Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Ad Vehicles 200
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Some record labels hire outside companies to plant fake files on peer-to-peer sites. Now, labels are turning these decoy files into vehicles for marketing to music pirates by inserting promotional material into the files, such as an eight-minute clip from a Jay-Z concert, the Wall Street Journal reports." From the article: "'The concept here is making the peer-to-peer networks work for us,' says Jay-Z's attorney, Michael Guido. 'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience,' and 'this technology allows us to market back to them.'"
Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income (Score:5, Funny)
It was great, it said I had won a free boat! So I went to the URL in the file (http://www.riaa.com/tricks/freeboat/warrantappli
I start filling this out, you know, understandable things like name, address, average household income, what mp3s was I downloading when I won, where they are on my hard drive, which attorney would be representing me if a court case broke out--you know, the usual.
But once I hit submit, I got some law-talking guy spamming my e-mail address non-stop! Trying to sell me some product I'm not even interested in
People on the internet are so stupid sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Advance fee fraud at work
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But for them to be replacing good music with videos of Jay-Z, tsk, a pox on them I say.
I guess it's all a moot topic though if you use emule, whenever I try and grab "XXX Hot horny Jenna Brianna Crystal Bukkake Cum Lesbo Splat Fest" it rarely is what I think it is (normally an iso of windows, damn and blast).
Mystery box (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, Yeah, bogus lawsuite clearly, but still better than the average riaa lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that doesn't hold up.
But one thing that's interesting as far as the usual RIAA/MPAA lawsuits is that these "official" decoys are legitimizing the defense that you didn't know what you were getting, and therefore didn't know you were downloading copyrighted files. If the RIAA can easily fool people with decoys, perhaps they (or anyone r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyrighting adverts (Score:2)
It seems to me that by putting the files up, they are giving permission to distribute them. Hence, no copyright infringement occurs.
They'd be really missing the point if they put adverts under a copyright protecting license. Then again, I wouldn't put it past them.
The active music audience (Score:5, Interesting)
So they admit that filesharers are the active music audience.
They're one step away from admitting filesharers buy more music.
Re:The active music audience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that bullshit statistics have ever stopped a recording association of America, but they'd have to actually show that the increase in music purchases were driven by the decoy ads *and also* that those tunes / artists / albums / tours that didn't have decoy ads didn't benefit in the same way from the P2P network.
Really, they can only show the efficacy of these ads if there's only a specific, targeted sales uptic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All the RIAA would have to do would be to put out ads for an artist, then heavily advertise that artist to the exclusion of others for a month or so, and bam, they have statistics to prove that the song or artist that was advertis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not it would be trivial for them to rig some fancy statistics is beyond the point -
Re:The active music audience (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice [job|house|whatever] you have there, Mr FileSharer. It would be a pity if something would happen to it should you not buy some of our music.
But then I'm one to joke. I'm one of the ones the RIAA really hates. I buy music, but I generally buy it used.
Re: (Score:2)
And then your mom notices that, despite all your efforts, someone has cracked your crystal
Re:The active music audience (Score:5, Funny)
"Damn kids, downloading all these music videos."
"We can hire a company to seed decoy files."
"I have a better idea, instead of wasting that file with garbage, we could always put some ads in it."
"Like what?"
"Hmmm, how about music videos of our artists!"
"Outstanding! Here, have another line of coke..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are people with high end systems and well trained ears who can tell the difference between the higher bitrate MP3 files and CDs but i do not belive they represent the majority of listners.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I rarely buy any music and I'm a huge filesharer but I also don't pirate any music. I listen to music that is free to distribute. There are plenty of bands out there to listen to that are free and open about their live stuff.
Live music not only showcases how the music *really* is (not overprocessed and mass marketed) but depending on the recording (mixed AUD/SBD and full blown AUD) gives you a sense of crowd response.
Support those bands and n
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently on Led Zeppelin, Smashing Pumpkins, and String Cheese Incident kicks but they change monthly. Just checking out the first page of the listing on dimeadozen we have Soul Asylum, Bob Dylan, U2, Rolling Stones, and Camper Van Beethoven.
That could keep you busy for a while.
Music piracy - doublethink or quantum entanglement (Score:3, Insightful)
How strange - how "downloading free copyrighted music" doesn't lead to more music sales... but apparently "allowing people to download free copyrighted music" makes them buy more music from you.
Of course, we all know the central issue is one of consent - clearly when people download free copyrighted music that I don't want them to, that hurts my business, even if it leads to more sales. Howev
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody has Back Street Boys posters on the ceiling over their bed.
What happens if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Will I be arrested and thrown in jail?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But on a serious note, this will not work, because when someone goes on their favorite P2P, looking for a full lenght Jay-Z concert, the search results will have some options. Here we have a file that is 8min long, and another that is 1 hour long (or if there is no "length" category, they will see one is 10mb and one is 700mb) and come to the realization that "hmmm...I was searching for a full lenght concert. Most concerts are more than 8 minutes long, better go with the 1 hour file."
