Having the option to stream millions of tracks supported by an occasional ad, or free of ads for a small monthly fee, Spotify appeared to be serious competitor to music piracy. Data just released by the Swedish Music industry appears to support this theory.

Through quarterly surveys researchers have polled the music consumption habits of thousands of Swedes between the age of 15 and 74, and in their most recent report they find that music piracy continues to drop.

Since 2009 the numbers of people who download music illegally has decreased by more than 25 percent, and over the last year alone it dropped by 9 percent. The data further suggests that this downward trend is caused by the availability of improved legal services such as Spotify.

When Spotify opened up to the public early 2009, it took only three months before the number of Spotify users had outgrown the number of music pirates. In the months after that the number of downloaders continued to decline while Spotify expanded its user base.

playing in Spotify..

Streaming services such as Spotify are now the most popular way to consume music. More than 40 percent of the participants in the survey now use a music streaming service, compared to less than 10 percent who say they download music legally.

About 23 percent continue to pirate music, but this number is dwindling.

“The long-term trend is a sharp increase in legal streaming while we see a reduction in illegal file sharing and downloading,” Music Sweden’s CEO Elizabet Widlund said commenting on the results.

“When 800,000 Swedes are willing to pay for streaming music, there is clearly a market for more legal players in the digital music market. We encourage diversity of music services as it will provide better conditions for both those who create music and those who listen to it,” she added.

Looking at the motivations for people to switch to legal services, participants in the survey cited “the range of music that’s released” as the primary reason (40%). Other explanations were the absolute increase in available music (30%), and the fact that legal services have become cheaper (24%) and simpler (24%).

Although the above is certainly good news for the music industry, it has to be noted that the ‘change’ to legal services is ‘fragile.’ The survey shows a slight change in the ongoing trend during the second quarter of 2011, exactly when Spotify announced that its free service would have some new limitations.

Although this change motivated some (15%) to sign up with a paid Spotify account, the majority (31%) said they would leave Spotify to turn to other streaming services, like YouTube, or file-sharing sites.

There is no doubt that, unlike music industry bosses have claimed in the past, there are indeed ways to compete with free. However, time is needed to find the right balance between giving music fans what they want, and secure a healthy revenue stream.

Source: Music Piracy Continues to Decline Thanks to Spotify

Nearly two decades later, Pretty Boy Gangsters’ Korvel Sutton is in the news again as he takes on Apple. Sutton claims that the Cupertino-based company is illegally distributing his music worldwide by including it in at least ten compilation albums.

This week Sutton, who hasn’t hired an attorney but is representing himself, filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court in California. In the brief complaint obtained by TorrentFreak he explains that Apple’s iTunes Store is selling several of of his tracks without permission. The works are being offered in 23 territories but according to Sutton, Apple is doing this without the necessary permission.

Attached to the complaint Sutton introduces several pieces of evidence including a copy of the U.S. copyright registration and a photocopy of the “Rollin Like a Star” cassette tape. He further provides the Court with the full list of compilation albums where his rights are being infringed, including “2 Live Crew & Posse“, “West Coast Posse 1” and “Elektro Hip Hop Party Vol. 3.”

According to information provided by Apple in an email, the disputed compilations were provided by the Dutch label Rams Horn Record. Interestingly, this not the first time this label has been involved in a copyright dispute. In 2004, Rams Horn lost a lawsuit against none other than Eminem for distributing his music without permission.

If Sutton’s claims are correct, Apple can be held liable for several copyright-related offenses for their part in illegally selling Pretty Boy Gangsters tracks. However, from the looks of it Rams Horn Record – who are not named in the lawsuit – may play an even bigger role as they provided the compilations in the first instance.

It is not an isolated incident for an artist not to get their cut when money is made from compilation albums. In Canada a group of artists won a class action lawsuit against Warner Music, Sony BMG Music, EMI Music and Universal Music for unauthorized use of their music in compilation albums. Together the labels pirated 300,000 tracks, for which they had to pay the artists $50 million in damages.

Whether Apple are found guilty or not, it is unlikely that the lawsuit will put a dent in the company’s healthy revenue streams. Unlike other copyright lawsuits we’ve seen in the past, Korvel Sutton is not asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Instead of claiming outrageous statutory damages, he simply wants complete payment of all royalties owed to date.

Source: Apple’s iTunes Sued By Artist for Pirating Music

Fast forward to today and Jamendo features work from 38,000 artists from all around the world, who together have published 315,000 tracks across 50,000 albums spanning a wide range of genres. Impressive statistics that easily beat some established record labels.

Jamendo is also one of the early advocates of using BitTorrent to share free music. According to Jamendo’s co-founder Pierre Gérard, one of the main reasons to support P2P technology was because the artists thought that it was a good platform to promote their work.

“We were one of the first platforms to provide legal music torrents because the artists on Jamendo wanted to use the P2P networks to share their music and have it discovered. At the beginning it was also a very good solution, very reliable and economical,” Pierre Gérard told TorrentFreak

Even today where bandwidth is relatively cheap Jamendo continues to support BitTorrent downloads, in both OGG and MP3 format for most artists. However, the seeding is no longer taken care of by Jamando, but by artists and fans.

Initiatives like Jamendo offer some much-needed counterbalance to critics who say that there’s virtually no ‘legal’ content on BitTorrent. Jamendo’s artists happily publish their work on all major BitTorrent sites and 315,000 tracks doesn’t appear to be an insignificant amount to us.

Jamendo doesn’t see itself as direct competition to the major record labels, but rather a proponent of a new music industry that empowers artists who share their music freely under a Creative Commons license.

“We are a new opportunity for a new generation of artists, we provide new tools and a new legal framework. Every day, new artists are joining Jamendo. We want to be part of a new organisation of the music distribution where the artists have the choice and can decide how they want to be diffused,” Pierre Gérard said.

Besides from offering a publishing platform, Jamendo also allows users to review albums and to donate directly to the artists if they like what they hear. For some of the popular artists this is a nice tip, but the real value of Jamendo comes from the exposure to thousands of potential fans.

“Jamendo is not American Idol, the promise is not to become a star with Jamendo, we prefer to have thousands of artists who can get new fans, share their music and sometimes make some money. The most popular artists on Jamendo have millions of listens, this is the best rewards they can get.”

Unlike many major labels, Jamendo puts the interests of the artists first, helping them to escape obscurity and be heard by a community of more than 1,000,000 avid music fans. So next time you hear the RIAA or IFPI complaining how BitTorrent ruins the lives of artists, remember that there are tens of thousands of musicians who disagree.

Source: Artists Share 50,000 Free Music Albums on BitTorrent

Having the option to stream millions of tracks supported by an occasional ad, or free of ads for a small monthly fee, Spotify appeared to be serious competitor to music piracy.

In the two years that followed Spotify rapidly won the hearts and minds of many music fans. Currently limited to a few European countries only, the service has already amassed more than 10 million users and over a million paid subscribers. A true success story, which has been recognized by the music industry on various occasions.

What’s often overlooked is that Spotify is in reality one of the largest P2P networks on the Internet. No surprise, since one of the lead engineers from the start is none other than Ludvig Strigeus, the original creator of the BitTorrent client uTorrent. However, not much is known about this private P2P network.

Using P2P technology allows Spotify to use less servers, less bandwidth and have a better up-time. And it appears to be working. In fact, of all the tracks that are streamed over the Internet by Spotify users the majority come via P2P connections. Since they’re dealing with copyrighted music, all transfers are totally anonymous, encrypted and secure of course.

Let’s take a look at some data provided by Spotify on their three main music sources.

As can be seen in the graph above most tracks are played from the local cache. These are songs a user has listened to before, and those files are stored on the local hard drive. Of all the remaining tracks that are played, roughly 80% are accessed via the P2P network.

What’s further notable is that P2P performance is most efficient during peak hours and in the weekend. In the graph provided by Spotify the share of P2P traffic peaks on Saturday evening.

