IFPI Employee Describes P2P Sabotage Activities 431
Maxwell'sSilverLART writes "From The Reg: Matt Warne, an employee of the international version of the RIAA, admitted that he helped the organization spread garbage and random noise on the P2P networks. Apparently, they used multiple DSL connections to present the appearance of separate users, disguising the origins of the files. His group has stopped, but he claims several of the big record companies are still doing it themselves. And here I thought all of their garbage came on CD."
This reminds me.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Has anyone run into this with any of the other P2P clients, or is it just limewire specific?
(I would think that would be a better way to tie up the services anyway.. just have a remote server that responds to incoming searches with a couple of crap files. Get enough of them doing it, and the S/N ratio will get so screwed people will stop using it.)
Maeryk
Right on (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in 1997 and 1998, the industry had the chance to develop online music services, he says. It saw what was coming. Which is true: at that time, the major labels were paralyzed by fear of online music and were downsizing accordingly, but refused to alter their business models, or extend into new areas.
"Once Napster came along," says Warne, "people got used to getting stuff for free. They've introduced Emusic but people just ask 'why isn't it free?' If they'd introduced it in 1998, they wouldn't have this problem,' he thinks.
technology can beat this.... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's so much easier ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:5, Interesting)
A quote from a Honest Artist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually prefer listening to those versions now over the stock ones.
Re:Yeah (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is true that they did not lose a sale. However, how can you say that it is not theft?
Let me put this a different way.
Re:EULA? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:3, Interesting)
Now what about those of us that do actually own a valid copy of a song?
I have a large collection of LPs (remeber those? the large, circular vinyl disks with the small hole in the middle?). I take loving care of my albums, buy the best stylus I can and clean them when needed. I used to record onto cassette so I could listen to my albums in my car (perfectly leagal time shifting-- if I am driving in my car, no one is back at home listening to my albums).
Now, I have a car with a CD player, but no cassette. I want to listen to my albums, but I don't want to pay for them all over again when I already own a legal copy. So, I can try and get the output from my turntable to my computer (not easy!) or I can check out a P2P network and download copies of those songs I already leagally own.
Why should the RIAA have any problem with that?
I've done this for the Labels too... (Score:2, Interesting)
At the same time, I wrote an influential paper for the NY chapter of NARAS disputing all of the RIAA's claims (much of the support used in the paper came from articles posted on
A part of that paper said this:
Record labels are confused and contradictory. They use mp3s in private while they deride it in public. If they're promoting a new band, they'll post the band's songs on p2p networks (often in a covert manner) with the hopes that they'll be traded and talked about in chat rooms. If it's an established act with a history of sales, they'll "spoof" the p2p networks with fake files. It's just another way of using mp3s, albeit in a subversive and anti-customer way, which is par for the course.
Re:They have a right, in a way (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a CD and find I'm totally unable to rip it, I can and will go searching for the tracks on p2p. If/when every "CD" that comes out (including from the smaller dance music labels I like) is similarly mangled, a few people will manage to rip it (carefully via analogue, or whatever) and the music will still proliferate over p2p.
If, in order to get the music I've paid for into a format I regard as usable (mp3s or oggs) I have to go get them off p2p networks then I've gained no *actual* value from the purchase of the "CD".
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Idiots... (Score:3, Interesting)
Moderation System (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing wrong with it (Score:3, Interesting)
I love(d) Norah Jones' Music... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just block 'em at the firewall. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A quote from a Honest Artist (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, he is not just and entertainent vehicle pre-packaged and massaged into a marketable commodity for the sole purpose of making money for his distribution company and himself.
Mr. Rollins speaks and sings about issues and discussable social phenomena, rather than "Boys", or "Thongs" or "My Beotches" or that he's "back" or whatever mindless pop icon crap you can insert.
Since he feels intensely about what he produces, he wants others to be exposed to it. In other words, we can deduce from his saying this that he has a statement to make, and that acquisition of money for his art is secondary to the main goal of spreading his message.
Now he probably also knows tht people who listen and respond to the things that he says will eventually contribute monetarily to his career, but that again does not seem like his primary motivation.
Interesting to note that most of the artists making music have no message to put out (other than the ones that their producers spoon feed to them to regurgutate upon the public), no goal other than monetary gain and fame. It it is even more interesting to note the lengths that they go to to sell their wares: ie marketing a lifestyle idea of sexual promiscuity to children (Brittney Spears and her kin), glorifying degenerate or violent activity, aggrandizing money, and superficiality in human relationships.
Not to mention the things that these artists do to their public image at the behest of their producers and marketers; all in the quest to guarantee them market share.
In from this we can deduce that they are most likely motivated exclusively by money and fame and that they will sacrifice themselves, their morals, and the public's sensibilities to achieve their goals. They have no message other than the one that has been handed to them by the market research team, and have nothing interesting or constructive (or CREATIVELY destructive) to say about society, other than from a detached sociologial phenomena perspective which none of their regular listeners will ever have.
From this I would call Mr. Rollins a TRUE artist, rather than honest artist. Even though he may be honest, I don't think this goes far enough. All the rappers who talk about the fact that all they want is money and ho's are honest enough, but they lack the motivation that Mr. Rollins has to convey a message of importance (at least to him).
Now I am not saying that entertainment for entertainment's sake is not a good thing. I even admit to listening to pop radio and liking some of the music, I even like to watch Brittney Spears videos kuz she's REALLY hot and her marketing guys told her to show as much skin as possible, and I thank them for this. However, I don't think that the exclusive motivation of artists should be money and fame.
Kind of a stuck up position on my part, but we all see the results when it is and I think we can agree that it results in krappy music.