Re:What happens if... (Score:4, Informative)
That's what Google said (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
with bribery and underhanded business practices? [billboard.biz]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not quite. (Score:5, Insightful)
The imbeciles currently in charge of Sony/Warner/BMG were busily driving one of the biggest corporate empires ever created into the ground; it's only quite recently that they seem to have caught up to what a lot of people have been saying all along: there's a whole lot of money to be made in digital content if you play along and don't fight it every step of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:2)
Legal blunder? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How? What position? It's their IP, they can choose how they want to distribute *their* stuff. If they say "Yes, you can distribute this 7 minutes excerpt with ads in it over P2P" then thats their choice. If they says "You can't distribute things we didn't put on there" that
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing to occur to them is to actually SELL the stuff, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
If I put up a file with a filename claiming the file is a free-to-distribute work, when in fact it is licensed commercially, can the person be sued?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ignorance of the law (or actions) doesn't absolve guilt of said action.
This is wrong. Ignorance of the law does not absolve you of guilt, but a lot of the law takes into account the intent of a person (ignorance of the criminality of a given action). It is the difference between first degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, for example, if you're firing a gun in the woods. In the case of copyrights in the US, it is very, very hard to get any sort of damages if the person copying a work had a reasonab
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas, at least, there is a lesser charge than manslaughter, called Deadly Action, that could apply in that situation.
Sharing != Downloading (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont think RIAA has ever sued anybody for downloading, only sharing.
Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
There's marketing and advertising on teh internets?
In other news, the Sun rises in the East.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how Wall Street Journal reports, no matter how much emotion one put into their reading, or what background music there might be, could possibly be appealing to the pirate market.
Stealing has never happened via p2p (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong-o, Guido the Killer Pimp. Nothing has ever been stolen via p2p. The words you are looking for is "users are violating the copyright of...".
Re: (Score:2)
Krell: Wrong-o, Guido the Killer Pimp. Nothing has ever been stolen via p2p. The words you are looking for is "users are violating the copyright of...".
Also, in countries other than the U.S., they're not even "stealing", if by "stealing" he is implying that people are downloading illegally. For instance, here in Canada it's not illegal to download music for free via P2P. When you're t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you're all right and yet partly wrong. Property, even intellectual property, is a right to do many things with the property--including the right to deny others access (a.k.a. right of exclusivity). While the IP owner still has access, by making an unauthorized copy you are still taking (and therefore stealing) one of his rights. More importantly, by making his IP available to others, you are denying
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the shear awfulness of the implications (which you do deny, but nonetheless you have made!) I do *not* in fact have "complete access" for while you are sleeping with m
Re: (Score:2)
Use of a shovel to defend your property is "self-help," which could also be used to defend one's intell
More incorrect use of words (Score:2)
Again, just because it is wrong or a violation does not make it theft. Also, this does not meet the definition of "Taking".
"If you had a wife, and I slept with her, have I violated your rights?..."
This is actually an appropriate analogy. Like the situation with copyright violation, this has nothing to do with the issue of theft.
Re: (Score:2)
No these goods aren't stolen, they are meerly "sold" where one would expect to find stolen goods.
Are you not aware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, the old fallacy used by those who have no idea what "theft" means. You are implying that if it is not theft, then it is OK. Are you not aware that the law books and moral codes are full of many different crimes that are not theft, but are still imagine that!!! wrong? The meanings of words change, but the meaning of "theft" has not.
"and a record is no longer a big, black, plastic disk"
Where did you get that idea? Only records are called records. No one calls a tape, CD, or mp3 file a "record" that I have ever heard at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You are implying that if it is not theft, then it is OK.
The previous poster does no such thing. They state that copyright infringement is not theft. They very strongly imply that the particular action may or may not be a crime depending upon where you are. They do not address the morality of the act at all.
You should really try reading things with an open mind so that you don't make huge assumptions about what others are implying.
Crossed threads? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "stealing" if I still have them, dimwit. It's just copying. Now if you choose to use them to obtain money or property at my expense, then you are guilty of fraud, not theft.
It's also used to apply to interpersonal relationships, e.g. "that bitch stole my boyfriend". It doesn't, however, make such usage any less wrong. So what we have t
Re: (Score:2)
Monetized = legit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monetized = legit? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, from what I read, they consider the audience to be TOO legit. Legally, they are too legit to quit.
exclusive content - must steal to see (Score:3, Funny)
Case dismissed.
Sales related to downloads (Score:2)
Idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have second thoughts about hiring any lawyer that can't distinguish between two entirely different sets of laws. I'd half expect Mr. Guido to charge jaywalkers with attempted murder based on his statements here.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this same attorney went to court in another case and testified about how an arson suspect raped a house. I'd better be careful or he might catch up to me and embezzle me dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because the most likely explanation here is that no RIAA or music industry lawyer knows what they're talking about and you are smarter than all of them.
Or, no, wait--could it be that their statements are made deliberately? That perhaps they are pushing people to believe something that makes their case look better?