Spotify’s P2P network uses various influences from other file-sharing platforms. It uses both a BitTorrent like tracker and a Gnutella style network, but is specifically tailored towards playing relatively small files. Since it’s dealing with streaming, the first bits of a song are prioritized while slow peers are rejected.

This custom P2P solution guarantees what is one of the most important features of Spotify, a very low latency. Tracks have to start almost instantly, and with a median delay of 265 milliseconds it lives up to this expectation. Quite remarkable for a P2P-powered application.

So finally, there we have it. A massive P2P network that’s fully supported and even partially owned by the music industry. Who ever thought that would happen?

Source: Spotify: A Massive P2P Network, Blessed by Record Labels

We’ve previously documented how people moved from buying albums to buying singles. But there’s another big change that occurred, one that may have an even bigger impact on the music industry as a whole; YouTube and other ‘free’ music sources.

If we go back in time 5 or 6 years, people had only one option if they wanted to listen to their favorite artists online without paying for the pleasure. That one option was piracy. Today the public has a wide variety of legal options, and the medium of choice for most people appears to be YouTube.

Although true music aficionados are hard to please, the majority of the public appreciates the option of listening to their favorite tunes for free on YouTube. Google is not complaining either, as music videos are a substantial revenue source for them.

But what about the record labels, are they happy too? This is not an easy question to answer, but we’re going to give it a try.

Revenue wise YouTube and Vevo have be come a serious revenue source. The major labels haven’t been very open about their revenue sharing deal, but EMI Music chief financial officer Paul Kahn said (pdf) during the LimeWire trial that his label gets half a penny for each YouTube play.

Half a penny may not sound much, but with billions of views it adds up quickly.

If we look at David Guetta, one of EMI’s top artists, we see that his YouTube uploads were viewed 308,000,000 times over the past 12 months. That means $1,540,000 in revenue, for only one artist.

Just as a comparison, Guetta and EMI have to sell more than 2 million singles to earn that much from ‘paid’ music.

In their latest report music industry group IFPI write that at the end of last year the major record labels were getting 1.7 billion views a month, and this number is rising rapidly. In the last 12 months alone Universal Music tripled the number of YouTube views from 2.3 billion May last year to nearly 7 billion today.

Staggering numbers that bring in tens of millions of dollars at least, with free music.

In part YouTube’s success goes at the expense of music piracy. With free music on YouTube a large group of people have less incentive to pirate, and indeed, the number of people who share music on BitTorrent appears to be slowing because of these and other alternatives.

This doesn’t mean that music sharing BitTorrent communities are fading away, but the more casual downloaders have found an alternative in YouTube and other streaming services.

That’s great news for the labels right? Well not so fast.

All those billions of views on YouTube each month may have slowed piracy down, but if we have to follow the logic of the music industry then actual sales of recorded music would also be affected. After all, for years they’ve claimed that “free music” on pirate sites caused billions in losses. Free music on YouTube should have a similar effect.

The big question is of course whether the revenue from YouTube can match these alleged losses or not. Not an easy question to answer, but these are crucial factors that define how the major record labels will fare in the coming years, probably even more so than piracy.

TorrentFreak asked both the RIAA and BPI to share their thoughts on how YouTube could affect music sales, but both unfortunately withheld their comments.

This leaves us with the conclusion that, unlike many record label execs have argued in the past, you can compete with free. You can even compete with piracy. Whether the net result is going to be a positive one has yet to be seen, but YouTube is taking up a larger chunk of the record label revenues each year.

Source: Is YouTube Killing Music Piracy?

I also know that the Bieber has a new movie out. It’s called Never Say Never, it’s shot in glorious 3D and is apparently “half-concert, half-biographical film”. The critics, according to various reports, think that it’s pretty good, even though the New York Times said that “…at 105 minutes it’s exhausting.” Let’s face it, more than an hour and half of any teenager can wear one out, and not always in a good way either.

But it’s not all positive news I’m afraid. This week, Never Say Never had its VIP Premiere and according to reports, the event was scarred by a rampage of federal criminality.

Untold numbers of teenagers, who lined up for God-knows-how-long and paid $30 a shot for the privilege, weren’t happy with simply seeing the floppy-haired one in all His (3D) Glory. Oh no. Teenagers always want more, don’t they?

No doubt relying on the utterly poor excuse of wanting to have some memories of their day, some reportedly pointed their camera-phones and recorded the screen, blatantly driving a cart and horses through the Artist’s Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 in the process. Believe me, that’s some serious shit.

You can get locked up for 3 years for camming in the US. Do it twice and you’re looking at a 6 stretch. And quite right too. Let kids get away with it now and next thing you know they’ll be camming for the Scene and 2017′s Never Say Never, Ever, Ever Again Part 6 will be all over The Pirate Bay, just when Bieber needs the money most.

“Since most of the audience consisted of teenage girls with their parents, I am left to wonder what parent lets their child commit a crime? Even scarier, what kind of parent lets them do it in public?” says a concerned writer on Examiner.

“Also I wonder how can Justin’s fans call themselves true fans by stealing from the star? Sure, they are probably not going to present their illegal footage in a theater, and collect money, but it is still considered stealing just the same,” the report continues adding: “Aren’t parent’s who sit by and allowed their teens to commit this act just as guilty?”

Absolutely. That sounds like contributory infringement right there. But you know what? Despite looking high and low, there appears to have been no arrests. Not one. Considering how much money was spent by the MPAA lobbying for anti-camming laws, I have to say this is somewhat of a disappointment.

Where are the airport-style bag searches and pat downs on the way into the theater? Where were the infra-red goggles and anti-cam technologies? Why weren’t these criminals detained for a couple of days?

“I’m wearing tattoos of Justin Bieber, a T-shirt of Justin Bieber, and a necklace,” eight-year-old Audrey Danis said in one theater. “Sometimes I wonder if I’m a bigger fan than her. We listen to Justin Bieber all the time. She has a Justin Bieber room,” said her mother.

Fans? Thieves more like. And what did the Universal Cineplex in Orlando do about this. Nothing. No scandals, no pissing off the public, no arrests. Common sense being applied by the movie industry? I certainly hope not, we’ve got stories about injustices to write.

Source: Justin Bieber Movie Pirates Deserve At Least 3 Years In Jail

All of the MP3s are still freely available for download on the festival’s site, so it only takes one person to get a torrent up and running. For the past three years Ben Stolt has taken the time and effort to put all the MP3s into one big torrent, and this week the first torrent containing 792 tracks has been released.

The 4.49 gigabyte torrent will likely be followed by another release later this month or early March.

Every year the SXSW torrents are a great success, with many thousands of music aficionados downloading the gigabytes of free music from both established acts and upcoming bands in virtually every music genre. In total, the torrents of the previous editions have been downloaded close to 150,000 times.

Although all tracks can also be streamed and downloaded directly from the festival website, a big torrent makes more sense since it’s easier than laboriously downloading every MP3 separately. In addition, using BitTorrent saves SXSW some money in bandwidth costs. The good news is that, for once, the RIAA isn’t watching over your shoulder when downloading music

This year’s SXSW music festival takes place from March 16-20 in Austin Texas. All the tracks released for the previous editions are also still available for those people who want to fill up their iPod without having to invest thousands of dollars.

For those interested in even more free music to fill up their MP3-players, there’s always Jamendo with nearly 50,000 free-to-download albums, also supported by BitTorrent. That’s a few Terabytes of free music, good for 5 years of continuous play.

Source: SXSW 2011 on BitTorrent: 4.49 GB of Free Music

We’re not going to argue about the exact impact of piracy in this article, but we do want to balance out the music industry’s propaganda a little bit. By doing so we hope to show that the music industry isn’t doing so badly as they claim. In fact, year after year more music is being sold.

