Biggest Anti-piracy plots foiled via BitTorrent
 

http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefende...leaked-070915/

MediaDefender, an anti-piracy company working for the MPAA and RIAA, as well as other companies, had plans to trap people in various fake torrent 'honeypot' sites. This has been foiled by a massive email leak (now available on bittorrent) containing information about all of their plans.

I don't condone piracy and don't engage in it, but having just read a blog article about it, all I can say is "serves 'em right". Time for them to retrench and smell the roses. It really is time for a new business model or they're dead in the water.

The MPAA and RIAA have their collective heads in the sand. I do not say this to condone or encourage piracy, but only to point out what many before me have observed. When they cry foul against piracy, they completely disregard the fact that their pricing schemes directly influence piracy. They try to claim that every copyright infringement represents lost revenue, when in fact numerous studies show that the pirates weren't going to buy the song or movie anyway - because they weren't willing to pay the price.

There will always be some piracy, as there are always going to be people who just want to get it for free. However, most of people have a threshold below which they are happy to pay for what they feel is a fair product in return for their money. The MPAA and RIAA have got to realize that they are way above the average person's threshold right now, and need to come down in price or come up in quality, otherwise they will continue to lose ground in the battle against piracy.

So while I also am against piracy itself, I second NovaScotian's opinion that it "severs 'em right" and that it is time for a new business model. And for the sake of us honest consumers, I hope piracy drives that point home sooner rather than later.

wdympcf's point reminds me of a simple example. Lots of people will break a law that they regard as unreasonable. Perhaps the most benign example is this: It's illegal to drive through a red light. But if you encounter a traffic light that seems to be stuck on red, then after a reasonable wait with a clear path, you go through it. Similarly, in many places it's illegal to make a U-turn. But if you encounter an accident that completely stops traffic in both directions, you'll do it every time to escape. When laws are widely believed to be unreasonable or irrational by a sufficiently large chunk of the general population, a large fraction of them will become "scofflaws". Think marijuana, for example. I think that's what's happened here.

I probably shouldn't say this, but I use P2P and BT a lot for my media. Why?

The music labels' bigotry. They think they can rape the common consumer, encumber our music with DRM (Sony's rootkits, anyone?), charge astronomical prices for music, and in general be whiny little gits.

I don't give my money mainly to Universal. I have no problem paying for a small-time record label, but the big ones? (Save for EMI, they get it) Greedy suckers don't get a dime of my cash.

Anti- As much as I love a bit of "raging against the machine", keep in mind that it's not just the corporate wigs you are screwing over, in fact, I doubt big wigs and superstars even care. It's all the small time bands and small time studios that get hurt in this situation. Most music "techies" make little money for a hobby they love, and trust me, they are the first ones cut when revenues fall...

That being said, I agree that most music labels have their heads either in the sand, or up their...yeah. I think they need to figure out a way to make free music profitable before they get beaten up by the current trend to just steal it. TV did it for years, why can't music do it as well (yeah I know, it's a matter of control, but surely something can be done.)

I just wish the artists would realize that they don't need the labels any longer. They could distribute their music themselves, at a much lower price, and still make more money than they do from the major labels.

When it comes to music piracy, I feel bad for many artists, but not for the major labels.


I wonder: Would Eric Clapton still be playing the guitar today had he never made a penny from his music?

The singer Robbie Williams, when asked about people ilegally downloading his tracks, horrified his label and the RIAA by saying something along the lines of: "I am so ####### rich that I really don't care". MTV a few years ago.

I saw a report by the (completely impartial.....) BSA that 98% of the SW here in Thailand is pirated.

A conservative estimate IMHO.:rolleyes:

Hmmm..... I think I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Big labels have a lot of capitol to throw around, and that means two major things for any band trying to make it big. Advertising and tours. Both of those are very hard for a small band to do on their own, and are vital for anyone who wants to do more than weekend gigs.