Nah. You know those lawyers--completely off the cuff morons, n
woosh! Sound of RIAA missing the point, again. (Score:2)
holy crap (Score:3, Funny)
Stand back, the music industry may have just grown a brain cell.
Re: (Score:2)
No worry. That's nothing my ol' pal Jim Beam can't take care of in a hurry.
Try before you buy. (Score:2, Informative)
If I like the songs, I go out and support the artist.
I really don't see why the RIAA is bitching about how delaying the sale of the material for a few days is crippling the music industry as a whole. p2p file sharing is the best free advertising you could possibly have, why else do startup bands release their music on the 'net?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I try before I buy, too. I'm just not going to pay 13.99 for a CD with only a single song I like, and good luck finding the single. However, since I began trying before buying, I noticed something... a large majority of the music I listen to does not fall under the RIAA, at least not directly. Oh, I'm sure they all own overseas labels and such, but even so, most of the music I like does not originate in the US. Some of it doesn't even fall un
Re: (Score:2)
torture ? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh
1 min is about all the torture I can take. I guess its back to the record store for me !
Oh, the hypocrisy! (Score:3)
I hope this backfires. If the media companies can make a legitimate try at making money from P2P networks, then why not the companies they're taking to court?
I see what you did there (Score:3, Insightful)
Although this is a very cruel approach to advertising, it gives them the advantage to not only strike back at the community yet be able to advertise for their clients / artists as well.
Now you must stop the lawsuits and expect penalties that come from falsifying files.
If they give it away... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do still own it; and no
Re: (Score:2)
Sites? (Score:2, Insightful)
Delicious! (Score:2, Troll)
The RIAA has truly entered the Escherian phase of their downfall, where they have begun to swallow their own tails.
Open hostility towards customers (Score:2)
Imagine the first mover advantage (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what everybody told the music industry for years: Don't try to fight down P2P, understand that these are your customers and give them an incentive to buy something from you instead of trying to force it down their throats. Now, after maybe six or seven years, the message got through.
Just imagine what would have happened if one of the major labels would have done this right from the beginning and what this would have done for their market share compared to the other ones who prefer to sue kids and grannies.
The record companies really are dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Get it on social networks, p2p networks, it would be the same as listening to the radio. It would build artist loyalty, it would get the record companies out of the payola business, it would let them more easily turn a profit on marginal acts because you can narrowcast this stuff. If I can think that stuff up, imagine what somebody who really had a stake in it could do.
But I'm convinced they're so worried about next quarter's profits that they can't build for the future. Oh well. Maybe someboy will be adventurous enough to try it.
I'm deeply concerned... (Score:2)
the riaa wil never go for this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Want a copy of Love Shack to put on your iPod? Just go to (pick a music store URL).com and enter coupon code 49152128 to purchase this track for only 75 cents.
Announcer voice goes out, and you hear another
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called the volume control knob or preset buttons. When I hear a commercial coming I'm off to another station or turn the volume down so I can't hear anything for a few minutes.
So yes, you can avoid hearing the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If p2p files came with this advertising, (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay. Absolutely, I prefer a pay model. Advertising supported media is an ever declining standard. It starts with a little advertising. It increases until people start turning off. Which means they clutch at more advertising to keep the revenues up. The only thing that keeps standards high ultimately, is a customer base that is willing to pay for the content.
Besides, an advertising supported model is incompatible with owning your music, film, whatever. Afterall, no one will make money by selling you a song that eternally has the same ad for Nike's latest running shoes at the beginning of it year after year. The advertising model only works in a setup where you are fed your media content. And of course there are economic pressures against offering you too much choice. We're going to have to fight hard enough against licensing model media purchases (i.e. You've paid for six months of this song) now that the technology for it is available. Part of that fight will be rejecting models like advertising funded media which tie into it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
From what I've heard of hip-hop and rap, they sometimes come pretty close, touting brand names as evidence that they're cool or whatever. Oh, and they also promote prostitution and drug dealing as proper things to do to obtain these goodies. (No, I'm not trolling)
Therein lies the problem (Score:2, Redundant)
if the choice was between having advertising unremovably intertwined with your free (illegal) music
There is the problem in a nutshell. You've come up with a fantastic idea! Now, how do you implement it?
Build ads into the P2P app? Hackers will have an anti-advert patch out inside of two days. Besides, nobody sits and watches their P2P app anyways. Mingle it with the MP3 files? Use Audacity and clip those bits out.
Exactly how are you going to force someone to watch advertising?
errr what? (Score:2)
Did the office mate actually steal it? Or did he (as is more likely) duplicate a file off of some p2p service? Also, if the study guide is a damaged one with trick answers, it certainly is not someone's intellectual property. You could not even call it copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that is a form of fraud. It involves misrepresentation. No stealing yet, unless the rippers are destroying the originals.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I doubt any album-thieves are actually looking at p2p files. Those guys are instead down at the Tower Records at 4:00 AM heaving a brick through the window.
Re: (Score:2)