What’s changing is the type of music consumers buy, and this change is driving revenue down. The question, however, is whether piracy has anything to do with this change. We doubt it, and we’re going to show why.

Let’s start off with some key figures published by the BPI last week regarding UK music sales. Unlike some news outlets claimed, these are not revenue figures but actually the number of units sold, counting both digital and physical albums and singles.

In 2010 the BPI reports that there were 281.7 million units sold, which is an all-time record. Never in the history of recorded music have so many pieces of music been sold, but you wont hear the music industry shouting about that. In fact, the music industry is selling more music year after year and today’s figure is up 27% compared to the 221.6 million copies sold in 2006.

But, instead of praising the increasing consumer demand for music, the industry cuts up the numbers and prefers to focus on the evil enemy called piracy. By doing so they spin their message in a way that makes it appear that piracy is cannibalizing music sales. But is it?

In their press release the BPI points out that album sales overall were down by 7%. Although digital album sales were up 30.6%, physical CDs were down by 12.4%. If we believe the music industry, this drop in sales of physical CDs can be solely attributed to piracy. This is an interesting conclusion, because one would expect that piracy would mostly have an effect on digital sales.

We have a different theory.

Could it be that album sales have been declining over recent years because people now have the ability to buy single tracks? If someone likes three tracks from an album he or she no longer has to buy the full album, something that was unimaginable 10 years ago.

This theory would also fit the sales patterns of the last few years, where album sales are down year after year while the number of individual tracks sold is increasing rapidly. In 2010 the UK music industry sold 161.8 million singles (digital and physical) compared to 66.9 million in 2006. Where does piracy fit in here?

Could it possibly be that piracy is only affecting album sales and not single sales? Would that make sense?

Or could it be that the consumption habits of the average music consumer have changed in the last decade? You never hear the music industry talk about the digital music revolution where an entire generation of people have never even owned a CD. To these people the album concept doesn’t mean as much as it does to older generations.

I’d hate to break the news to all the suits in the music business but the CD is dying, and the album is dying with it. Sure, the true music enthusiast will appreciate the art that a well orchestrated album is, but the masses are increasingly spending their money on singles. The album has lost much of it’s appeal and function to the iPod generation.

And that’s the problem.

The digital revolution in music and the consumer shift from albums to singles described above is hurting the industry’s revenue. Despite the fact that more music is being sold, revenue is shrinking because consumers prefer singles over full albums. And if someone buys 6 single tracks instead of a full album, this means usually that less money is coming in.

This change is mostly being felt by the managers and employees at record labels, and not as much by artists. Since album and single sales are just a small fraction of the artists’ yearly income, and with attendances of live performances being up, the artists are doing great.

We’re not here to argue that piracy has no effect on sales at all, positive or negative, but we do want to point out that the music industry might be chasing a ghost while they ignore the big elephant in the room. The music industry isn’t dying, it’s evolving.

Source: More Music Sold Than Ever Before, Despite Piracy

Earlier this year, the Australian rock band Men at Work were ordered to hand over 5% of royalties for their most famous song ‘Down Under’ after a judge ruled that the flute riff in the song was based on 1934 composition ‘Kookaburra’.

Of course, the infringement was so great that no-one noticed until a TV music quiz show brought the idea into peoples heads – 28 years after the song was published. If it really was a large infringement, then it should really have been noticed 28 years and hundreds of thousands of copies earlier – or at the very least when it was performed at the closing ceremony of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. But all that time, nobody noticed.

These belated lawsuits are happening more often nowadays, and not just down under. In the US, a company called ‘Drive in Music Company’ (DIM) has been adopting the same sorts of tactics over the last few months. The company sued a slew of people over a Super Bowl advert for Kia, with The Hollywood Reporter listing targets for that one advert alone as “Kia, CBS, the NFL, ad agency David & Goliath, Ninja Tune Records and various other parties”.

While that particular suit was filed in a timely fashion, the same outfit has now started on a case that has a strong resemblance to that built against Men at Work. DIM is now claiming infringement on a song that’s old enough to vote.

Cyprus Hill’s ‘How I Could Just Kill a Man’ was released in 1991 as part of a double single as well as their debut album. As with most of their albums, the band uses samples from a number of songs in their own tracks. One of these samples comes from the song ‘Come on In’ by Music Machine that was released in 1966, and that’s the subject of the lawsuit brought on by Drive in Music Company.

All existing copies of Cyprus Hill’s self-titled (double platinum) album will be impounded and sales halted if DIM gets its way, and in addition the company wants damages for the losses they suffered.

The reason for the complaint? According to ContactMusic, DIM bosses were alerted to the alleged sampling after seeing copies of the song for sale on Apple’s iTunes. The case against Cypress Hill is not the only suit they’ve filed; a week earlier they filed against Leaders of the New School and Busta Rhymes over samples on another 1991 album, Future Without a Past.

After almost 20 years the only reason for DIM to want to sue now is because it’s potentially profitable. The longer they waited, the better. The Kookaburra precedent (albeit in Australia) helps make their case.

However, leaving the infringement for so long without action may constitute de-facto acceptance and licensing. Especially as, unlike Kookaburra, Cyprus’ use was obvious (so obvious, it’s been referenced on the album’s wiki page for at least 4 years). That said, it is doubtful that this will matter much in a US court where copyrights are treated with a near holy reverence, and infringement of such is treated as a cardinal sin, racking up penalties equivalent to major crimes.

Unless Cyprus can provide a licensing agreement, DIM may get what they want. When the writers of the US Constitution see how the progress clause has been abused, the least they’re likely to say, is “D’oh!”

Source: Copyright Trolls, Not Just for Patents Anymore

Zabriskie, himself an avid BitTorrent user, said he has leaked all of his albums on torrent sites ahead of their official release date. And he’s not the only one doing this. “I can tell you from numerous conversations and firsthand experience that there are few artists left, even in the big leagues, that do not. You wonder where the early leaks come from? Don’t be so surprised.” he writes.

People are not going to buy any albums before they’ve had a chance to listen to them, or before they’ve seen the artist perform live, Zabriskie reasons. Indeed, the top 1% of all artists might still be able to sell an album based on their previous performances, but the average artist has to be heard first. Much to the dislike of the RIAA, file-sharing networks are the preferred way for many people to sample music.

Zabriskie doesn’t see file-sharing networks as a threat to musicians though, quite the opposite in fact. “No one should ever be upset that people are downloading their record for free. They’re listening to it. And chances are they will buy it someday if they like it. Someone who doesn’t buy it still wouldn’t have bought it if they didn’t download it, so what’s the worry?”

In fact, much like radio, file-sharing networks are a great way to promote music. Zabriskie discovered this himself, as one of his tracks appeared on the famous Indie/Rock Playlist torrent in February 2008. Many artists have seen an increase in their fanbase after one of their tracks appeared in these playlists, since they were downloaded by tens of thousands of people.

“It’s really cool, just one person’s mixtape, but a great way for people all around the world to see what’s going on in music that month. So, very suddenly, tens of thousands of people from around Portland to Poland had that song on their computer. How did Criznittle find it? I don’t know, exactly. But he did, and he liked it, and he shared it, and I found a lot of fans because of it’,” Chris points out.

So what does this mean for the music industry, one might ask. It is hard to predict the future of course, but it’s clear that consumer to consumer promotion will be much more important than the marketing budgets of the major record labels. Music is being freed from the corporate stranglehold, and although it’s a challenge to find the right distribution method for the future, the artists and fans will come out as the winners.

Zabriskie’s final words sum it up nicely.

“Bottom line: if you like something you listen to, support the artist however you can. If that means buying something, great. If that means going to a live show, great. If that means sharing it with a friend, great. If that means blogging about it, great. If that means requesting it on your local college radio station, great. If that means just scrobbling it to Last.fm so people can see that you’re enjoying it, great.”

