Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media The Internet

The Chumbawamba Factor 239

Posted by Hemos
from the marketing-to-the-masses dept.
putko writes "Chris Dahlen has written about BigChampagne, a company that looks at peer-to-peer downloading to provide marketing data to record companies. By analyzing what folks are downloading, when and where, BigChampagne can tell the record companies what people like, what other records they like and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars. As mentioned in the article, record companies started using this information (secretly) even as they were trying to stop filesharing via the courts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Chumbawamba Factor

Comments Filter:
  • by Willeh (768540) * <rwillem@xs4all.nl> on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:52AM (#13595848)
    I'd comment, but i have to download some Wesley Willis. Did you hear that, BigChampagne people? WESLEY WILLIS. http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php?b and=wesleywillis [alternativetentacles.com]

    Oh yeah, down with the RIAA!! How dare they profit from something illegal! Rock on Chicago, Rock on London, Rock over RIAA.

    • by mmkkbb (816035) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:56AM (#13595891) Homepage Journal
      "Rock on Chicago, Rock on London, Rock over RIAA."

      Shouldn't that be "RIAA sucks a llama's nuts"?
    • He kicked Spiderman's ass 'cause his keyboard got damage... or something.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      RIAA got on my nerves
      They were running me amock
      They ridiculed me calling me a bum
      I whooped RIAA's ass

      RIAA thought they were bad
      They were fucking assholes in the first place
      They got knocked to the floor
      I whooped RIAA's ass

      RIAA beat the hell outta me and knocked me to the floor
      I got back up and knocked them to the floor
      They were being such a jackoff
      I whooped RIAA's ass

      Rock over London
      Rock on Chicago
      Wheaties, the breakfast of champions
  • Legal Action (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Krast0r (843081) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:53AM (#13595856) Homepage Journal
    "..and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars" i.e. information critical to prosecuting as many people as possible. Who here really believes that they will stop at monitering the tracks downloaded?
    • Re:Legal Action (Score:3, Informative)

      by mmkkbb (816035)
      Right. If they were really interested in what people were listening to, they'd invest more time in AudioScrobbler.
    • I read "..and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars" as information critical to pushing out the next Britney Spears album...
  • by Alex P Keaton in da (882660) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:53AM (#13595859) Homepage
    Well, I guess we get knocked down, but we get up again! They ain't never ever ever gonaa win!
    • by kilodelta (843627)
      Indeed, Pandora's Box has been opened and there's no changing it.

      But they'll keep trying to defend a dying distribution mechanism until they ultimately succumb because they were distributing crap.

      Here's what I don't get. The overhead costs associated with net distribution are much less than CD media distribution. This is why I don't understand the pricing scheme for things like iTunes and Yahoo Music. True track cost should be ten to twenty cents, not seventy-nine cents or ninety-nine cents.

      Then th
      • by dmaxwell (43234)
        The record publishers still get to ding artists for things like "breakage". In the early days, you could reliably count on about 9% of the stock being broken in shipping. Recording company contracts charged the artists that fee. As shipping methods grew more reliable, the artists continued to be charged for "breakage". When vinyl was replaced by CDs which are hardly ever damaged in shipment, yep you guessed it! The artists still get dinged.

        Physical distribution systems offer the labels a million ways t
      • by tbone1 (309237) on Monday September 19, 2005 @01:49PM (#13597264) Homepage
        who is going to pay thousands of dollars to fill their iPod. Nobody, that's who.

        I didn't. I filled it up with MP3s/AACs ripped from my legally-purchased CDs, with a smattering that I've purchased from iTMS.

      • by shmlco (594907)
        So many assumptions in one place...

        1) So, if they're distributing crap, then why are you filling up your iPod with it?

        2) You only think you know the costs. Somebody is maintaining a large and expensive web site. Somebody is maintaining a bank of servers. Somebody is paying for bandwidth. Somebody is paying the credit card company 20-30 cents per transaction. Somebody is paying for the music. And Apple and the record companies and the artists are all (god forbid) making a profit.

