Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Ad Vehicles

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

So, like a lot of things on Slashdot, I was interested in this hip new technology. I hopped on eDonkey and downloaded a bunch of Jay-Z until I found the golden ticket.

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/warrantapplic ation.html) and there it was, a registration form for a free boat!

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 ... something called an "Average Out of Court Settlement." Yeah, like I'm going to pay you $22,000 for that! As if! I think they want you to pay that if you want a free boat. I'm not stupid though--I know how this scam works--they give you a free boat but after taxes and registration, it's not even close to free anymore.

People on the internet are so stupid sometimes.

Re:Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income

It seems to me that by putting the files up, they are giving permission to distribute them. Hence, no copyright infringement occurs.

Re:Decoy Files on P2P Sites Become Income

Seems to be slashdotted already

Mystery box

A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat! You know how much we wanted one of those!

The active music audience

'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience,'

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

but the RIAA is going to claim they buy more music because of the ads they're decoying out now.

Re:The active music audience

And pretty soon, RIAA will start suing p2p indexing sites for caving and shutting down the index servers, claiming it cost RIAA advertising revenue.

Re:The active music audience

I know, the disconnect is ridiculous:

"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..."

What happens if...

I go onto a p2p site and download this advert for the concert but mistakenly get the whole thing?

Will I be arrested and thrown in jail?

Re:What happens if...

I could be wrong, and if I am someone will point it out (along with corrections to my grammar, punctuation and font size), but downloading copyrighted material isn't a violation. The violation is sharing the material without permission. Now, I suppose the MPAA might argue that the DMCA forbids circumventing DRM by using P2P, but they would be SOL because now you can claim you were intending to download the MP3 from JZ, but hey IANAL, I just like acronyms (a lot).

That's what Google said

It's about time the record labels caught on somewhat. Just because you give something out for free doesn't mean you're not going to make money off of it. I'm sure Google's business model with youtube will involve this type of thing somehow - giving content to people for free without them realizing they're watching ads.

Not quite.

Actually, "those imbeciles" didn't build the $35 Billion industry, their predecessors did. For all intents and purposes, they inherited it. I'd wager that very few of the people who were around during the rise of the large commercial record business are still there. No, I think most of them -- if they have any brains -- have cashed in their stock options and are laughing into their martinis, headed for Bali.

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.

Stupid

This is just giving them ideas what to pirate next.

hey, advertising!

Now people are just waiting for jenna jameson to start doing short clip advertisements for her (pun)deeply(/pun) involved movies.

If p2p files came with this advertising,

would you object? In particular, if the choice was between having advertising unremovably intertwined with your free (illegal) music or no free music at all, just "pay" music, would you pay for your music or would you accept the advertising?

I see this as similar to music radio stations, where you get free music, but there's advertising that comes with it, and you can't avoid hearing the ads.

Re:If p2p files came with this advertising,

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.

Legal blunder?

Though it makes sense from a marketing perspective, this seems to compromise their position legally. If they really don't want people downloading the P2P files, then why are they spending so much money to talk directly to them OVER P2P? Could leave a defense much like the First Commenter said - just walk into court and claim you were downloading all of that illegal music because you wanted to see the ads you heard about on the Internet.

Huh?

There's marketing and advertising on teh internets?

In other news, the Sun rises in the East.

Stealing has never happened via p2p

"Michael Guido --'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience"

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...".

Are you not aware?

"So, then... you don't mind if I -NOT STEAL- your SSN, driver's license info, ATM card # and PIN?"

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.

Monetized = legit?

If they claim this audience can be monetized, how can they consider it to be non-legit?

Re:Monetized = legit?

If they claim this audience can be monetized, how can they consider it to be non-legit?

Actually, from what I read, they consider the audience to be TOO legit. Legally, they are too legit to quit.

i've seen this before

i've seen many, MANY of these on gnutella. you download a short video file, and it's just a still image of an iPod, for a few seconds. not sure who was behind it, but they were all over the place.

This is pretty tame...

They could have gone with WMA files that open goatse sites, to teach those pirates a lesson!

But seriously, don't most P2P clients have user rankings of files? Maybe they need a better moderating system, like the fine one here on slashdot.

exclusive content - must steal to see

"But judge, the only way I could get the exclusive pre-release video of [hyper-hyped band/singer-songwriter/pretty face] was to steal random music from a P2P service. I didn't want to, I obey the law and have never stolen anything in my life. But [record label] would only hide the must-have exclusive video in fake song files. I didn't know which songs they were, or which ones were fake or real. So I had to download several thousand of them to finally find the video."