“That’s the future of music. It’s completely in your hands, not mine, not anyone else’s who makes music. Yours. Don’t let anyone judge you for how you choose to find and experience music. The soundtrack to your life is up to you. All music is free, everywhere. Don’t take that for granted. Share it, disappear into it. It’s yours.”

Amen.

Source: BitTorrent Freed Music, and Now It’s Yours

Since all of the mp3s are available for download on the festival’s site, it only takes one person to get a torrent up and running. Last year it was Greg Hewgill who took the time and effort to put all the MP3s into one big torrent, and for the 2009 edition Ben Stolt did the same.

Since there’s over 6 GB of DRM-free music, using torrents makes it much easier than laboriously downloading every MP3 separately. In addition, using BitTorrent instead of the server based system saves SXSW money in bandwidth costs. The good news is that, for once, the RIAA isn’t watching over your shoulder when downloading music.

There are three torrents for the 23rd SXSW edition which contain a record breaking 1267 MP3s of both upcoming, as well as established artists who will appear at this year’s festival. Needless to say there should be something to suit everyone’s tastes, and all in all it’s a great way to expand your horizons and discover new and upcoming artists, all for free.

This year’s SXSW music festival takes place from March 18-22 in Austin Texas. All the tracks released for the previous editions are also still available for those people who want to fill up their iPod without having to invest thousands of dollars.

Source: SXSW 2009 on BitTorrent: 6 GB of Free Music

In an attempt to have their voices heard, a group of leading musicians have started their own lobby group, the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC). The group includes members such as Robbie Williams, Radiohead and Travis and aims to end the extortion-like practices of the record labels and allow artist to gain more control over their own work.

Last year, Travis experienced the aggressiveness of the labels first hand. When the band encouraged fans to share one of their songs with friends, IFPI went after a fan who posted the song on his website. The IFPI realized that it made a mistake and backed off, but it clearly shows that the labels are out of touch with reality.

Unfortunately, the example above is just the tip of the iceberg. In Europe, music industry lobbyists have managed to strike deals with Internet service providers to go after those people who download music illegally. The artists were never involved in these negotiations though, and many of them oppose the aggressive stance of the labels which turns fans into criminals.

“The digital landscape is changing fast and new deals are being struck all the time, but all too often without reference to the people who actually make the music. Just look at the recent MoU on file-sharing between labels, government and the ISPs. Artists were not involved,” Brian Message, co-manager of Radiohead said.

Similarly, Europe is currently planning to extend copyright on audio recordings from 50 to 95 years, gently pushed by music industry lobbyists of course. Again, the musicians prefer a lowering of the current copyright term to 35 years instead.

The artists feel that the record labels are using copyright on the artists’ work to their advantage, restricting free access. “It’s like taking out a mortgage on a house, paying off the mortgage and you still don’t end up owning the house,” Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien said.

Another worry for the artist is the revenue on digital sales. Quite often, the deals record labels make for selling music online are vague and the artists don’t get paid at all. Last year we already reported on one such artist who found his music on iTunes, but never received a penny. Frustrated, he decided to upload his music onto BitTorrent sites so people could download it for free.

According to Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien, who’s also a member of the newly formed lobby group, this is not an isolated incident. “The music companies did a deal with Nokia recently, so they could launch phones with access to all sorts of music. We think they all received advances from Nokia, but nobody is saying who got what – and we think some of that money should go to the artists,” he said.

The newly formed lobby of top musicians hopes to set the record straight, and is demanding fair compensation for all artists. They believe musicians should have control over their own work instead of being the puppets of record label bosses. We can’t say that we blame them.

Source: Top Artists Strike Back at Greedy Music Labels

One of the key statistics that is hyped every year, is the piracy ratio of downloaded music. Just as last year, IFPI estimates that 95% of all downloads are illegal, without giving a proper source for this figure. Interestingly, those who take a closer look at the full report (pdf), will see that only 10% of the claimed illegal downloads are seen as a loss in sales.

Contrary to the RIAA’s arguments in court, the BPI and IFPI don’t believe in the “every pirated download is a lost sale” myth. Matt Phillips, BPI’s Director of Communications wrote in an email to TorrentFreak: “No, we don’t think every illegal download is a lost sale (and never, ever, have, if my memory serves me correctly). The estimates for lost sales revenue is [sic] not calculated on this basis.”

To come up with a ‘best guess’ of the real losses for the UK market, the music industry have commissioned Jupiter Research. For two years in a row, Jupiter estimated the losses are to be about equal to the revenue that comes from digital sales. If we combine this with the ‘only one in 20 downloads is paid for’ guesstimate, only one in 10 illegal downloads is seen as a loss in sales.

Of course we will be very reluctant to draw conclusions from research that is commissioned by the music industry itself, however, it would interesting to know what the effect is of those downloads that are not seen as a loss. Could they perhaps used by consumers to discover new music, and generate revenue in the long run?

What is clear from the report is that ‘pirates’ have shown the music industry what consumers really want. The music industry is slowly starting to recognize that they have to compete with piracy, by offering high quality products. In the 2009 report, for example, IFPI proudly reports that many services now sell DRM-free music, while they themselves are the reason why these restrictions were implemented in the first place.

In the report IFPI writes: “An important development in 2008 was the licensing of more online stores to sell downloads without digital rights management (DRM), meaning consumers can play the music they acquire on any portable device. In January 2009, Apple announced it had signed deals with leading record companies to offer eight million DRMfree tracks at flexible price points. The move is expected to significantly boost download sales.”

Besides the usual anti-piracy ramblings on how ISPs should help to disconnect pirates from the Internet, the report documents another interesting trend. The music industry clearly recognizes that they’ve done something wrong in the past, and is now promoting unlimited download services, either ad supported or for a low monthly fee. If done right, this ‘piracy inspired’ model might just be the future of music consumption, or at least a worthy competitor to piracy. But then again, they will find something else to complain about sooner or later.

Source: Music Piracy Not That Bad, Industry Says

“Open Your Eyes Records and What.cd are collaborating to revolutionize the industry landscape by making it clear that P2P technology and record labels can work hand-in-hand to accomplish their ultimate goals: getting artists heard and growing their fan bases,” reads the announcement at the BitTorrent tracker.

Open Your Eyes Records will exclusively distribute new releases on the BitTorrent tracker, and it will keep the filesharing community up to date on the latest news. With only one signed artist at the label, the collaboration wont add much to the existing library of nearly 100,000 artists available via the What.cd tracker. However, it sends out a strong message that confirms the current trend that BitTorrent is much more than just a tool for pirates.

There is a whole new generation of music enthusiasts that have grown up with file-sharing. It is part of the music industry now, and it exposes people to more music than they would ever hear on mainstream radio. This is probably not what the RIAA wants to hear, or will ever admit, but music is more popular than ever, with notable thanks to file-sharing. BitTorrent has the power to promote artists based on their music, not on the strength and scope of their advertising budget.

This year, thousands of artists have realized that giving away their music for free can actually help them to create a larger fanbase, but it is difficult to deny that filesharing makes it harder for record labels to hype mediocre content. However, music itself is more alive than ever before.

Source: Record Label Teams Up With What.cd BitTorrent Tracker

The big advantage NiN and Radiohead have, of course, is that they already have a huge fanbase. From a standing start it would be difficult for relatively unknown bands to give their music away, and it would be much harder to get people to donate. To see if this would indeed be the case, and to get an impression of how much revenue an artist can generate from the donation model, we decided to crunch the numbers from Jamendo.

Jamendo is one of the largest music sharing sites where users have the option to donate to artists they would like to support. Since the site launched in June 2005, close to half a million users have signed up. In three years, the site has turned into one of the largest music sharing communities. However, it seems like the donate buttons are gathering dust.

Before we go into detail, we want to make it clear that Jamendo is one of the best free music services on the Internet, as it brings together artists and fans. This post is not an attempt to write about how Jamendo failed, because the site is much more than a ‘download and donate’ platform. What we want to show, however, is that donation based music models are not money magnets for the average artist.