        3) Most of the content

  • Textbook example (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:54AM (#13595865)
    A classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do", methinks.
    • by goldspider (445116) <ardrake79NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:04AM (#13595963) Homepage
      It's more like "making the best of a bad situation".
      • by Iriel (810009) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:31AM (#13596195) Homepage
        The only problem with that idea is that it makes another point for the RIAA to look hypocritical. The record companies KNOW that a good number of P2P downloaders buy CDs from artists they download (I'm not saying everyone does to defend them, so don't flame me for all the actual media pirates). I just think that our lawsuit craven culture supports more excuses to sue little Cindy-Loo-Hoo out of her lunch money.

        If the RIAA was really serious about getting rid of all p2p, they wouldn't have ANY part in it. You can't fight to abolish something while getting kickbacks on it (at least not ethically, but that doesn't seem to stop too many people lately).</toungeincheeck>
  • Music servers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rawwa.venoise (881755)
    Do they contribute with some of the music servers?
    And do they download music in order to generate traffic?
    And then they sell it as vital information to understand the market.

    Do they erase the downloaded songs after? I wouldn't mind working there i guess ...
    • If they're the copyright holders or working on behalf of they copyright holders they don't need to
      • oh no ... you bought into the BS The record co is not the copyright holder usually. They're just a licensee ... check a copyright notice on a CD. Says something like "Copyright 2005 Band Name here. Published by very big music corporation".
        • Re:Music servers (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Drakonite (523948) on Monday September 19, 2005 @12:10PM (#13596528) Homepage
          oh no ... you bought into the BS The record co is not the copyright holder usually. They're just a licensee ... check a copyright notice on a CD. Says something like "Copyright 2005 Band Name here. Published by very big music corporation".

          Funny thing... You are wrong. I decided to be nice and take you up on your challenge, and every CD I checked was marked as copyrights being owned by the record label. Though on a few it wasn't easy to find.

          Of course, if you've paid any attention to the bitching artists have been doing for years over how the labels treat their music you wouldn't have these dilusions that most signed bands still own the copyrights to their music, because it simply isn't so.

          • Maybe I just buy music from bands who won't sell their copyrights then.

            Although ... if the labels had bought the copyrights ... why did they try to get congress to assign them ownership of the rights a few years ago.
          • They could be mislabeling too ... during the napster case, there was a lot of talk about misrepresentation of copyrights because the labels claimed ownership of works that they'd licensed. Some bands even went as far as to demand that labels allow their music to be downloaded on napster because as artists they had not granted online distribution rights to the labels and therefore retained that right themselves.
  • by wlvdc (842653) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:55AM (#13595882) Homepage Journal
    Both users and providers get what they want, illegally.
    • For this to be really effective RIAA just needs to take the next step, which I hear they are working on, and Clearchannelize P2P.

      - Filter out all the innovative, creative interesting tracks leaving only Britaany, Celine and the boy band of the month

      - Create some sort of graft system to reward file sharers who only share the crap they want to make people listen to, you know free tennis shoes if you fill your sight with nothing but Jessica Simpson

      - Monopolize the P2P airwaves by monopolizing all the servers a
      • "Create some sort of graft system to reward file sharers who only share the crap they want to make people listen to, you know free tennis shoes if you fill your sight with nothing but Jessica Simpson "

        I have no problem filling my sight with Jessica Simpson... it's my hearing that doesn't like her.

        I'm surprised that recording industry doesn't pay people to promote 'illegal' filesharing of new albums... oh wait. They have. Through third parties, so they could claim ignorance.
  • Eat Your Cake (Score:5, Informative)

    by mfh (56) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:56AM (#13595885) Journal
    First off, for those of you who have no idea, or only a vague memory; "Chumbawamba [wikipedia.org] are a band from the UK who use their music to promote anarchist ideas."

    So the RIAA et al are trying to put an end to P2P, while hypocritically using P2P stats to know what's hot; they have crossed the threshold from tyranny into absurdity. What judge, knowing this, will still side with the RIAA in the future? Does this not set a precedent that the RIAA sees value in P2P?

