BitTorrent Shuts Down Video Store, Brings Back Search
Written by Ernesto on December 07, 2008February 2007, BitTorrent Inc. launched its ‘Torrent Entertainment Network’ where users could download movies and TV-shows legally, via BitTorrent. Despite the ever increasing popularity of BitTorrent as a download tool, the store never became profitable and has now closed. The store is replaced by a BitTorrent search portal.
While spending on online video content is increasing, BitTorrent Inc’s Torrent Entertainment Network wasn’t as successful as the company had hoped. Converting the millions of BitTorrent users into paying customers didn’t go as easily as they had hoped, and the DRM restrictions that were enforced by Hollywood were no help either.
In the tough economic climate, which already caused several layoffs at the company, BitTorrent Inc. decided that it was best to close their video store completely. Simon Morris, BitTorrent’s VP of Product Management told TorrentFreak: “After a great deal of soul searching we decided to close down the Torrent Entertainment Network content store.”
“Its about focus and economics,” Morris added. “We want to focus on core technology rather than merchandising and given the harsh economic environment, we can’t afford to continue to invest in endeavors that don’t come close to break-even.”
Together with the closure of their entertainment network, the company reintroduced its search portal for BitTorrent users. Unlike before, there are no torrents indexed or tracked by the companies servers. Instead, it uses a branded version of the Ask.com search engine, where BitTorrent sites are prioritized in the search results.
When BitTorrent Inc. had its own search engine, the company had an agreement with the MPAA to filter search results. According to Morris this is no longer needed now. “We agreed to filter search results when we were in the business of torrent search, but that work is also discontinued. This is Ask’s search engine, not ours.”
“The decision to work with Ask is simply an effort to provide people who come to download the client with a place to go next,” Morris added. While the search engine will generate some income, most future revenue is expected to come from content publishers that use BitTorrent’s DNA, and deals with device manufacturers.
BitTorrent Inc’s New Search Portal
Previously: BitTorrent Site Pwns Anti-Piracy Outfit
Next: Google Blocks World’s Largest Porn Torrent Tracker
56 Responses
Of course, this was to be expected. The mere idea of having DRM over BitTorrent was itself ridiculous. Of course, these “content” industries will never see the obvious. It is not even about the profits: it is about maintaining control over everything, in an attempt to marginalize everything that is not theirs.
Of course, I would suppose that Ask.com’s search results are not filtered at all.
Roze
wow so now they are kinda seeing pirates will win the war
pay…for entertainment?
acknowledge…the artists?
support…the economy?
NO!!!!!
UNACCEPTABLE!!!1
i am glad this failed.
As for the reason this failed, quite obvious… it was a good idea except for Hollywoods idea of “insisting” on the DRM, DRM that made the end user feel like their balls were in a vice.
Dont forget that the end users already knew about torrents in this case, and presented with options of putting their balls in a vice **and** paying for that “privilege” _or_ not paying for it but still getting it and saving their testicles.., no surprise as to which route they took and why.
This is going to kind of end like the music industry, they had the chance ages back.. they fought it with all they had just to go mostly drm free a few years down the line.
People are sick of lining the pockets of the rich, as for drm…i’m not even going to start.
@4 ezee et everyone
Indeed, why should anyone fund these imbeciles? Even if it were without DRM, it still is the case that they are still supporting these anti-piracy gangs. It should fail, regardless of whether there was DRM or not. After all, everyone should boycott the “content” industry for what they are doing.
Roze
With or without DRM the idea was bound to fail. Paying for something that is most likely to be shit seeing the amount of tripe that is spewed out by Hollywood these days, before you’ve even had a chance to review it?
If you were to buy food in a filling station you would pay upfront. In a restaurant you have the choice not to pay if it is not to your standard.
Now which of these distribution are you likely to get the better food.
Coupled with the recession, people are finally starting to learn the value of money and the value of those who take it from us.
People aren’t going to pay for something they can get gratis. This rhetoric about supporting worthy artists amounts to nothing when it comes to handing over the money.
Serves ‘em right, for getting in bed with the enemy.