We decided to examine the total number of donations up until October 25, 2008, and the results are quite revealing. Of the 423968 users, 1650 have donated something, little under 0.5%. In total, these users were good for 2712 donations adding up to just over $36,000. This translates into an average of little over $10 per donation. The largest donation on Jamendo thus far was 200 Euros ($250), impressive, but not as impressive as the $5000 NiN’s Trent Reznor donated when he downloaded his ‘free copy’ of Radiohead’s album.

The top grossing artist on Jamendo is Rob Costlow, with just over $1000 in donations over three years. On Jamendo, his two albums were downloaded more than 50,000 times, and over half a million people have streamed his music on the site. Jamendo currently has close to 10,000 artists (not all of them accept donations), and 648 of those received at least one donation. To some this all sounds quite disappointing, but does this mean that artists shouldn’t use donation based services such as Jamendo?

The answer to this question is simple. If their goal is to make thousands of dollars from it, probably not. However, that is not what most artists intend to do. They want their music to be heard, create an audience and pick up some fans here and there. The people who download their music for free, and like it, are potentially the people who visit their gigs, buy merchandising, and tell their friends about this great band they discovered. Lesser known artists will never be able to generate a decent income from donations, but making their music available for free sure is part of a viable business model.

Update: In the title of the article we used “NiN’s Donation Model”, this is not completely accurate. Radiohead had more of a donation model than NiN.

Source: NiN’s Donation Model Doesn’t Work for Most Artists

A whole new generation of artists, most of who grew up with Napster, Limewire and BitTorrent, are starting to utilize the power of filesharing networks. This year alone, thousands of albums were released online for free, and this number is growing at an increasing rate. The possibilities are endless. Some artists use sites like Jamendo, others go for mainstream BitTorrent sites like The Pirate Bay and Mininova, and yet another group prefers niche BitTorrent communities such as What.cd.

On What.cd, one of the larger music communities with over 60,000 members, artists have found a particularly successful outlet. In fact, the free albums are particularly popular, and often among the most downloaded. The music minded members, of which quite a few are artists themselves, are very appreciative of every new album. This August a compilation CD was released with tracks from 19 artists who uploaded their music to the site. This CD, titled “The What CD” is the most active torrent of all time on the tracker.

At TorrentFreak we have now reached a point where we can no longer mention all the artists that give away their music for free. While it was a rather exceptional thing to do three years ago, it has become mainstream today. It is, however, worth talking to one of these new generation of bands and artists who decide to share their music at no cost.

The Pragmatic is such a band. Today, the 5 member band, which was founded in 2006, has released the album ‘Circles’ on BitTorrent and Rapidshare. André, one of the band members, who plays an analog synthesizer from the early 80s, explained to us why they chose to give away their music for free.

“With this first release we really wanted to try out giving it out for free and just see what happens,” he said. “Bands like Radiohead and NIN come out and release stuff for free and have success, but that’s largely because of their already established careers. They’ve built that up the traditional way and they’ve reaped the rewards of that, but their success in file-sharing is more of a perk of that status.”

“Growing up, every musician dreamed of that big shiny record deal, but I don’t think it’s relevant anymore. Labels have had to sober up and re-think what their roles are. It used to be about music, and I think file-sharing has brought that to their attention. By releasing it for free, I guess we could be losing money, but in the long run I think we’re (hopefully) making fans.”

Similar to most other people, André is part of a generation that grew up with file-sharing. It is part of the music industry now, and it exposes people to more music than they would ever hear on mainstream radio. It is probably not what the RIAA wants to hear, or will ever admit, but music is more popular than ever thanks to file-sharing. André agrees, and told TorrentFreak:

“Fans go to shows, buy merch and support bands for all the right reasons. I think that our generation grew up with an almost insatiable need for more and more music. I know I did. I’ve downloaded lots of albums I loved and bought physical versions. I’ve downloaded plenty of albums I hated and deleted. I can’t begin to count how many bands I know and love because of Napster/Soulseek/Bittorrent. File-sharing was never really about stealing music, it was about finding music you loved.”

“Labels will complain and sue their very core audience just to make a dollar. I can’t blame them, it’s the way they’ve built their company. Change scares them, especially when they don’t control it. I honestly believe that I wouldn’t be a musician today if Napster hadn’t appeared. I think Napster fostered the incredible current musical culture and nobody gives them credit for it. I find it very hard for an upcoming artist to get any exposure without being willing to promote their music on p2p networks.”

The clash between artist and labels, and the ever increasing piracy statistics are forcing the big labels to rethink their business models. Nowadays, BitTorrent has the power to promote artists based on their music, not on the advertising budget. It is hard to deny that the music labels are in a crisis, however, music itself is more alive than ever before.

Source: Artists See a Future With BitTorrent

There is no need to register, everyone can search for, and play as many tracks as they like. There is even a queue feature in place for those who want to play more than one song. Registration is free, and offers several benefits, as it enables users to create playlists, add favorites, download tracks, and includes all of the other features Grooveshark offers. This is when it gets even more interesting.

TinySong is linked to Grooveshark, which is best defined as an online version of iTunes, including a store where you can buy songs and a social network where you can connect with other users. Grooveshark allows users to import their music library, which they can then access from any computer with an Internet connection. Users also have unlimited access to streaming music they don’t have in their own library – for free.

Perhaps one of the more interesting features of Grooveshark, for TorrentFreak at least, is that it is a P2P based service. Users who upload their local music library to the site will make it available to all other users. Users are rewarded for every song they share and receive “song credits”, which they can use to buy new tracks. The end result is one of the largest P2P music libraries around with millions of tracks in the collection.

There is also a commercial aspect to the site of course, as Grooveshark offers paid downloads. The downloads are available in different formats, high quality and DRM-free. Individual songs cost 99cents, and can be downloaded to a local computer once purchased. “FLAC, OGG, MP3, anything that’s available online will eventually be in our catalog,” Grooveshark’s Josh Bonnain told TorrentFreak. “We’re currently the only music company, or media company for that matter, that could easily one day offer a selection of over 50 million files.”

Grooveshark has potential, as it’s basically iTunes “in the cloud”, powered by P2P and with a social network on top of that (yes, a lot of buzzwords). All you need is an Internet connection, and you’re hooked up to one of the largest music libraries in the world. Josh told us that there are no deals with any of the major record labels yet, but they are working on it. They do pay royalties though.

“Due to the fact that all content which enters Grooveshark is monetized and made legal to purchase, we will in actuality be able to collect most every song in the world in due time,” Josh told us. “Many members like this, as they don’t need to store music locally, and can listen to all of the live, rare, unreleased, lossless and so forth content which there was no access to before.”

In sum I would say that TinySong is one of the easiest ways to share single tracks with your friends. The Grooveshark service is promising as well, and a great way to access your music library (and more) if you’re not at home. The paid downloads are still too expensive though, even though they offer high quality and DRM-free songs. Getting the labels behind it will be a challenging endeavor, as we already spotted some prerelease tracks (and the Beatles), that made their way from BitTorrent to Grooveshark.

TinySong Search (gotta love BuckCherry)

Source: Find and Share Music with TinySong

The proposal is supposed to secure the pensions of long forgotten artists. In a statement, McCreevy said “I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension.”

According to the Financial Times, the proposal could come up to vote as early as this Wednesday, July 16th. Also up for discussion would be a plan to split up rights societies by the antitrust arm of the commission, potentially making rights societies compete against each other for the rights to collect royalties from artists.

While this would certainly be a better way to curb their less than philanthropic actions, if it comes at the cost of greater copyright, is it that beneficial to the 500 million citizens of Europe? There is a glimmer of hope though. Two commissioners are opposed to the extension plan; telecoms commissioner Viviane Reding and commissioner Antonio Tajan.