Major labels help small bands to book venues (major or minor), advertise, both locally and nationally, give them access to a good sound studio and give the band the 'x' factor: connections. All of these are things that a good producer/label give to a small band. How could you turn that down?

In many ways this is a very good thing, some people have just gotten very greedy along the way. Example, trying to make any money off of live shows these days is very hard because of the large chunk the venue takes from your revenue. Unless you have a good label behind you, it's hard to find the right places (and be able to negotiate the right deals). This is a positive, and while it doesn't excuse the current stupidity with DRMs, it should be recognized that labels have a very important place in the music industry.

Of course, one might argue, if the major labels fall apart...maybe things will be shaken up enough that you can actually make a living doing local shows. You know, because people will be interested in local music? But I ramble...wistful thinking is the best kind...

It's funny that you say that, because I have heard the exact opposite. I have heard that the amount of money that the artist makes on album sales pales in comparison to the amount of money they make on tours.

I remember reading a few/several months ago about a band selling out a major venue in a large city (NYC, I think) in under an hour, without having ever been signed to a label. They gained their popularity solely through the internet and word of mouth. Once upon a time, labels were necessary for a bands success, but those days, while maybe not completely gone, are fast approaching past tense.

I haven't tuned into air radio for 2-3 years for new music. The internet is a better way to find new artists and new music. That's why the RAII eanted to put internet radio stations under by charging such high usage fees, while air stations get to play the same music for free (and are often paid by the labels to play what the labels want you to hear). The labels know that they cannot do for artists what the internet can do. I can find more new music on MySpace in 10-15 minutes than I can find out about from listening to the radio for 2-3 days. And that's just a single social networking site.

"Some band", come on J. Christopher, I know you're better at research than that.

I don't disagree, in principle, but I still think that at this moment in time it is very advantageous to have a producer/tour manager and a label to back you up. I think your one case might be a fluke, honestly.

But, I'd love to be proven wrong. So if you can, do it ;).

Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, that little bit of info came from televised news, which is much harder for me to track down again. Nonetheless, I remember the story but not the bands name.

I don't believe it was The Arctic Monkeys, although theirs is a similar story. Enter Shikari is another DIY success story, but I don't believe they were the subject of the elusive story, either. Actually, while looking, I've found that a number of independent bands have made a success of themselves without a major label backing them. Arcade Fire is another example. These bands are achieving Madonna like superstardom, but then, neither are ~99.9 percent of the bands signed to major labels.

The major labels used to be a necessary part of most any band's success. That is not the case today. The labels certainly aren't impotent yet, but they are becoming less relevant all the time. Even as they pay air radio stations to play the music they want consumers to hear, DIY bands and those from tiny, independent labels are making headway in the industry. I don't think that trend is going to change. The internet has changed the rules.

Let's assume, for the nonce, that the "Big Four" are not going to learn any lessons -- doesn't seem a stretch does it? I predict that eventually, some entrepreneur will see the opportunity, scour the unsigned and aspiring new artists for clients, and base their entire business model on promoting those artists, selling their tunes over the internet, and playing their tunes via internet radio -- In other words, doing what the big studios do for artists, but entirely on the net in a way that makes the whole thing into a social network of recommended tunes, discussions, communities of fellow travelers, commentary, fan participation, etc. It astonishes me that this isn't happening already.

As much as i dont care if people use bit torrent or p2p (come on everyone uses limewire) I can accept that movies on bt is illegal, but what about tv shows. As far as i see it all they are doing is recording the show with a dvd recorder and making it availible to the masses, and its not illegal to make a dvd recording of a show, even on viacom owned channels. All thats happning is that they're cutting out the middle men (manufacturers of dvd recorders). Is that why its deemed as illegal? the big tv corps have some sort of deal with the manufactures of media recording products?

.
Yes, they could.