Traitors.
how ironic that Bram swallowed the story from the MPAA that filesharers were retail customers gone amiss “give the itinerant filesharers a legal option and they will fall back into line”
it is a falsehood that filesharing has diverted revenue from media distribution. the filesharing networks are not ex-retail customers gourging themselves on free stuff and saving their dollars
those who can, buy the retail product. those who cannot, take a torrent. it is classic market segmentation. some people who can afford to buy the retail product do both. the gross media industry revenues are not down. it is crazy they think filesharing has produced a new market full of new people all potentially retail customers
bittorrent opened up a previously untouched segment outside of the traditional market. there was little or no leeching of retail customers into the filesharing space and those who do have the resources to buy the retail product they still do. nobody has stopped giving money to the media cartels because of filesharing. the gross media revenue across the industry is at a record high
final point demonstrated by bittorrent Inc’s learning is that torrents do not equate to retail products. the downloaded rip or even DVD image is not the same as the physical artifact from the retail shop
epic fail demonstrated nicely by the money mosters of the MAFIAA who are out of their depth in our territory which they will never take because the economics of greed do not work in a sharing caring community
what he said!
Bt inc. did some good overall for the protocol.
If they did’t help catch/stand up to comcast isp over inapt practice of throttling bandwidth.
Who knows what else isp’s might have tried to pull over on the public
There are legal means that get shared public domain, legal torrents, indie groups, ed. networking, etc
Hi!mlyj! http://npchotwc.com chtjp tgccv
Freetard you don’t need to acknowledge the artist with money. true artist just want their voice/message heard.
what what whoopty whoop
2 reasons this failed: DRM and regional restrictions limiting it to USA customers only.
The day that a store begins selling 100% DRM-free music, films and TV series that I like in my country, will be the day I stop pirating anything that I can buy legally, and will gladly begin swapping my library of pirated content for purchased content. Until then, the MAFIAA is missing out.
Just hope they get back to devving utorrent.Its been stale ever since Brahm bought Ludde.
“This rhetoric about supporting worthy artists amounts to nothing when it comes to handing over the money.”
That, and buying a CD typically supports the recording industry instead of, and to the detriment to, the actual artists.
Roze and ezee fu ck off your links arnt welcome here and neither are your half baked comments just so you can spam the comment bpx
seems like Video killed the Radio star, and bittorrent killed the Video store…. see what I did there?
ezee, who the jell are you trying to kid? I’m more than financially able to purchase all of the media I consume - I pirate because I don’t want to pay for it not because I cannot.
I will never purchase content when I can obtain it for free.
I’m glad they’re able to cut back to maintain profitability… Given the relatively unlikelihood of the company going under, it’s good to see they’re not trying to compete with more influential and more powerfully backed companies allied with http://mafiaa.org
At least there’s no possible reason for the masses to claim BT, Inc. is beholden to RIAA et al.
Keep the internet running BT L:D
Wow, Torrent Entertainment Network, I like it!
Jess
http://www.anonymity.at.tc
@16 Lachlan Hunt
You have forgotten the most important reason: that buying from that store funds the MAFIAA. Why support and give money to the MAFIAA?
Roze
@10
“it is a falsehood that filesharing has diverted revenue from media distribution. the filesharing networks are not ex-retail customers gourging themselves on free stuff and saving their dollars”
————————————–
You’re an idiot if you think this is never the case.
@14
“Freetard you don’t need to acknowledge the artist with money. true artist just want their voice/message heard.”
————————————
True artists? Your idealism is cute but not realistic. Artists need to pay the bills like anyone else. Having a bunch of freeloading fans won’t do that.
@18
“That, and buying a CD typically supports the recording industry instead of, and to the detriment to, the actual artists.”
————————————
What? How is giving the artist a small portion of CD revenue DETRIMENTAL to them?
By that line of reasoning, stealing from them is BENEFICIAL?
How’s the weather over there in opposite world?
Stop huffing glue.
nigger
Capitalism is all about finding the best price, isn’t it? That’s why everything I own was made in China. That’s why that vehicle of every rap artists’ dreams, the Cadillac Escalade, is made in Mexico. If people would make stuff for WalMart for free, you think they wouldn’t take advantage of that?
We’ve learned our religion well, so we choose free.
@26 freetard
“You?re an idiot if you think this is never the case.”