    The RIAA is reacting to a market change; P2P. They are learning that P2P has value to them, perhaps more value than loss, in that they can get a real consensus on what people want. Furthermore, the RIAA can no longer deem P2P as an immoral behaviour that corrupts society, because the fruit from the tree has poisoned their self-professed purity.
    • I oughta sue the RIAA for tracking what songs I'm sharing (my playlists are my intellectual property you know) and using that info as part of their business plan.

      They owe me. But I'll consider the debt paid after my next several downloads.
    • Re:Eat Your Cake (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:26AM (#13596154) Homepage
      So the RIAA et al are trying to put an end to P2P, while hypocritically using P2P stats to know what's hot; they have crossed the threshold from tyranny into absurdity. What judge, knowing this, will still side with the RIAA in the future? Does this not set a precedent that the RIAA sees value in P2P?

      Because they are gaining stats in something that's not acceptable in the United States? Would a judge not side with the police getting stats on drug users to see where they congregate and what kinds of drugs they prefer?

      It's the same thing to them.

      To us, yes, it's shady and yet another reason you shouldn't support them or the music they promote.

      P2P as an immoral behaviour that corrupts society, because the fruit from the tree has poisoned their self-professed purity.

      They can claim whatever the fuck they want to claim as long as no one stops them. Unfortuantely no one will stop them because they have started to win the publics' (and the courts') opinion that this is "wrong".

      Sad but true. Listen to free music by bands that don't need the RIAA.
      • Re:Eat Your Cake (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Andorion (526481) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:38AM (#13596252)
        Would a judge not side with the police getting stats on drug users to see where they congregate and what kinds of drugs they prefer?

        The RIAA is the one selling, so I guess they're the drug dealers with the bought police in your analogy?
      • Because they are gaining stats in something that's not acceptable in the United States? Would a judge not side with the police getting stats on drug users to see where they congregate and what kinds of drugs they prefer?

        Your analogy is flawed.
        The police and RIAA both have different profit incentives.
        The RIAA is charged by record labels to not only enforce copyrights but also get info about music, as well as help distribute said music.
        Police are essentially a protective force that is charted by citizens thro
      • Would a judge not side with the police getting stats on drug users to see where they congregate and what kinds of drugs they prefer?
        The ironic part about what you said is that the police would be collecting statistics on how to better deter drug use, while the RIAA is collecting statistics on how to better provide the very thing they are complaining people are getting illegally.
    • You can use a technology even if don't like it. They're trying to ban the P2P stuff, but until then why not collect marketing data from it. Sheesh, these two activities are probably handled by different parts of the organization. If you think any use of P2P (even looking at usage stats) is an endorsement of the technology, then you should also support the RIAA on most of their claims - i.e. that technology xyz is infringing copyrights. Or that since some guy in BFE would have bought a song if it weren't ava
    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:40AM (#13596272)
      Chumbawamba are a band from the UK

      Thank you. I thought it was the sound Ewoks make.
      You explanation makes more sense.

    • So cops shouldn't use the number of bank robberies in an area to judge how many police should patrol the area? I mean they are useing illigal activity to plan their stratigy? Come on, that aguement has no merit what so ever.

      • the cops' goal in that case would be to prevent further crime.

        the RIAA is using the fruits of a network system they aim to destroy to profit themselves.

        this is akin to the police using the money stolen from those banks to increase their annual budget.
        • You mean like how the money for speeding tickets goes directly into police department funds, and how the property siezed in drug raids is auctioned off, with the funds going to police funds?
    • Re:Eat Your Cake (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dR.fuZZo (187666)

      First off, for those of you who have no idea, or only a vague memory; "Chumbawamba are a band from the UK who use their music to promote anarchist ideas."

      And, for those of you who are interested in why Chumbawamba might actually be mentioned when it comes to P2P music downloading: Chumbawamba were a one hit wonder. Their one song came out, people ran out and bought the album, and then got pissed off that they spent so much money on one song they liked and a bunch of crap they didn't. When people have

      • I dunno... At first, I just knew of their one song, but I kinda got to liking Jacob's Ladder [onlinehome.us] (v.2 [onlinehome.us]) recently, so I wonder if I'd like some of their other stuff.