Sign on the indies!
And that is why I would like to see Apple, for starters, sign as many indy labels as possible to the iTunes Store. This is something they have been surprisingly slow to do, perhaps in deference to the virtual monopoly held by The Big Four -- or should we say "Gang of Four"?

Indeed. It is sadly telling that the porn industry has been ten times more successful in adapting to the reality of the Internet. That is not exactly positive testimony to the "strategic imagination" of the CEOs in the recording industry.

Their intransigence and greed have cost their respective companies billions.

Striving to become irrelevant?
When they saved huge money on the transition to CD technology, did they grant greater benefits to the artists or savings to the music-buying public? When offered the prospects of virtually free distribution via the Internet, is there any evidence of generosity to artists or customers? Not a chance!

It would appear that their sole focus has been their own profit margins.

To put it another way, the recording industry has not exactly been masters of inspiring good will and building loyalty. Instead, you would think they are making a concerted effort to become irrelevant. If they continue on this fast track, history may well reward the accordingly.

Myths about piracy
It is a myth perpetuated by the RIAA that piracy is costing the industry such huge figures. Study after study shows this is not the case, as wdympcf points out. In the United Kingdom it was decisively shown that downloaders are, in fact, the most avid purchasers of legal music!

In other words: people will pay if the price is fair. But all too often the music they want is not even available – or if it is, the demand is that they purchase the entire CD, instead of the two cuts they want!

Three simple ideas
There are a lot of great ideas out there that would ensure that the record companies stay in the loop.

The Big Four (and others) could make a modest start by releasing tracks from their huge archives of music that are not currently available anywhere, except perhaps in used record shops. This music could be sold online at a considerable discount -- say 10 to 25 cents a track. Man, there are a lot of gems in those archives that are currently not earning the record companies a penny.

Furthermore, the record companies should withdraw the obscene idea of usage fees that would likely put most online radio stations out of business.

Talk about discrimination! As JChristopher underscores, they’re not exactly charging AM stations an arm and a leg to play their music. With any imagination, the record industry execs would express gratitude instead, realizing that they are getting free advertising – and that many listeners are likely to purchase what they hear!

Pre-loaded iPods
Personally I like the idea of pre-loaded iPods sold at a premium. How about 30 gigabytes of 20th century Rock & Roll for $100 extra? Or 30 GB of Classical from Naxos at the same price? Or 30 GB of Folk and World Music. Or Jazz, both contemporary and from the Golden Era?

I for one would gladly pay $400 for the full package! At 320 kbps AAC, of course. And I might not even mind full DRM.

Just my NOK 0.11. ;)

-- ArcticStones
.

I do give my money for small bands who use smaller labels. But mainly that post was aimed at Universal and Sony, who are guilty of every dirty tactic in the book. (HELL, they WROTE it.)

We have two excellent stations here in Melbourne PBS and RRR. Both stations rely on listener subscriptions rather than corporate bucks and djs are pretty fanatical about the music they play so I often hear new music on my favourite programs that I'd probably never have stumbled upon.

Update: MediaDefender's phone lines (or VoIP conenctions, perhaps) seem to have been bugged, and their phone calls have been recorded and made public:

http://torrentfreak.com/more-mediade...-leaks-070916/

Whoever is doing this is one skilled hacker...

I just hope the hacker is some bored teenager and not someone funded by child-porn. If they pissed off the wrong crim then that could explain the effectiveness of the attacks.

I was wondering how this information got leaked.

I did a search of my own on gmail security, and found that:

1. If you ever use wireless internet, you should always use https, and not http, when you connect to gmail on your browser; a recent defcon demonstration showed that it’s possible to get into someone’s gmail account through a javascript cookie-stealing attack, but it only works on unencrypted connections.
2. If someone invites you to gmail, but puts their email address as a secondary address, they can steal your account, unless you delete the secondary address in gmail’s settings.

But that didn’t seem sufficient to explain this kind of Mitnik-esque information theft.