Yeah, like you’re any smarter, thinking that it is wrong to divert revenue. As far as I know, businesses divert revenue from each other all the time through something called… “competition.” Something like offering a product for a lesser price than another. By your logic, we should outlaw that as well.
“Artists need to pay the bills like anyone else. Having a bunch of freeloading fans won?t do that.”
The fans won’t freeload if they have a way to give money to the artists directly - and if the artist truly depends on it. I don’t see how those “artists” making billions of dollars need any more money than they do have now. Besides, there are live performances.
“How is giving the artist a small portion of CD revenue DETRIMENTAL to them?”
The small portion of the CD revenue is not DETRIMENTAL. Rather, the large portion of the CD revenue to the record company is DETRIMENTAL.
“stealing from them is BENEFICIAL?”
How is downloading “stealing”? Most of the downloading was downloading for something people would never have bought anyways. Besides, haven’t you heard that it is FREE ADVERTISING? It gets the more audience. Moreover, if there is a need for a payment, the payment of having an audience is payment enough, because the purpose of the work itself is to get an audience in the first place.
Also, it is beneficial for people to download - these downloaders could get into communities, decide to create re-mixes, and thus create even more music in turn. Perhaps it may even indirectly inspire someone to create their own music. For people to hear music isn’t just “enjoyment” for which there is no good purpose other than to pay the artist. Rather, people can do good things with the music, and create re-mixes, or get inspired by it to create more music. After all, hearing music inspires music. The more people hear it, the more people get inspired and create their own. You think that the only good thing for music is to pay the artist–WRONG. It is not just to pay the artist, but rather to affect people, and inspire them to create their own music.
“Stop huffing glue.”
Stop pretending to be smarter than everyone else.
Considering the majority of Artists today rip off from other Artists. It is somewhat ironic how torrent technology has now become the great equalizer for justice.
My god… the SEO losers are all over this place.
That ‘jess’ from that site that ’sells you anonymity’ is all over digg and that roze person just needs to die in a fire.
Why does torrentfreak let such blatant spamming like this happen???
You guys are totally right. Musicians and other artists have no desire to make any money whatsoever. We want to starve forever and ever and have to work at McDonald’s for minimum wage because no one wants to pay for music anymore. And P2P hasn’t hurt record sales at all. Not even a tiny bit.
Let’s be honest for once. P2P is a greedy guilty pleasure run amok, and we are collectively degrading the quality of the art and entertainment we consume because being creative is no longer financially viable for the majority of artists.
@31 instant insanity
I need to die in a fire? Why do you think that you’re so much better than I am? Why don’t you stop pretending to be so superior to me.
@32 kwarren84, 33 kwarren84
Artists don’t starve. They create what they create even if it doesn’t have revenue. Take, for example, the vast amounts of fan-fiction, fan-art, fan-edits, fan-videos, fan-games, &c. All these fan-works don’t get any revenue. However, they are surely valuable. The fact is that people do create because they want to, not because of any money. Do you remember the fan-edit website that was taken down due to a complaint? Those fan-editors didn’t create for any amount of money. Yet they did so anyways.
Also, P2P is not greedy. I am sure that those those people who make fan-fiction, fan-art, fan-edits, fan-videos, fan-games, &c. get their original works from P2P. P2P is not just about being selfish. It is also about doing useful things with it - like, for example, taking it as inspiration to create these fan-works, or even indirectly inspired music/art/&c. of their own. You may think that all of culture is completely useless towards the creation of new culture, but that is completely untrue. When people see culture, they get inspired to create their own. That is the point of P2P.
P2P does not degrade the quality of art; rather, it improves it, since 1. it guarantees a greater audience, and 2. it allows more people to be inspired by it, to create their own.
Roze
@32 kwarren84
Also, I don’t get how those artists who are making $20 million per year are “starving” at all. Perhaps you may explain to me the logic of how those artists making $20 million per year can’t afford to pay the bills.
Roze
OUtstanding, I Was hoping that would happen one of these days!
jessy
http://www.internet-anonymity.net.tc
Retard #1: “What? How is giving the artist a small portion of CD revenue DETRIMENTAL to them?”
Because the lion’s share of CD revenue supports the mainstream recording industry, and the mainstream recording industry is the single worst enemy facing a musician.