        Even if you don't care much for anarchist politics, an anarchist-leaning band seems a lot more likely to give away free music and support p2p. ;)
      • by evilandi (2800) <andrew@aoakley.com> on Monday September 19, 2005 @12:33PM (#13596741) Homepage
        "Chumbawamba were a one hit wonder"

        How very dare you! I spent many a happy evening as an indie student dancing to "Timebomb", "Enough Is Enough" and "Homophobia".

        Seriously though, whilst they may be in the one-hit-wonder category in the USA, in the UK they had a string of indie-chart (roughly synonymous with the US "Alternative Chart") hits in the early 90's (throughout which I remained a member of the Young Conservatives, so obviously their political aims were significantly less effective than their indie-chart abilities). I would have thought that all of their releases from about 1991-1995 would have been in the UK Indie Top 20.
  • by Walkiry (698192) on Monday September 19, 2005 @10:59AM (#13595921) Homepage
    Lots of crap music that sounds mostly the same keeps being marketed by the suits. One of the most heard phrases when it comes to justify downloading copyrighted music off the net: "I just download the crap that's not worth paying for."

    Hmmmmm...
  • Charts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WebfishUK (249858) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:00AM (#13595926)
    Does this mean that at last we can get charts which really reflect what people are listening to?
    • Re:Charts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by screevo (701820) <screevoNO@SPAMscreevo.com> on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:03AM (#13595956) Homepage Journal
      I think the sad fact that you are missing is, the Billboard charts do accurately reflect what people are listening to.

      Let us weep together for youth.
      • replace "are" with "want to" then. Just because they are spoon feed crap doesn't mean they want crap.
      • http://www.last.fm/charts/ [www.last.fm]

        There's some crossover there, (e.g. Green Day) but no Mariah Carey.

        The poster of the previous comment above mentions Audioscrobbler, and this reply was really prompted by that.

        If you're not familiar with either - Audioscrobbler works out links between different artists based on what people play (via music player plugins) and last.fm is an online radio station that uses that information.

        As an example:
        http://www.last.fm/explore/?artistname=chumbawamba [www.last.fm]
      • ...the Billboard charts do accurately reflect what people are listening to.

        Replace "listening to" with "buying" and you have it right. People might want to hear an older song on the radio instead of newer junque, but if they've allready bought the CD, it's not going to stay on the charts and it's not going to get much airplay.

      • I'm guess from his nickname, that he (she) may be from the UK... The UK charts are not as "accurate" as the US charts. Their charts for the most part are like the US charts pre-Soundscan - which means pay-offs can push a record falsely up the chart.
      • At best, it's only about what a plurality of people are listenin to. Like the old Onion article said, "Majority of Americans Out of Touch with Mainsteam America."
  • by eno2001 (527078) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:03AM (#13595958) Homepage Journal
    ...I was never a big fan of "Tubthumping". Look at one of my latest posts (Sunday night) in a friend's JE about the worst music evar.

    I'll also say, why in the hell is the music business so fired up to make nothing but hit records instead of providing people with access to music with artistic integrity? Yeah, they should make money, there's no doubt about that. They are, after all a businesses and they exist to make money. But, don't they also exist to give artists a voice? Whatever happened to that part of the equation? When did they discard the idea that popular music can also be truly artistic expressions of a musician's mind, body and soul? I don't even have a problem with there being people who make million dollar incomes when they do nothing more than pencil pushing in the whole cycle of musicial distribution. But, the musicians who actually create the stuff should be making at least as much as they do because without the artist, the business is nothing.
    • Today's music industry would never have given Hendrix, The Dead or most the popular artists of the 60's and 70's.
      • by FLEB (312391)
        That's consolidated radio for ya'.

        Centralized playlists mean there is no competition between radio stations any more. Take away even the role of the DJ as more than a programmed talking head, and there's no chance for anything else to get sent down the pipes.

        Radio always was, and still is, the way most music gets sent out to most people, it's just that the landscape of radio has changed.
    • by GecKo213 (890491) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:18AM (#13596092) Homepage
      why in the hell is the music business so fired up to make nothing but hit records instead of providing people with access to music with artistic integrity?

      You happen to have answerd part of your own question. They are, after all a businesses and they exist to make money.