Case dismissed.

Sales related to downloads

If the ads have little effect, would that go someway toward proving file sharing does not affect music purchases to the degree the RIAA claim it does?

Get what you pay for

Its not just music. I recently was taking a MS exam and I had bought a "study guide" and an office mate of mine got his ripped insted of buying. Both had the exact same questions but diffrent answers and reasons why one is wrong/right and why. You get what you pay for, errr steal.

Idiot

Jay-Z's attorney, Michael Guido. 'While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property...

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.

Sounds like a win/win situation

...so if somebody just wanted to watch an 8 minute clip of a Jay Z concert, they wouldn't know the difference!

woosh! Sound of RIAA missing the point, again.

So let me get this straight, they know people on P2P sites downloading music are potential purchasers, and that anything they hear from P2P they may buy. Yet their solution is instead of letting them download the music they are looking for and listen to it, possibly purchase it, they hijack the file with something that may be wholly unrelated? How is that targetted marketing? If someone is searching for favorite band X and they get instead an advertisement clip for band Y, how does that make them more likely to buy Y? Wouldn't they have been looking for Y in the first place then?

This also demonstrates the RIAA's complete misunderstanding of how people use P2P sites. Users know that there are broken songs, seeded fakes, etc, etc, so when they hit play and it's not what they were looking for then they move on to another file and delete the incorrect one. They don't hang around and say "gee, this isn't at all what I was looking for but I'll listen to the whole thing anyway." To quote MC Frontalot (Romantic Cheapskate): "Whatcha wasting my time for? My bandwidth's limited, I don't get, like, free internet."

holy crap

they are also the active music audience

Stand back, the music industry may have just grown a brain cell.

Try before you buy.

I tend to buy a CD AFTER I download the songs to listen to.
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?

I do not pirate music.

But if I was a music pirate, I'd stop an MP3 from playing the second I heard something that wasn't supposed to be in the song I downloaded.

torture ?

"'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.'"

Oh .. I thought the goal of this was to get people to stop using P2P networks by forcing them to listen to 8 mins of JAY-Z.
1 min is about all the torture I can take. I guess its back to the record store for me !

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Sure, they'll sue the services into oblivion (nevermind the users right now), but until they are out of business, they'll happily try to make income off the network. Wasn't one of the main themes of the lawsuits that these companies were supposedly making money from copyright infringement? And now big media is doing the same thing? WTF?!?

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?

FTFA

Michael Guido: '... peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property ...'

No they're not. Stealing IP would mean they are ripping the tunes off and claiming they wrote it, like with software. They are simply stealing copies of the recording, which (to some) isn't wrong - not all artists want their music to come with an EULA and hefty price tag. Get the music free, and come pay for a concert ticket if you like what you hear! Now THAT'S the way to go. Copyright-obsessed idiots.

Seems like...

This will only turn attention from the artist who's name is being used as camouflaged over the ads. THis could possible hurt the popularity of the artist. "Piracy is wrong but we'll use deception to advertise..." Evil is as evil does.

I see what you did there

It's about time the Industry starts playing the game.

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...

I wonder about the status of that 8-minute Jay-Z clip they're giving you. IANAL, but since you obviously didn't click "yes" on any of the record label's copyright or terms-of-use screens to get onto the P2P network, and since there's no way for them to make you view their copyright notice before you get your hands on the file, and since they are willfully giving it away for free themselves, do they own that clip anymore? Would the fact that they are deliberately giving out these clips negate any claim on enforcing the copyright of that material?

There was an interesting project a few years back called RIAA-mix. [riaamix.com] Basically, it took a bunch of decoy files from P2P (you know, the ones that only have the first 5 seconds or so of the song before going blank or staticky) and remixed them. The idea was, since the RIAA gave those specific clips out themselves, they were releasing them into the public domain to be bastardized by us shady Internet masher-uppers.

Sites?

Why do these people still call P2P networks 'sites'? They're goddamn networks, for crying out loud.

May we suggest...

People who stole this album might also enjoy stealing...

Looks like they're taking a page from Amazon's marketing book, even the part about making a profit.

Progress?

I would dare think this a step in the right direction, even if it isn't THE right thing. By acknowledging that filesharers are active music buyers and advertising their wares on p2p, it brings them one step closer to realizing that p2p might be a useful marketing tool by encouraging people to buy more. Heck, the next step should just be to drop their lawsuits and we're all happy. (They can have their advertising there as well - people can sort through it to find the actual songs they're looking for)

So the point in this is ?