The copyright extension plans met initial scorn back when they were first announced in February, with groups like the Open Rights Group and the EFF launching a petition to have it blocked, as well as a website to deal with the issue. Nevertheless, McCreevy kept on going, and the proposal is now ready to be voted on.

McCreevy himself has his pension already planned from a former partnership in a chartered accountancy firm (and he has been in politics since 1977, so he clearly planned early). It is left to wonder then why he feels the need to legislate some sort of speciality pension for artists. If they decide to stop work at 25, why should they be paid for it past 75? If that has been their only source of income, why could they not have done as the hundreds of millions of other EU citizens, myself included, and planned for their retirement?

Commissioner McCreevy had not replied to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Source: EU to Extend Music Copyright to 95 Years

It all began last year when, having released his album “Guidelines For An Emerging Century”, Mr.Suitcase received a payment from Stim, the Swedish Performing Rights Society. Included in it was a refund from the tax that is put on all recordable media in Sweden. Whenever CDRs, mp3-players or similar items are sold, an extra fee of 0,04 crowns/megabyte is added and later paid back to the artists.

“First, I got a bit put off by receiving the money because to me, that kind of arbitrary hand-out of alms is a ridiculous system,” Mr.Suitcase said. “Then I thought, why not see it as an opportunity and earmark the money for something creative. And since the money came from piracy, I had to use it for more piracy, right?”

With the money, Mr.Suitcase bought old used effect boxes and began experimenting. Without knowing where it would take him, he started sending fragments and loops from other people’s songs through the effects.

“I’ve always been fascinated by cut-and-paste aesthetics. I grew up with artists like The Future Sound of London and Saint Etienne who layered samples and combined the bits and pieces to create something brand new, something that became more than just the sum of the elements.”

He says the project “got completely out of control” when friends started to drop by the studio to record new instruments and vocals over the samples. In the end, he had an album’s worth of new songs, although they all were rooted in someone else’s work.

“As the project grew, I lost count of how many original songs that were used in it. Nearly a hundred, I’d guess. It’s very diverse, from Prince to The Rice Twins, from Ashanti to Zongamin. In the end, I realized it wasn’t a mixtape or mash-up but it wasn’t an album either. I decided the tracks were all frauds, called it a wrap and posted it on The Pirate Bay.”

Mr.Suitcase thinks artists should be more relaxed about non-commercial use of their work. Since the world went digital, he feels the availability is a natural consequence that should be embraced rather than hopelessly opposed.

“The way Internet works, there’s no reason to argue for or against file sharing. We can just conclude here and now that file sharing ‘is’. For me, I’m very attached to the idea that the top-down structure of producers and consumers has turned into a blur, and that anything created isn’t only there to be experienced but can also be a building-block for new creations. It’s fantastic! I was absolutely thrilled when techno producer The Field used one of my recordings for his brilliant track ‘Istedgade’.”

“To me, ‘Frauds’ is a statement. There’s so much negativity in the debate. ‘File sharing means artists can’t…’, ‘File sharing means nobody will ever…’ I think it’s the opposite, I think the beautiful aspect of the digital era is that anything recorded can be remixed, tweaked and modified.”

Mr.Suitcase’s album “Frauds” can be downloaded via BitTorrent at mrsuitcase.se.

Source: Pirate Tax Funds Pirate Album

Being a dedicated user of Demonoid, Xihilisk is used to sharing his (and probably others) music. His previous 10 albums are all available for free on BitTorrent. However, he decided to release his latest album “EPTwo Special Edition”, exclusively on the popular BitTorrent tracker Demonoid.

This move seems to be counterintuitive, since an exclusive release on Demonoid will limit the audience. On the other hand, the album wont be exclusive for a long time. In fact, it’s the nature of p2p and BitTorrent that such releases soon spread to other sites.

We got in touch with Xihilisk to find out what motivates artists like himself to share their music on BitTorrent.

TF: Why did you decide to exclusively release your new album on Demonoid?

Xihilisk: I’ve been with Demonoid for a few years, and its always been the first place I go to look for something. I’ve been a member of quite a few other private trackers, and still am, but Demonoid has lots of obscure stuff I haven’t found anywhere else.

In terms of it suitability for this release, it has a large user base, and a decent community that seem genuinely interested in listening to music they’ve never heard of.

TF: What are the benefits of sharing your music on BitTorrent for artist like yourself?

I’ve always given away my music for free. I used to burn off a load of CDRs and hand them out to random people and leave them lying around places, then came myspace, and then the explosion of BitTorrent use. It seemed like the next logical step.

I was using torrents for a long time before I realized that if people can share major artists via the medium, then why can’t I share my own music. Of course, I knew that quite a few people were already doing this, but its still the most exciting and effective way for me to get my music to people who never would have found it otherwise.

TF: What do you think of the RIAA, and the big music labels, for going after their own customers?

Xihilisk: Fuck the RIAA. It sickens me when I hear about somebody getting fined a tonne of cash for downloading a couple of songs off LimeWire (and sharing them probably without even knowing they were). I understand that copyright infringement exists, but destroying someone’s life just for getting a few songs off the internet is disgraceful.

What I find most ironic is that you can share thousands of death metal albums online and you’ll almost certainly never find trouble, but share one Lionel Richie track and they’ll nail you to a wall.

TF: Do you think the music industry will change in let’s say the next 5 years? How do you want it to be?

Xihilisk: 5 years? What music industry? Hopefully, there will only be music.

The Internet is rapidly leveling the playing field for all musicians. I’d like to see it where all money hungry labels go out of business, and a true DIY ethic takes over. You want to get your band noticed? Make really good music and the internet will do the rest. You want to make money? Play a load of gigs or forget it.

Trying to get signed these days is a lost cause. Yes iTunes is doing well, and who knows what tricks the record companies have up their sleeves to stop people getting music illegally, but the fact is that now you’re very lucky if you can make a living from being an artist.

I’m more than happy with that fact that many thousands of people have downloaded my albums legally, for free. And maybe even listen to them!

TF: Thanks, we wish you all the best.

For those who want to check it out, the album can be downloaded at Demonoid. Xihilisk describes his as experimental indie/electronica, with a hint of chiptune, post rock, metal and several other genres.

On a sidenote, it appears that Demonoid has been inaccessible to Dutch users for a few days. The block happened after the site did some server maintenance, there is no official explanation yet, but we will post an unpdate as soon as we have more info.

Source: Artist Releases Album Exclusively on Demonoid

We in the music industry have shown ourselves unable to follow in this change. Some of us have even waged war against those the music is recorded for , the listeners. The rift between producers and consumers has never been bigger. “The truth is that Internet has provided us with a fantastic grey scale of possibilities! Instead of fighting back we ought to obtain learning from the daily newspaper and the computer game industries. They early realized the superiority of the internet and developed new services there.

This sounds like music to our ears. We’ve said it over and over again here at TorrentFreak, The Internet has changed the way people interact with music. Music is more accessible, more popular and cheaper to distribute. Record labels should embrace filesharing and compete with piracy instead of fighting it, and it seems like that these Swedish labels understand that.

TorrentFreak spoke with Henrik von Euler of Flora & Fauna, one of the labels participating in the initiative. We asked him what he thinks the greatest benefits of filesharing are: “Well the first thing is pretty obvious, that you can reach much larger audiences more quickly,” he said. “You bypass many of the existing power-structures and communicate directly with the listeners. It is also a very direct medium where the step from production to consumption is extremely short which is good for creativity I think. In the old days you could have an album ready and have to wait like a year or so to have it released and now you can have your music up online the same day you get the master.”

Henrik told us that he has “no beef” with The Pirate Bay, but he admits that filesharing also has its downsides. “On a personal note I find it hard to choose what to listen to”, he told us “The vast number of sites, bands etc makes me feel stressed out, like I’m always missing something. Speed and accessibility is good because it is fast and accessible but also bad because everything turns more superficial and volatile.”