      Regarding artist integrity. When was the last time you heard an artist really singing about artistic impression and look at the lyrics of any popular song and hear or feel any of that? The new hip-hop artist of the day for example. All they sing/rap about is how many Hoes they can or have slept with and how much money or "bling" they have. Most of the music out there is about the same things. Why? Because that's the kind of music people are interested in.

      musicians who actually create the stuff should be making at least as much as they do because without the artist, the business is nothing.

      Have you seen how many of the artists out there write their own songs? Not too many. Artists are the expendable part of the business. You've got song writters and producers that are doing all the behind the scenes work. The artist themselves are just the pretty face that has to go on tour and loose their "private life" to people like the you and me that want to know everything about them. I'd like you to find a songwritter (mostly nameless and faceless to the general public) who has done songs with popular artists that donesn't have any money. If Brittney Spears decided never to return to music, they'd just find another pretty face to sing all the same songs.


      Ahh, my rant is now over. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
    • They are a corporation and therefore charged with the sole mandate to make money for their stockholders.

      Do not blame them for this, it is reason that they exist. What you're doing is getting upset at a shark for eating fish.

      As for why they choose to artificially create popularity, rather than letting it flow naturally from the talents of the artist, the answer is simply that it's more efficient for them to do so. Betting on artist talent is a huge gamble, and that was how the business used to behave.

      By ob
  • by GecKo213 (890491) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:05AM (#13595973) Homepage

    Sounds like something I heard someone on TV last night say. There is a group of roomates that live in a rather large house. One guy and a girl really like each other. She's fallen for him completely and he "wants his cake and wants to eat it too." Explaination, he wants this girl as his backup in case he can't find another girl to bring home from the bars or whatever.

    With the RIAA using filesharing while trying to shut it down seems a bit odd to me. Recording artists for example are being "ripped off" by downloaders. Right? Well, the very same companies that are supposedly trying to stop the illegal downloading of music are using that data as a way to market or create new media.

    Something else I'd always wondered about is why pirating Adobe producs was so easy. I'm using the GIMP now, but back in the day all you had to do was download and get a key-gen and Boom! You're in business. I almost wonder if Abode looked the other way in order for people to get used to using their product so that later or in a business type arena, the artist/developer would request that the company chose Adobe's products. I've got to get back to work.

    • by Txiasaeia (581598) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:19AM (#13596099)
      Sounds like something I heard someone on TV last night say. There is a group of roomates that live in a rather large house. One guy and a girl really like each other. She's fallen for him completely and he "wants his cake and wants to eat it too." Explaination, he wants this girl as his backup in case he can't find another girl to bring home from the bars or whatever.

      Believe it or not, we do know what that particular cliche means; the long-winded explanation using some TV program wasn't necessary. In fact, that particular proverb was recorded in 1546 by John Heywood.

      You can tell that our culture is dying because historical phrases that everybody used to know are now seen as original and brilliant bits of television writing. Sigh.

      • You can tell the culture isn't dying because people have been saying stuff like that since the dawn of history.

        To quote The Mikado:
        "Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone,
        All centuries but this and every country but his own." ...face it, ignorance has always abounded. There's always been some kid who discovers something for the first time.

        It proves that the proverb in question is a powerful one, no?

        m-
  • Market Data (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mysqlrocks (783488)

    On top of tracking who swaps what from what location, BigChampagne also searches the libraries of everyone who's online.

    So it looks like whether you're paying for it or getting it for free somebody is using this data for their profit. This is why I don't, for example, use those supermarket discount cards. The data they collect from me is more valuable to them then the money I save.
  • by aussie_a (778472) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:07AM (#13595995) Journal
    I'm sorry, but either the RIAA should stop actively profitting from p2p or they shouldn't be allowed to put people through courts and pressure their congressmen into creating laws to outlaw it.

    The fact that they can profit from p2p while hassle their customers, to me, seems to be a perversion of the law and shouldn't be allowed.
  • Heh (Score:4, Funny)

    by Otter (3800) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:10AM (#13596029) Journal
    At one meeting, a famous producer turned down an urgent call from one of his biggest stars so that he and Garland could keep talking about computers. "He turns to me and says, 'Hey, kid, when was the last time somebody told you you were more interesting than Axl Rose?'"

    Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but in 2000 I was more interesting than Axl Rose!

    At any rate, I'm at a loss to understand what today's round of fake-ass outrage is about. Record labels tried to shut down illegal filesharing but also tried to get what value they could out of the data. That's wrong why, exactly? This is even lamer than yesterday's fake-ass outrage over "OMTFG, they're suing single mothers!!!"

    • I liked what Dennis Miller said about Axl Rose. "He still has a great singing voice. I hear him every wednesday skimming out my pool."
  • If the RIAA is profiting from P2P, doesn't that threaten their lawsuits against file sharers?
    • It might if any of them ever got to trial. SOP has been to threaten the parents of the teenager accused of downloading with a six-figure fine if it *does* go to court, settle for a mere $3-4 thousand, then show them off as PR against downloading in general. Lather, rinse, repeat. The cases like the 70-ish grandma get dropped ASAP to avoid bad press.

      That's why this single-mom case where she's calling their bluff and insisting on a trial is interesting. If they can't prove their case to the judge, their t
  • wrong correlation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by airuck (300354) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:15AM (#13596061)
    Wouldn't this market analysis reveal which music people are willing to pirate rather than purchase?
    • Wouldn't this market analysis reveal which music people are willing to pirate rather than purchase?

      Yes, but this is raw data. Essentially the cost of all of the music is the same, so the only variable is the user's desire to download the particular artist, album, or track.

      High downloads indicates something regarding the tracks, and low downloads should speak volumes :)
    • No. It will just cause a recurring cycle: Currently they stock stores with nothing but rap and hip-hop. This study will show that downloaders are looking for *ANYTHING* else to listen to, so they'll just stock less rap and more music. Of course then it will be the hip-hop kiddies that are downloading everything and things will shift back the other way again. The basic problem is that a business has to focus on where it sees the most profit and can't please everyone - right now they are only focusing on
  • Chumbawamba (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joebutton (788717) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:18AM (#13596090)
    In case people get the wrong idea from the article, Tubthumping is *not* the only good record Chumbawamba have made, and it's not even very different stylistically from some of their other stuff.

    In particular my I recommend "Give the Anarchist a Cigarette", "When I'm Bad" and "This Girl".

    Also a great live act.
  • by gozu (541069) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:20AM (#13596105) Journal
    I'm pretty sure I got this link from slashdot:

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/fileshare .html [wired.com]
  • Same with Anime (Score:3, Informative)

    by dogolopee (886299) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:24AM (#13596141)
    The companies that licence anime in america do roughly the same thing. They watch the fan sub community for what is popular, then licence it and sell it.
  • You fools! (Score:2, Funny)

    by msormune (808119)
    P2P software are clearly a clever way for RIAA to get people to listen more music, because it's "cool" to stick it to them! In the meantime the RIAA has a perfect tool to spy on people's musical tastes! In order to really hit them where it hurts, you MUST immediately stop all P2P activity and continue to purchase your music legally, thus ending this mind probing!
  • by ayjay29 (144994) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:27AM (#13596164)
    The Chumbawamba Factor...

    He gets a Manics song
    He gets an Elvis song
    He gets a Roses song
    He gets a Beetles song
    He rips the songs that remind him
    Of the good times
    He rips the songs that remind him
    Of the better times:

    Ripping the night away
    Ripping the night away

    I get DCed
    I get on line again
    You aint ever gonna keep me down

    I get a trojen
    I get installed again
    You aint ever gonna gonna keep me down

    I get Metalica threats
    But I get wise again
    You aint ever gonna keep me down

    I get RIAA email
    I get IP Spoofing again
    You aint ever gonna keep me down

    'Don't cry for me
    RIAA...'
  • ...BigChampagne, a company that looks at peer-to-peer downloading to provide marketing data to record companies...As mentioned in the article, record companies started using this information (secretly) even as they were trying to stop filesharing via the courts."

    Sounds like Big Champagne is working with someone intent on putting them out of business. After all, no P2P = no Big Champagne.