If you want to support an artist, go a concert, buy merchandise directly, or donate. If you want to support the greedy middlemen who suck artists dry like leeches, sure, go ahead and buy a CD. Then pat yourself on the back for propping up a business model that revolves around shafting the artists. Oh, and for that extra dash of ignorant hypocrisy, call yourself a music fan.
Retard #1: “By that line of reasoning, stealing from them is BENEFICIAL?”
Sorry, but filesharing isn’t even stealing according to the law, not to mention logic and common sense. Even the moldy old luddites running the courts know that copying intangible digital information doesn’t constitute as theft by any stretch of the imagination. Take the RIAA’s cock out of your mouth and please do try again.
Retard #1: “How’s the weather over there in opposite world?”
How’s the crack addiction? Working out for you?
Retard #2 “And P2P hasn’t hurt record sales at all. Not even a tiny bit.”
CD sales are down because they’re an outdated, overpriced medium. You fail to mention that legal music sales have been rising year over year ever since iTunes took off.
So let’s see… Music sales are up, revenue for the old outdated RIAA dinosaurs is going down, indie labels are on the rise, and meanwhile none of this effects the artists very much because they make the majority of their profits from playing live gigs and making licensing deals, anyway.
Here’s an excellent if not slightly outdated article on the state of the industry, because I like to educate the stupid:
arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-digital-music-2007.ars
Love the responses, guys. Note that you don’t see a fellow artist trying to justify P2P on here. What’s the percentage of artists who are multi-millionares versus the rest of the artists who are struggling to get by, working shit jobs for tips while working on their music in their spare time and playing gigs? You little downloaders don’t have a clue how much work it takes to be a successful musician, and then you bitch and whine about how you deserve music for free.
As far as P2P not being stealing, that’s just plain childish and retarded. First you don’t have it, then you download it on P2P, and you have it and you didn’t pay anything for the artist’s work. Trust me, musicians would love to make money off music sales and quit their day jobs as soon as possible, just like anybody else. And we all want to have to sell our souls to commercials because we don’t make enough money on album sales to survive.
The last gem of logic about CD sales being detrimental to the artist because it’s helping the big, bad record company is amazing. Record companies pay for international distribution and advertising to support their artists. They pay for high-end recording studios and producers. They help organize and fund worldwide tours. Roadies, gear, vans, jets, gasoline, food, hotels and promotion. Money from selling the music helps the record companies pay for all of that. How can you not understand that?
@39 kwarren84
Sounds like you’ve been brainwashed by the industry - of course, many have been.
“What?s the percentage of artists who are multi-millionares versus the rest of the artists who are struggling to get by, working shit jobs for tips while working on their music in their spare time and playing gigs?”
Let’s see… it seems like the same amount of artists who didn’t make much money off of the sales of music in the first place.
“You little downloaders don?t have a clue how much work it takes to be a successful musician, and then you bitch and whine about how you deserve music for free.”
You clearly miss the point that music inspires music. The more people listen to music, the more people get inspired by music and want to create their own music. You seem to have this delusion that record companies inspire music - that is a joke - how can record companies ever inspire music? Music is what inspires music, and by outlawing things like P2P and remixes, you are outlawing free inspiration.
“that?s just plain childish and retarded”
The one who calls others “childish and retarded” is the one who is childish and re-tard-ed.
“First you don?t have it, then you download it on P2P, and you have it and you didn?t pay anything for the artist?s work.”
No, you already did have it. For example, when a friend copies a CD and gives it to you, the friend already has it. The friend willingly copied the CD, and willingly gave it to you.
Also, how could copying a CD and giving it to a friend be “stealing”? I do not see any shred of logic in that. That is like saying making a copy of something that one owns is “stealing” - clearly misguided.
Moreover, you should know that nowhere int he legal code in any country does it say that P2P is stealing. Your legal ignorance is astounding.
“Trust me, musicians would love to make money off music sales and quit their day jobs as soon as possible, just like anybody else. And we all want to have to sell our souls to commercials because we don?t make enough money on album sales to survive.”
They make their money off of live performances, etc. The fact is that downloads help them. I don’t know what box you are living in, but if you know anything, you should know that P2P is free advertising that is helping the artists.
