LEAKED EMAILS: Reveal Profits of Anti-Piracy Cash Scheme

This subject near dear to my heart as reader of the website torrentfreak. I have fallowed this this story for the last three days. And I must say that I dislike being called a pirate! A pirate is one that makes more then one copy of something and then sells it for profit and I do neither. I do buy a disk of something and then share it with others. I find some the best stuff that I like from others who share like I do. When I find something I like I will buy it.
Some the best movies that I have were found in this way.

RouteDog
Woof-Woof

Originally posted by RouteDog
And I must say that I dislike being called a pirate!

don't fret.
He obviously hasn't gotten his marching orders yet, that he isn't supposed to use that term any more. Carrier Pigeons are so unreliable! I wonder if we can get anything that works better any time soon.

arstechnica.com...

reply to post by LoveHina

s a musician that has released albums for more than 20 years, I can prove that Piracy is hurting my income very negatively

So do something about it.

The bottom line is that the old model is broken, you will no longer make money by making albums and selling CDs. It's over. Some artists have embraced this change. Some are holding onto the old ways, but alas, my friend, it's time to move on. Sorry.

All creative industries will either embrace this new way of sharing their creations or die.

Ask Google if free is a workable business model.

Radiohead seems to be getting it.

Many games, specifically MMOS, are going to the free to play model. Other games companies are starting to realize that the money isn't in making behemoth blockbusters ( sure there are the exceptions out there..*cough* Halo *cough*). The money is in Angry Birds ( which I bought for 59 pence ).

The era of big companies controlling what we view as entertainment is over.

Originally posted by Merigold
reply to post by LoveHina

 

s a musician that has released albums for more than 20 years, I can prove that Piracy is hurting my income very negatively

So do something about it.

The bottom line is that the old model is broken, you will no longer make money by making albums and selling CDs. It's over. Some artists have embraced this change. Some are holding onto the old ways, but alas, my friend, it's time to move on. Sorry.

All creative industries will either embrace this new way of sharing their creations or die.

Ask Google if free is a workable business model.

Radiohead seems to be getting it.

You can't compare Radiohead to all musical artists. Radiohead has been around way longer to make a reputation for themselves, thats why they can give their stuff away for free, because they already established that fan base through years of music.

Originally posted by Merigold
The bottom line is that the old model is broken...

Well said, but i have to point out that unless a system that brainwashes and blackmail's young impressionable folk into spending far more than is nessisary to buy a CD so that a very few can live a life of luxury unimaginable to the vast majority... then it already was broken.

reply to post by InnerTruths

You can't compare Radiohead to all musical artists

Maybe not a great example. The fact is the day of the superstars may be over. Regional bands that market their stuff on-line and then have concerts and tshirts, this is the future that is sustainable.

Originally posted by Merigold
reply to post by InnerTruths

 

You can't compare Radiohead to all musical artists

Maybe not a great example. The fact is the day of the superstars may be over. Regional bands that market their stuff on-line and then have concerts and tshirts, this is the future that is sustainable.

Exactly, and I personally think it's a good thing. What we have to day is a handfull of Artists producing for the lowest common denominator. Small structures catering to a local market would employ many more people. They wouldn't get as rich as the handfull that does these days, but honestly: I couldn't care less.

(Also, if you must please call me a terrorist. According to the industry, those are the people I work for, not some guys stealing ships off the east african coast)

Originally posted by InnerTruths


You can't compare Radiohead to all musical artists. Radiohead has been around way longer to make a reputation for themselves, thats why they can give their stuff away for free, because they already established that fan base through years of music.

True, but a band with a global audience is more likely to inspire OTHER musicians to engage in other types of sales types and methods, and be experimental to a degree in their methods, as opposed to rigidly following the current rusting regime.

Hope you don't mind, but here's a snippet of an article i wrote for university about this very issue.