Henrik was also quite clear about the lawsuits that the RIAA has started agianst music fans: “It’s insane. It can only have bad consequences. I don’t see how they can think antagonizing the listeners will help them secure any of their much desired income.”

“This is great”, says Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party Piratpartiet. “There are creative people who think ahead. These are labels constructing a new business model. The old dinosaurs lobby politicians, sue to the left and to the right and try to control the internet. There is room for the services of a label, few musicians want to do everything themselves. But the labels must serve their musicians and their fans, not the other way around. These new labels have understood that. The future belongs to them.”

The role of the record labels will change in the future, but not entirely according to Henrik von Euler, “I think the role of the label has started to change long ago. It moves towards a more creative role much more like the art curator or such like. And also, just because artists CAN do everything themselves from production to promotion, administration etc doesn’t mean that they actually want to.”

“On another note,” says Henrik “I must add that this is hopefully the last time I will answer questions about filesharing, good or bad. It is there! Live with it. Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem.

Source: Swedish Record Labels See Filesharing as Virtue

This year, for some reason SXSW decided not to release a torrent showcasing the artists (yet). However, all the mp3s are available for download on the SXSW website. Luckily, Greg Hewgill took the time and effort to put all the MP3s in one big torrent, which makes it much easier to download and share. It’s no OiNK, but it is certainly a good way to discover new artists.

Greg writes: “Since 2005, I have supported the annual South by Southwest music festival by operating a “seed” for the BitTorrent files they have created. From 2005 through 2007, SXSW created the torrents themselves and hosted them on their own tracker. I learned that this year, for whatever reason they won’t be doing that for us.”

“So, I took matters into my own hands and have created a torrent of the 2008 showcasing artists.” Greg adds.

The torrent of the 22nd SXSW edition features MP3s from 764 upcoming, as well as established artists who are scheduled to perform at the festival. In total almost 3.5GB of DRM free music. All the torrents previously released by SXSW are also available for download.

For those who are interested, this year’s SXSW music festival takes place from March 12-16, in Austin Texas.

Source: SXSW 2008 on BitTorrent: 3.5 GB of Free Music

Nonetheless, a few days ago (edit: someone who pretends to be) Dependent records’ CEO Stefan Herwig decided to upload all the albums from his label -which mainly features aggrotech, electro-industrial and futurepop artists- onto The Pirate Bay.

In the description on the torrent download page (edit: the fake) Herwig writes: “I closed down my record label Dependent Records for good. But since I want my music to be heard by the people out there, everything I have ever published is now available on The Pirate Bay,” stressing that it’s a legal torrent, approved by the label.

Over the past few months, more and more artists have decided to make their music available for free on BitTorrent sites. However, this move from Dependent Records seems to be a bit odd, especially when you read why the label decided to close its doors. Perhaps the Stefan who posted the albums onto The Pirate Bay isn’t the real one?

Little over a year ago, (edit: the real) Stefan Herwig wrote: “We are not closing our doors because of the existence of pirate websites, but because there are simply too many people who enjoy our bands and their songs who do not wish to pay for them.”

Herwig and his team got frustrated when they saw their albums appearing on P2P networks. They don’t seem to buy the argument that indie artists actually profit from these new technologies, as Herwig writes: “A popular claim often seen on Internet fora maintains that the P2P culture weakens the majors and bolsters the independent labels. This is, we can assure you, 100% bullshit. Even if there are listeners who download first and buy later, they are clearly in the dwindling minority.”

We understand Herwig’s frustration, but 100% bullshit is not completely accurate. Several studies have shown that most artists, especially those who are not mainstream, profit from filesharing. The dwindling minority Herwig is talking about probably exists because of filesharing, and may have never discovered Dependent Records’ artists if their albums weren’t available there.

Music consumption has changed significantly the last decade. People consume more music simply because it is available, illegal or not. The challenge for the the recording industry is to find ways to monetize this demand, for example by all-you-can-eat plans for a fixed price. The bottom line is, piracy has shown that music is more popular than ever, and no artist will ever argue that this is a bad thing.

Update: Stefan, and a colleagues from Dependent Records officially deny that they have anything to do with the leaked albums. They claim that the albums are uploaded by someone who pretends to be Herwig, and has access to the entire catalog of the label. “We never decided anything like that. The offer is completely illegal.The Person who create an account with the nickname Stefan_Herwig has absolutely nothing to do with our label owner of the same name.”

Source: Record Label Quits, Uploads Albums onto The Pirate Bay [Edited]

The press releases put out by the recording industry focus solely on piracy for declining sales, while in reality there are so many reasons. Most have been covered so many times by the media and academics, but we’ll re-iterate a few here.

The Decline in Music Sales

The CD format has now been around for over 25 years. Back-catalogues have been re-released on the medium and consumers lapped it up, replacing their analogue copies of music they own. However, there’s only so many back-catalogues to buy, leaving consumers either only purchasing new music or none at all. A decline in CD sales is an indication of saturation in a market where innovation is lacking. There’s also only so many “best of’s”, “greatest hits” and other compilation albums consumers are going to buy before thinking “I already own three copies of most of these songs, why would I buy another one?”

Format-shifting, the art of moving from one medium to another is on the rise. In the past consumers have moved their collection of music to different formats, usually because of quality improvements and convenience, and paid for the privilege. Now it seems consumers don’t think they should have pay to move their collection of music to their computers and media players, and especially not pay to receive an inferior quality copy of something they already own. It just doesn’t make sense. “Illegally downloading” seems logical. Digital copies of music, which were until recently usually DRM crippled, and are still poor quality in relation to CDs, are simply unattractive.

The thought also never seems to occur to the music industry that perhaps Avril Lavigne, Utada Hikaru, Rihanna, T-Pain and Akon (the artists behind the top 5 digital downloads in 2007) are simply unattractive to the public. How much manufactured pop can society take?

The Problems With P2P Statistics

There is no doubt that piracy is on the rise. This in in part due to the aforementioned, overpriced, inferior or non-existing alternatives. This aside, it is absolutely ridiculous to compare downloads with actual sales. Let’s sum up a few of the reasons.

Firstly, just because someone chooses to download music via P2P doesn’t mean they’re doing it illegally. The recording industry has stated numerous times that it will not sue people for format-shifting, whereby consumers would want a digital copy of music they physically own. Why go to the hassle of copying a CD you own to your PC/media player, when someone else out there has done it for you? There’s a lot to consider when digitizing music from CD, though the one-click approaches of programs like iTunes would let you believe otherwise. Indeed their exists numerous guides on how to best digitize music you own, most notably jiGGafellz’ guide.

Secondly, do these numbers include the antics of MediaDefender? They flood P2P networks with fake files, which unsuspecting users will often download. How many fake files does someone download before managing to get a genuine copy? Even when they have a real copy, how many times before they get one in a high enough quality to suit them?

Thirdly, what about those who download with the sole intention of improving their share ratio on private sites? Sites like OiNK were notorious for users downloading popular releases with no intention of listening to them, just to try and better their ratio. Similarly, users often download entire albums just to listen to one track. While BitTorrent clients have the ability to do selective downloading, broadband connections are becoming so fast that users don’t feel the need to. Other P2P networks where albums might be shared in archives such as .zip, .rar or .tar remove the ability to selective download.

Fourthly, a great deal of people seem obsessed with discographies. They would download an artist’s entire back catalogue of music just because they like collecting, often without listening to it.

A New Business Model?

The million dollar question of course is, what should the recording industry do? We know that there is no straightforward answer to this question, but we speculated about some of the options before. The Internet has changed the way people interact with music. Sites like OiNK made is easy to find and share virtually every piece of music ever produced. Services like last.fm on their turn made it easy to discover new artists, and interact with other fans.

The Internet and filesharing technologies make it possible to make production (of the copies) and distribution costs disappear, yet the prices still don’t change. Why? Because they cling onto their old business models.