“The last gem of logic about CD sales being detrimental to the artist because it?s helping the big, bad record company is amazing. Record companies pay for international distribution and advertising to support their artists. They pay for high-end recording studios and producers. They help organize and fund worldwide tours. Roadies, gear, vans, jets, gasoline, food, hotels and promotion. Money from selling the music helps the record companies pay for all of that. How can you not understand that?”
How can you not understand that P2P has surpassed record companies and is a superior distribution method? Really, when record companies decide to make it available/unavailable at their will, and only through infuriating delay, with expensive amounts of wasteful plastic, it is clearly inferior to any people-controlled supply where it can be accessed at any time, without wasteful physical plastic. Moreover, P2P is promotion itself.
Also, it is quite ironic how you adore these record companies. You say that most artists are struggling to get by - and for what reason other than that their advertising fate is controlled by the big record companies? By willingly being under a record company, the record company basically just “selects” a few people to be multi-millionaires through advertising &c., and tosses the rest for just a paltry income. Yeah, that sounds just like system that cares for those “starving artists.”
Now, I suggest that you learn more about what you talking about first, before you make a fool of yourself in your ignorance.
Roze
Roze, what do you really know about it? I’m a musician, obviously. I live in New York. Rent is high. Practice space, gear, gas money all add up. I work my ass off at two jobs and and I spend another 10 hours a week practicing with the band, plus gigs. You’re just a freeloader like everyone else. Sure, I do it, too. But sometimes my conscience gets the better of me and I’ll buy an actual album from a band that I’m sure could use the boost. Is that so wrong?
You guys completely ignore the artists who are still struggling and trying to make it. For some of us, we’re just trying to make enough to get by. And every little bit helps. Sure, there’s some artists who are filthy rich, and there’s some labels who have (or used to have) way too much money. But there’s plenty of smaller labels that support great music that need financial support from actual sales. As for playing gigs, the same rule applies. If you’re not headlining a huge show, sometimes you barely make enough money to pay for gas. And the average band loses money when they go on tour. Period. Don’t try and tell me otherwise.
And I’ve heard more than enough of those shitty mash-up remixes. This is what happens when everyone in the world has access. A deluge of crap, like Eminem/Britney Spears mashups.
But really, this goes beyond music. Can you convince Bill Gates to just start giving away copies of Microsoft Office? Can you convince Steve Jobs to just give away copies of OS X “because it will help people” and “breed more creativity”? Can you convince Valve to stop requiring online registration with it’s Steam games so you can make copies with reckless abandon? NO. You’re logic is pathetic. Businesses need to make money off their products in order to keep operating. Obviously. You really think that anything that’s digital should be free just because it’s easy to copy? Grow up. Sure, copying a friend’s CD is relatively harmless, but when you build a worldwide network where anyone with a computer and the internet can copy thousands of different albums and games and programs with relative ease, the scale becomes significantly different.
“Record companies pay for international distribution and advertising to support their artists.”
Wake up, sleepyhead. International distribution and advertising are free these days. We don’t live in the mid 90’s anymore.
The big, bad record companies no longer have a justification for their dubious existence. They have never been anything more than rapists with artists as their victims, but now with the Internet, they can no longer hide behind the facade of being a necessary evil.
“As far as P2P not being stealing, that’s just plain childish and retarded.”
What’s childish and retarded is to call P2P stealing, kid, when no court on the face of the planet recognizes filesharing as theft because even lawmakers are able to comprehend the fact that duplicating something is entirely different from taking it.
Sadly, this is a fact that you fail to comprehend.
“But there’s plenty of smaller labels that support great music that need financial support from actual sales.”
Who the hell is saying we shouldn’t support indie labels, fuckwit? When people refer to record companies being parasitic leeches that everybody would be better off without, they’re referring to the big MAFIAA affiliated labels. Not the indies who actually support artists rather than fleece them.
“Businesses need to make money off their products in order to keep operating.”
And filesharing doesn’t stand in the way of that. Try again.
“Sure, copying a friend’s CD is relatively harmless, but when you build a worldwide network where anyone with a computer and the internet can copy thousands of different albums and games and programs with relative ease, the scale becomes significantly different.”
