelled "Fredrik".

> We would refer you to our notification of yesterday's date regarding
> the above, the contents of which are self-explanatory (hereinafter
> referred to as the "Notification"), to which we have yet to receive
> the courtesy of a response.

We would like to refer you to our Legal Threats section, on which we,
while having much fun, ridicule people like you.
Thank you for your contribution.



Sorry, but I can't remove search.php - our users would get upset if TPB
suddenly lacked a search function.
The problem here seems to be that the material is unreleased? If that is
the case, you can easily fix the problem by releasing it. We'll be more
than glad to help you distribute it - free of charge! - to our users.
>To whom it may concern:

>I am writing to you as the legal representative of Rabbit Valley
>Comics®. Rabbit Valley® owns the copyright of all the published works
>under the Another Rabco Disaster® trademark. I hereby notify you that
>you are hosting material (published via a bittorrent tracker) which
>infringes on our copyrights.

>The address of the website is

Dear Mr Rabbitt, (Why the extra T? Afraid of furry-jokes when paying
with your credit card? Or does the rabbit suit give you away?)

Even though we deeply respect and acknowledge your "intellectual"
property, we fail to see how an interpretation of the said directives
makes them applicable in this case.
NONE of the copyrighted data in question is published or ever stored on
our servers. Nor is any of the copyrighted data relayed through our
servers. The tracker merely provides .torrent files.
As to this day this activity is not prohibited by Swedish law and it's
our assessment that not even a wide interpretation of the E-commerce
directives makes them applicable to torrent trackers. Out activities
will therefore continue until this fact changes or Hell freezes over.

Lots more here:

The Pirate Bay - The world's largest BitTorrent tracker

Witness the sheer disdain for people simply trying to protect their IP and the manner in which it's distributed.
Search Articles

Article Forum v1.9 Copyright by BananaLive