  • The Drink (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nf1nk (443791) <nf1nk@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:31AM (#13596197) Homepage
    Remeber folks before it was band Chumbawamba was a drink..
    it is a cider drink..
    it is lager drink..
    it is a whisky drink...

    6oz hard cider
    6oz lager beer
    1oz whisky
    mix in a pint glass, with no ice.
    It tastes better than it sounds
  • I don't know about everyone else here, but as an artist I don't create a work based on what other people want. Art is a personal expression and a desire to bring your dreams to life. If others like your art then so be it, otherwise art is being used as a drug to only make the viewer feel good. This has the effect of developing a habit, which is exactly what the music companies want.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:36AM (#13596241)
    Think about it. Do P2P downloads indicate what's hot (and what is to be spoofed next)? Or does it just indicate music people won't pay for otherwise?
  • You can clearly see that BigChampagne is only looking from a mainstream perspective. From their limited point of view, Chumbawamba is a "one-time punk band".

    Reality is far different-- Chumbawamba is one of the most successful punk bands in existance. They've been around for 25 years, released 20 albums & EPs, individual members released another 20 or more and have one of the largest followings of any non-mainstream bands. Their styles range from English Rebel Songs from 1381 to their modern pop-punk hits.

    BigChampagne makes the same mistake as the big record companies-- they only look at the most popular bands, and are completely ignorant about the success of smaller bands and smaller labels.

    The small band segment of the music industry is growing, and the mainstream music industry seems to be shrinking -- they keep complaining about reduced sales every year.

    They are a dinosaur.
  • by HavokDevNull (99801) <eric@linuxsysteTWAINms.net minus author> on Monday September 19, 2005 @11:58AM (#13596433) Homepage Journal
    ahhhhg this just proves I'm sick in the head, by remembering this crap from 2 years ago!!!

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/10/154122 2&tid=141&tid=187&tid=98 [slashdot.org]
  • So am I to infer that someone is "pissing the night away"? I keed, I keed. I don't need any explanation of who they are either...
  • Record companies should be in the business of selling music. They already have all the data they need about what music sells well. The only reason they have to be interested in P2P stats is to see what music is traded (persumably illegally). Thus, they can now make the music that gets stolen & be in the business of lawsuits.
  • This would be like ADT using neighborhood crime statistics to help market home security systems.

    No wait, there's nothing wrong with that. You can use the crime statistics and still be against crime.

    So why are we outraged by this?

    • No, as has been pointed out earlier (drug dealer analogy, I think) This only holds if ADT is in the business of robbing homes as a corporate endeavor.

      There is no good analogy. The key here is that the P2P "market" is one where the cost of an item is zero, and therefore the demand is unfettered by the need to exchange money. There is no (effective) limit on how many P2P transfers (sales) occur.

      This allows them to determine the raw desire for an artist/genre/title in the absense of financial restrictions. I
  • the next new sensational pop band is called "Britney Nude Celeb Lesbian Sex.mp3.avi.mpg"

  • If BigChampagne's is so rock-solid, why aren't the labels rushing to get b-sides, unreleased covers, bootlegs, and out-of-print back catalog material up on iTunes and other commercial services? For me, that was the greatest thing about the Napster of old...material that wasn't commercially available for one reason or another. There's a goldmine to be had on that stuff and even Steve Jobs has mentioned how much material the labels are sitting on and haven't done anything with yet complain about declining sales and blaming piracy for their woes.

  • Record sales are up, profits are way up, costs are down, due to reduced numbers of artists, and slashed budgets for artist development. P2P tools offer unmatched statistics for targeting songs and artists with marketing dollars. For the record companies, what's not to like? Well, they had already lost their monopoly on recording studios and on album duplication. P2P tools mean that they no longer have a monopoly on distribution. As soon as a few more major label artists figure that part out, record compa
    • The record companies have become even more the hit-centered PR factory than before. Their focus has become the quick hit vs. cultivating an act over time. They claim to be selling music while the focus is selling discs in little square boxes. Then when they see their market contract because of lousy acts and a lousy economy reducing disposable income, they point at "those meddlesome kids and their downloading" and ignore the data that tells them to update their business model.

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier

Working...