Music sales are up and the game industry continues to grow, so peddle your “P2P is hurting the industry!!” bullshit elesehwere.
BTW, you strike me as just another whiney artiste using filesharing as a scapegoat for why you’re still unknown and struggling.
Digital music sales are up, but music sales as a whole are down about 29 percent from the end of 1999. That’s a big chunk. And it’s harder to copy games for a console (I’m sure you all know that). You usually need to get a mod chip installed, which the average person doesn’t know how to do on their own.
A copyright is a copyright. The person or people who created the content are the ones who have the right to create copies and distribute them. That’s why Youtube is forced to remove copyrighted material from it’s site when the people who own the copyright ask them to take it down. If artists want to give away their content for free, they have that choice and it’s easy to do these days, but who are you to decide that for them?
@43 Dec 09, 2008 at 19:44 by kwarren84
“If artists want to give away their content for free, they have that choice and it?s easy to do these days, but who are you to decide that for them?”
Who are you to decide what other people do with their private property? When someone buys a CD, it is their right to do whatever they want with it. It is called private property. Now this thing called copyright is a communistic monopoly grant on a single person, allowing this single person to control what other people do with their own copies. That is unethical. This law is unethical.
Besides, who are you to push your “don’t copy” morality on others? You may think that it is not okay to copy and give to friends. Fine, that’s your opinion. But what right have you to force your morality on others?
“And I?ve heard more than enough of those s****y mash-up remixes. This is what happens when everyone in the world has access. A deluge of crap, like Eminem/Britney Spears mashups.”
If music doesn’t deserve to exist because it is bad, then most of music doesn’t deserve to exist. Perhaps the copyright for those should be revoked… but of course, copyright makes no exceptions. You think that every artist should be living the grand life, getting lots of income? Then explain the exception that you make to mash-up makers.
“You guys completely ignore the artists who are still struggling and trying to make it.”
It seems like you are ignoring all the artists who are struggling and trying to make it when you say that when everybody has access, that there will be a deluge of crap. Sounds like a self-contradiction there, with your elitism.
“I?m a musician, obviously. I live in New York. Rent is high. Practice space, gear, gas money all add up. I work my ass off at two jobs and and I spend another 10 hours a week practicing with the band, plus gigs.”
Good for you. It is the expenses of any other American. You seem to think that you are somebody special and that people should just give money to you.
“You?re just a freeloader like everyone else. Sure, I do it, too. But sometimes my conscience gets the better of me and I?ll buy an actual album from a band that I?m sure could use the boost. Is that so wrong?”
How is it freeloading when one gives back? It is not always in the form of money. For example, merely seeing/hearing it is giving back. That is because the purpose of the art is to have an audience. Moreover, art is always inspiration for more art.
By the way, you seem to be against this “deluge of crap.” That sounds like you actually want less art to be out there. That means that you are anti-art. I don’t get it. You’re saying that money is supposed to be incentive, but you actually want less art to be out there.
“Don?t try and tell me otherwise.”
You don’t get any right not to be argued with when what you are saying is absolute crap.
“music sales as a whole are down about 29 percent from the end of 1999.”
Obviously because it is less popular now.
By the way, @41 kwarren84, if you think that there needs to be an incentive, seeing art as inspiration should be incentive enough. Inspiration from art, after all, is a more powerful inspiration than inspiration from money. In fact, I don’t see how money could inspire anybody for art at all.
Roze
Also, you are completely wrong when you say that “copyright” is any “liberty.” Yes, it may be a liberty to take away other people’s liberty, but that has as much validity as the “liberty to own slaves.”
For incentive, you think that money is the only incentive. Wrong. Inspiration from seeing art is incentive for art. There would be more art when more people have access to it.
And who are you to judge that “mash-ups” are inferior? Weren’t you saying a moment ago that people should have incentive to create art? So you’re saying that people shouldn’t have incentive, and that only the people at the top should have incentive? This goes completely against what you have said earlier about “struggling artists.” Being against a “deluge of crap” is clearly being against many struggling artists. Even though many struggling artists wish to create something good, surely they might create some crap. Improvement and practice is where it is at, after all, and you seem to be against all of this.