Now you download the file.

Skip to 60% though it watch 3 seconds skip 80% though watch 2 seconds
Then sit down and start watching it.

Say the download took 30 mins or so its added a whole whopping 10 seconds to the person.
I dont really see that system working in the slighest.

But again my argument for something like this.

Get in car. goto shops. Park car. (10-15mins)
Get to shop. Walk around find something you want. (10 mins)
Get to counter queue to pay (5-10mins)
Get back to car + pay for car park (5mins)
Go Home (10-15)mins

Insert CD into player and listen.

Or i could just go and fine several cd's of the same ont he internet (5 mins)
Download (mutliple to get around posion files now) (45 mins)
Listen(1 mins)

Some things to point out.

a) I didnt have to move
b) It didnt cost me anything
c) I didnt have to go to shops with screaming kids and people getting in my way every 30 seconds
d) I didnt create polution
e) I could have probably started listening to things withing the first 5 mins of the download starting

Delicious!

Another entry in the Have-Your-Cake-And-Eat-It-Too Hall of Fame. They want to sue music fans for sharing files, yet they also want to market to them. They want them to stop sharing files, but they want them to share files so they will see their ads.

The RIAA has truly entered the Escherian phase of their downfall, where they have begun to swallow their own tails.

Open hostility towards customers

Companies have become openly hostile towards their target customers lately that it's not funny. They may as well plaster disclaimers about wanting your money without having to give you a product or services all over their goods. Record companies want to simulatenously label you theives and sue you while tricking you into downloading their advertising advertising through the p2p they insist is only for theives. Games companies want to install copy protection that destroys hardware, force you to activate if you even want to use your product (but hey not more than twice because if you need that you're obviously a theif) and are even installing spyware on the computer (not to mention their slave labour work practices).

So much for making an honest buck. So much for fucking customer service. So much for honesty and decency. These people get no sympathy from me. Fuck the lot of them.

Imagine the first mover advantage

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.

Don't Forget the Artists

I'm suprised mentioned poor, starving, banging-Beyonce, Jigga what? Jay-Z. He's got to be getting a cut from the ads to. He's got 99 Problems and my lack of respect for him is one.

The record companies really are dumb

I always thought a perfect use of the p2p networks was to place low-bitrate files (128kb/s mp3's) with bumpers around announcing the artist. They could talk over them like a DJ. The point is that they get the songs out there as an advertisement to either buy the CD or download a CD quality file. They could do like they used to do and have an album version and a radio version (shorter), except that it would be a p2p version.

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...

Aren't these decoys going to clog all of the Internet tubes?

the riaa wil never go for this...

because it makes too much sense. Instead of seeding junk advertisements, seed DEMOS. Lets say I want a copy of Love Shack on my ipod. I hit edonkey or whatever and download LoveShack.MP3. Surprise though, after 20 seconds of listening to it the music fades to the background and an announcer comes up.

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 30 seconds of the song. Then the announcer repeats his message. This announcement repeats 3-4 times during the song.

This would be an incredible hit with the public, they get the preview of the song, longer than usual, and get it at a reduced rate, and they pay for the music. Since the p2p network is doing the distro, there are not even any bandwidth costs involved for the labels. (for the advertising anyway) Everyone wins.

But nah, that'd make too much sense. Lets just sue them.

Wait a second...

...you mean to tell me these people are openly admitting to spam a network with unsolicited advertising?

and I'm suppose to see the difference between this kind of activity, and the kind of activity that dumps billions of spam in people's email inboxes every day?

From a perspective of PRINCIPLE this is horrendous bullshit...

Hey! What about us old bastards?

such as an eight-minute clip from a Jay-Z concert, the Wall Street Journal reports

Excuse my ignorance, but if Jay-Z knocked on my door and said "Hi, I'm Jay-Z", I would respond "Who?" and not bat an eyelid.

So why can't they throw in an eight-minute clip from a Uriah Heep concert, or Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" occasionally, just to keep we miserable old gits happy occasionally?

Oh, yeah

We're so totally going to buy the advertised album, like, at a music store, and ask permission from our mommy before buying CDs with unholy language. We want to give out our money and contribute to glorious corporate whores like Jay-Z who have been left alive too long, and help their monopolies, that way 1% of the population can continue controlling 99% of the world's money like God intended.