Alternatives methods of distribution in the early 21st century
“"On one side is the old high ground of the industrial era capitalism; on the other, the new high(er) ground of next-generation capitalism. The yawning chasm in between them is the gap between the 20th century and the 21st" – Gerd Leonhard

As already mentioned Radiohead’s ‘pay what you like’ technique would be more applicable for the bigger names in the industry, as is the technique applied by Prince in which he released his album Planet earth with the Mail on Sunday newspaper at a cost of £250,000 but considered by some to be an ingenious method of self promotion much to the dismay of retailers and Sony BMG. Paul Mcartney not only supported the Rage against Simon Cowell campaign but contrastingly supported himself in the world of corporate advertising via Starbucks record label Hear records. Certainly these methods may only really apply to the established, so what other options remain?
Rick Rubin (Co-head of Columbia records and producer) declared that music should employ a subscriptions service in which all the companies could potentially agree on a format where music will be available everywhere for the a small fee. He worries that if something like his idea isn’t placed into the system, the bigger corporations would wait for the companies to weaken and then be fully absorbed by Microsoft for example. His idea can be summed up like so:
"You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home. The service can have demos, bootlegs, concerts, whatever context the artist wants to put out. And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now.
Other ideas of a ‘Music tax’ have been submitted by Jim Griffin (Warner ) and Trent Reznor (of Nine in nails) who believe that a music could be taxed via the ISP and the tax could be donated to the publishers and artists, although this deal which Warner claims could ‘generate $20 billion annually’ is considered unfair by the millions of people who do not use the internet for downloading music.
The EFF (Electronic frontier foundation) who are donation-supported active representatives of public interest in both legal issues and campaigns against the imposed ideas of internet tax and the ‘3 strikes’ rule , declare that a voluntary based submission to ‘get legit’ by submitting less than ten dollars a month to an industry ‘collection agency’ which would prevent the offender from being prosecuted for illegally downloading as then this money could then be pooled and re-distributed to copyright holders.
‘In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download and share whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog”

And yet another idea presented into the public domain is the ‘Music like water’ idea by Gard Leonhard in which you pay for access and not the individual track. The idea that music should be evenly distributed amongst everyone with full access to everything for a short monthly fee very similar to the ideas presented above, in which the music experience could be customed to the individual listener (maybe with an account much like a SKY television account holder for example), with feedback and ratings being a priority to the artist who will wish to enter this ‘new version’ of the industry on the idea that the music can be distributed exactly the way it is now (i.e. very few changes in the format whether this be sharing via MSN messenger or taking for a peer to peer system) but would have an ‘account’ that would allow you access to any music in a growing catalogue. Gerd Leonhard said the following on his blog.
“Because here’s another thing that will happen when the water/music flows freely: the up-selling opportunities will be huge, diverse, and multi-channel. We will have all the user data we could ever dream of having: opt-in profiles and lots of user feedback, usage patterns, program preferences, personal profiles, locations and access modes. Apart from the obvious concerns over data security and privacy (now there’s another huge business opportunity!), this data will allow the content providers / rights holders to zero in on one person at a time, and offer relevant and timely upgrades to him / her, and maybe to place very unobtrusive and friendly product messages.”

--

Some examples of alternative methods of distribution...

Let me know what you think...

reply to post by LoveHina


I don't condone nor take part in 'piracy', however need I remind you of your own 'musical' roots? Death/Black Metal is a derivation of Thrash Metal, which was a merging of Heavy Metal with Punk. By displaying your advocacy of the corporate juggernaut, you look a lot less like your disestablishmentarian and anti-authoritarian Punk roots and more like a Poser. What band are you in anyway? Maybe you should stick to Glam Metal.

reply to post by mr-lizard


That sounds like an awesome idea and we're probably on our way to having a totally unified multimedia tool which can accompany us anywhere and everywhere. I think when that time comes (which isn't a long way away), issues like piracy will be dead and gone, or at least not as prevelant as it is today. The way its headed right now it doesn't look as if the major websites will be around for much longer.

Hi all,

I'm not that up on piracy law so I have a question for you: Does this fine of £500 apply to those that haven't downloaded any material but watched it online/streamed instead? Is it the user or the host that's in the wrong or both? This is a grey area for me and was wondering if any of you would be kind enough to enlighten me.

Many thanks,

W C S

reply to post by WorstCaseScenario


It's still a grey area in most countries too since the data itself isn't present on your computer so whether you've watched it, had a pop-up start it for you which you then closed or had a malicious piece of software make it look like you've watched it are all questionable.