Moreover, you fail to see that there are many artists who are using BitTorrent to promote themselves. Struggling artists are much better off with BitTorrent as the distribution model - especially since it is free, and the people do it for you. You must be blind.
Get your facts straight.
Moreover, I don’t see how “feeding the artists” has anything to do with having more art. Creating more inspiration i. e. allowing more access to things results in more art. Propping the “artists” with tons of money will perhaps even guarantee less art. You seem to think that artists deserve welfare or something. Well, if so, then you should advocate welfare, not force everybody to obey a copyright holders’ demands on other people’s private property. That is completely ridiculous.
Your statement on how P2P could “possibly” result in less sales is also completely ridiculous. Well, anything could “possibly” result in less sales - perhaps we should outlaw everything that results in less sales of anything. You seem completely ignorant of the fact that P2P is actually helpful towards art. Now why don’t you step out of the box you have clearly been living in.
Roze
“For example, merely seeing/hearing it is giving back.” Priceless. Why don’t you try that line at a movie theater. “Will you let me in for free? I’m giving back enough to the actors and the director and the stagehands and the special FX guys and the stuntmen and the stylists and make-up artists just by watching the movie”. Money just grows on trees to pay all those people, didn’t you know.
Am I necessarily talking about buttloads of money for musicians? No. That’s the whole point. There’s plenty of artists who make just enough money to get by. Why is that such a complicated concept for you to understand? Everyone has to eat. People usually buy food with money. Artists don’t need welfare if people are paying actual money for their albums. Is it really too much to ask for a dollar for a song? I’ve seen people give more money to bums on the street. Are you saying that artists are less worthy of receiving money than bums are?
I love how morally righteous you are about artists needing to create work without any desire of getting paid, but when it comes to me saying, “Hey, maybe I shouldn’t let thousands if not millions of people copy this album of off me for free, maybe they should buy it themselves”, I’m suddenly the one who’s being morally self righteous. Why don’t you try going to work for a couple of months, if not a year or two, without any pay? Just give it away. How would you like that?
And nobody needs Bittorrent or any other P2P to promote themselves. Quit deluding yourselves. That’s why most musicians have a myspace page, and they can choose whether or not the user can download their songs.
“music sales as a whole are down about 29 percent from the end of 1999.”
“Obviously because it is less popular now.”
Right. That couldn’t have had anything to do with the fact that when Napster came out around 2000, everyone and their mom was downloading music like crazy. I remember, I was there. Some people on campus had to be cut off because they were using up so much bandwidth. But you’re right, it’s just a coincidence.
OK, you’re right, Roze. Wanting to make some money off of being creative is a horribly selfish thing to do, and sitting in front of your computer and downloading tons of music, movies, games and programs for free off P2P isn’t greedy at all.
“Moreover, I don’t see how “feeding the artists” has anything to do with having more art.”
Umm, you know other people have to eat to survive, too, right. It’s kind of a basic principle of life. They say Kurt Cobain’s death was the greatest PR move of his life, but he was already famous by then.
And as for your attempts to justify P2P with the chance that someone might make a decent remix: if remixers really like the song enough to make a remix of it, can’t they fork over a lowly dollar for the original song? And people who make real remixes that actually get played in clubs probably use original source files, not mp3s off of P2P. Either they’re friendly with the original artist or the artist’s label, or they fork over big bucks to get their hands on the original studio tracks.
“music sales as a whole are down about 29 percent from the end of 1999.”
“Obviously because it is less popular now.”
This brings me back to my original point. Maybe music just isn’t as good now because it’s not a viable career option for most. And most people who are serious about making art don’t want it to be a hobby they do in their spare time. They want to be able to make a living. No limos, no champagne in the back room. Just rent and food and gas money. A lot of great bands are indie bands, bands that don’t make a lot of money. I could give less of a crap about whether Britney Spears or Metallica sell another album.
It’s not a big deal if you make a copy of an album for your friend. That’s been happening since the days of the cassette tape. It’s the scale of P2P that has thrown the balance completely out of whack. It’s thousands or millions of people copying files that creates a problem. Now we have the RIAA threatening to sue bars if they don’t pay up for every song they play on the stereo. And they have every right to do that. They’ve just never had to it before because they were making enough money. I met a guy the other day that works at a recording studio, and he told me to stay out of the business, because it had totally dried up.