Now for the big one:

British Telecom are tied into it now!

According to this BBB article on the story BT, as well as Sky but you could have expected it from their monitoring rears, have given away information about their users unencrypted no less to ACS:Law.

Serious, serious business ramifications here especially in light of the Data Protection Act of Britain.

If Sky, BT, ACS:Law, The MIAA and The RIAA are flouting basic human rights laws like this then why, oh why should anyone adhere to their requests for compliance with their own made up schemes.

Big day in Britain for freedom of expression!

-m0r

Originally posted by WorstCaseScenario
Hi all,

I'm not that up on piracy law so I have a question for you: Does this fine of £500 apply to those that haven't downloaded any material but watched it online/streamed instead? Is it the user or the host that's in the wrong or both? This is a grey area for me and was wondering if any of you would be kind enough to enlighten me.

Many thanks,

W C S

It is not a fine, it is an out of court settlement.
It covers whatever you want it to cover, and has as much legal power as any other contract. AKA: If you dont like the conditions, try to avoid the dotted line
ACS:Law mostly claimed infringement on porn movie torrents, because nobody wants to go to court and discuss porn, and the IP adresses are easy to obtain.
And the letter gets of course sent to the owner of the internet connection, because who else are they going to send it to?

As to who is in the wrong: I'd say ACS Law and other companies who run such rackets.

I predict: Movies of the future will be hour-and-a-half long commercials for various products and political ideas, paid for entirely by the companies who make those products, or the parties that benefit from those political ideas. It will be like the obvious product placements in place today, only the products or political propositions will be much more integral to the plot. Methods of hypnosis will be used with wild abandon. Today's younger generations - anyone born in the mid-80s on up - will not notice the difference, as movies will be more like the internet (entirely driven by advertising rather than by the small fees that people pay now to watch films). This is the only way that films with any sort of budget and crew will be able to continue being made. Unless we institute some sort of tax to support the industry - but no one will support that. Musicians, on the other hand, will have to fork over a large chunk of cash in advance, to get their songs listed and promoted on a monopolized download services that we all pay for - except for certain musicians who are picked, groomed, and paid by various corporations to wear their clothing, drink their energy drinks, and tweet about their latest must-have gadgets. Like I said, it will be like the worst aspects of the entertainment industry today, only more so.

This latest news of corporate profits on piracy is only the beginning. Piracy may be the best thing that ever happened to the military-industrial complex, if it forces controversial, less well-endowed voices out of the meticulous systems of the future. Remember, we are not communists, we are capitalists.

reply to post by m0r1arty


Thanks, all seems a bit clearer now
peace
wcs

The London music Label The Ministry of Sound, which used to be an underground label but has adopted an 'aggressive expansion' methodology in recent years, has also been taken down after it's legal firm Gallant MacMillan's website disappeared after being threaten with an Ion Cannon/DDoS attack from 4Chan as it was about to try and get more IP addresses via court action.

Exciting times indeedy!

-m0r

As much as I dislike the actions of the RIAA and MPAA, their lawyers and minions, I cannot support the DDOS attacks on their websites or other online assets. These hacker types who sneak about and ANONYMOUSLY conduct attacks like this strike me as balls-free cowards. We should boldly stand against the RIAA et al.

Imagine if you go to a restaurant and the meal is not up to expectations, what do you do. Speak to the manager and get a reduction in price. What if you get a hair cut and its not what you asked for, you don't pay. You buy a shirt in a shop and when you get it home its not what you wanted, you take it back and get a refund.

Now with the media industry you get none of this.

They demand that you pay full whack to go see a movie. At the end of the movie or indeed half way through you decide its a load of rubbish and walk out. Can you go to the desk and ask for a refund ? I don't think so.

You buy a music CD take it home and play it. Total tosh. can you get a refund. Nope.

Games are the worst. You pay £30 plus for a game onlt to find when you get it home to the kids its awful. But you can't take it back and complain about the quality.

If anyone is a pirate in this business it's the companies themselves.

people leak only dis-information to the public like a hacker going for a server but finding a honeypot.

emails can easy be replicated edited and resent.

i never believe in 3rd pary hearsay