Everybody downloads. It’s a fact of life right now. If an album gets leaked before it’s released, everyone in the downloading world has their free pre-release copy. I do it. I’m just saying, I know that I want to help out artists who really need the help. And I don’t think the average person does. I think the average person, when given the opportunity, will take things for free, and never give a second thought to it. And P2P creates unlimited opportunities for those average people to take and take and consume and consume without ever giving anything back. The average person is not going to create an awesome remix from an mp3. And for the artists who want to be successful and quit their shit jobs so they can spend more time being creative and refining their craft, just consuming their work isn’t enough. Pass the tip jar around. Wake up to reality. Bills need to be paid, but nobody else wants you to be able to eat or pay your rent. And I’d like to see someone else here admit (aside from freetard), that’s fucked up.
PLS Click: http://www.iHateCandy.de.gp/
roze, mash ups and fan fiction and remixes are for creative retards who don’t have the balls or the talent to tackle a blank page.
literally, 99.9% of it is god awful.
the reason for this is simple: it takes a tremendous amount of time and study and talent to make any piece of worthwhile music or film. anything of quality was not derived from the efforts of a hobby. the copyright free world you want everyone to embrace would bring down the overall quality of art from “mediocre” to “abysmal” as no one would have the time or financial incentive to devote to bettering their skills.
and yes, there is a financial incentive to art. here, in the real world, outside of your parent’s basement where you are provided a limitless supply of mountain dew and hot pockets…money matters. your idealism is hysterical.
you are the single dumbest, most inane poster here, roze. you have the logic and reasoning skills of a typical fifteen year old. why don’t you expend some of that social frustration somewhere else?
I’d just like to add, first of all, this whole argument about the legality of copyrights is pointless because the industry has already managed to sue P2P users for trading copyrighted material. Why they don’t continue is beyond me, I’d love to see some of you self righteous pricks get your doors knocked down by the FBI. I think their fines are outrageous, but maybe if they went out in a larger force with smaller fines or optional community service, it wouldn’t be so frowned upon as the big industry bully, and they might actually convince people to stop pirating.
Secondly, you have inspired me, and it’s probably for the better. I’ve never really put any serious thought into pirating via P2P or whatever- my mentality has always been that it’s like stealing from the cookie jar, it’s kinda bad, but not really. I’ll help people out when I can. But after seeing these posts by fanatics who not only feel it’s their God given right to pirate other people’s work, they feel morally righteous about it- I can’t help but realize it’s been too long. The music industry has already paid it’s dues for falling behind the technology curve. Give it a rest. It doesn’t seem like any of you could give less of a sh*t about the people who create the content you freely consume. Betting your financial future on your creative passion is a huge risk, and you’re helping to grow the margin of people who decide to just become office drones. Art that really changes the world isn’t just a hobby that people do in their spare time.
As for some of your other bullsh*t comments, artists getting paid for their work isn’t welfare, it’s business. Maybe when you actually have to work for a living you’ll realize that 40 hours a week is almost half your waking life. And people who dream of doing their passion for a living don’t need to be shot down by @ssholes like you. Real advertising isn’t free, no one’s going to find your website unless you tirelessly promote yourself or pay for real advertising space with a large audience exposure. And getting your band reviewed on a reputable blog or a well known website like Pitchfork is world’s better exposure for an artist than being freeloaded on Bittorrent. Hell, people might even decide to buy your album. So congratulations, you’ve inspired me. Just based on the fact that you’re a self-righteous @sshole. I actually feel bad now for all the songs I have that I haven’t paid for. So if I decide to go buy an album tomorrow, you may have actually helped the economy and the creative industry, in the most roundabout way.
And for God’s sake, please quit trying to justify your piracy with the whole “every musician is a millionaire” routine. Out of all the recording artists in the world, the millionaires are the minority, and the people who are just trying to make a living are the majority. OK guys, time to go back to work at my sh*t job. Hope you like my new album enough to actually buy it. If it’s self released, I make all the money and I can quit my sh*t job and make another, even better album. Hell, I might even be able to take a vacation before I’m 40. Amazing. No, f*ck it, I’m going to go back to school to become an accountant.
@ssholes
3 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.