Today, the average consumer buys approximately 3/5 CDs a year. Let’s say the labels make $25 a year per consumer. Now, what if the record labels decided to make their entire collection available online, and charge people $2.50 a month for a subscription. This way they could easily double their revenue. New business models will emerge, and I’m pretty sure piracy will pretty much cease to exist. The record industry can even outsource the distribution to online music services, who can even offer the music for free if they come up with other revenue streams to compensate the $2.50 a month per user. I’m just thinking out loud here, but there are tons of possibilities.

So, stop complaining about biased statistics, go back to work and do what you’re supposed to… distribute music to the fans!

Source: Another Year, Another Pile of Misleading Statistics From the Recording Industry

Currently, WeStream supports OGG and MP3 encoded audio files, but more file types will be included in the near future.

There are a few important conditions to achieve an optimal streaming experience. Most importantly, there should be enough seeds and peers to guarantee a decent download speed. Besides this, the playback time will depend on the filesize of the tracks – the higher the bitrate, the more bandwidth is needed.

Below is an example of WeStream for a torrent from Mininova’s featured torrents section. By clicking on this link you can load it in your web browser.

From a technical viewpoint, WeStream prioritizes the bits at the beginning of each song, otherwise it will be impossible to stream anything before the entire track is downloaded. However, like most other BitTorrent clients, it also gives a high priority to rare pieces in order to guarantee an optimal swarm speed.

The applet seeds the torrents as long as you keep the browser window open. Daniele, the developer of both BitLet and the new WeStream feature told TorrentFreak: “It would have been easy to design the streaming client to be extremely selfish, and make it care only for its needs. Ideally, we tried to avoid it: Westream should behave as most torrent clients, with a slightly different piece choosing strategy.”

WeStream is a great tool for people who want to listen to some of the tracks before they download anything, or for people who want to let their friends listen to an album without having to send all the files over first. Above all, it is a great looking innovation from the BitLet team that shows how much is possible with BitTorrent. We might just see this implemented in some of the popular BitTorrent sites soon.

Source: WeStream: Streaming Music From A Torrent File

A group of musicians calling themselves ‘The Overdub Tampering Committee’ (TOTC) have just made a rather unusual announcement. For the last 3 years TOTC have been downloading newly-leaked albums from the internet and using them to create new versions of the tracks. They added their own instruments, and used additional production techniques in the style of the original recording, to create a subtle remix of the original.

Within hours, they then re-released the slightly modified albums back onto file-sharing networks and BitTorrent sites such as OiNK and The Pirate Bay. “If you illegally download music on the internet the chances that our work is in your collection is very, very likely! In fact, you might have a whole lot of us!”, they claim. In fact, ‘Polluting’ P2P networks with this music didn’t end the spread. TOTC have seen their works spread as far as radio stations. No prizes for guessing where they got it from.

It all started around 4 years ago, a member of TOTC downloaded an album only to hear that someone had tampered with it in the middle. This got them thinking: “What if this problem got more insidious, subtle, and widespread? What if there was a network of musicians who got a hold of albums right as they leaked, added subtle yet very much additional overdubs all over the album, and then re-leaked it to the internet?” That’s exactly what they have been doing for the past few years.

Even though the group seem to want to ‘pollute’ P2P networks with these ‘remixes’, they also dislike the music industry:

Attempting to police and punish “illegal downloaders” with lawsuits and fines is misguided and, in our opinion, a waste of time. This model treats the music fans as criminals. That’s an insane business model. But we expect nothing less than insanity from large, crumbling corporations. We do not know how the music industry will change in the next few years and we don’t know how a method will arise to ensure that musicians are properly paid for their recorded work. We have no solutions.

TOTC, who are all members of other active bands, say they have even released tampered versions of their own songs, and uploaded them to the Internet. “That was particularly fun for us.” they said. But what is the group’s opinion on file-sharing itself? They say they don’t think it’s wrong and download stuff themselves to test before buying on physical media.

So what was their motivation to do this?

“All we wanted to do was fuck with the treasure everyone’s hunting for to realign everyone’s perspective.”

We contacted TOTC for some additional information, but they haven’t replied so far. The Overdub Tampering Committee manifesto can be found here. (via Idolator)

Source: Have You Been Punked By TOTC?

Following a Canadian newspaper article which branded them ‘The Pirates of Quebec’, two BitTorrent trackers have been targeted by a collective of Canadian music labels.

The administrator of the 1 year old, 46,000 member ‘QuebecTorrent‘ has received Cease and Desist letters from 4 record labels and is being threatened with further action if they don’t comply.

The demands are:

a) Close the site www.quebectorrent.com and any other site of similar nature which you operate.

b) You must agree to never again directly or indirectly operate any other service which enables the sharing of music.

c) You must post a message clearly indicating the closure of the site and inform your users that sharing music via p2p networks is forbidden by Canadian copyright law unless permission is obtained and royalties paid.

In contrast to the situation at Demonoid who chose to block Canadian users rather than close or re-locate, it appears that QuebecTorrent (QT) don’t want to take this lying down and are hoping to fight this action.

Currently the members are being rallied with a view to obtaining donations – the administrator of QT told TorrentFreak that their lawyer is charging 250$ CAD/hour and although he is financing some of the fight, he simply cannot raise all of the funds.

He told us: “The fees so far are confirmed at 2000$ CAD. I am asking the users for 1500$ and I will pay the rest.”

He also outlines two scenarios – if QuebecTorrent loses in court, it will be very bad for P2P as a favorable legal precedent for the majors would result in an anti-p2p ‘crusade’.

Equally, victory could create a favorable legal precedent for P2P which would benefit the whole file-sharing community.

In summing up, the administrator says that he has a stark choice – either people donate to support the legal defense of the site or he will have no choice but to close it in the face of pressure from these labels.

Anyone wanting to help QuebecTorrent fight should consider donating.

Stay tuned, updates to follow

Source: After Demonoid, Canadian Music Labels Take on BitTorrent Trackers

I have been an avid music collector for many years, and have approximately 1000 CD’s in my collection, not counting albums that I have purchased over the internet and own only digital copies of. I purchase approximately 30-40 new CDs per year. However, thanks to your recent decision to block Canadian users from accessing Demonoid, I have decided that I cannot continue to support this backwards, dysfunctional industry with my money any longer, and as such, I do not plan on purchasing music ever again if it means that one penny goes to your organization.

I listen to heavy metal music, a form of music that “the industry” stopped supporting many years ago, so I have a hard time feeling any sympathy. Sites such as Demonoid have done far more to promote the music I love than your organization or the industry in general has ever done. I can find out about new artists and new releases from artists that are never promoted. I can listen to music from artists that have never been played on the radio, will never be shown on MuchMusic or MTV, and never have a review or even mention of their new album written about in the local newspaper. From listening to this music, I can make an informed decision if I wish to purchase the album or not, as I am not going to gamble $15-20 on something that I haven’t heard anything off of before.

25 years ago, I primarily learned about music from friends who dubbed a copy onto a cassette tape, where I could listen to it and make a decision if I wanted to buy the tape for myself. Now, many years removed from school, my “gang” of friends to share music with has shifted from cassette tapes and the school cafeteria to sharing mp3′s online. I listen to some things that I don’t like, and consequently, I don’t buy those albums. What I do like, I buy, or at least I used to, before your decision intended to stop me from hearing new music.

The industry cries that record sales are down, and blames this all on internet downloading. I won’t be so naïve as to say that internet downloading has no impact on the sales. Downloading has certainly stopped me from making the stupid purchases where I heard one single that I liked and bought an entire album only to find out that the rest of the songs are crap, and the CD sits collecting dust on my shelf. But for every CD that I didn’t buy based on those premises, there are 2 or 3 other CDs that I did buy because I heard of them for the first time on a site like Demonoid.

In the meantime, the music industry itself needs to recognize that they are to blame for sagging record sales. For years, they have been marketing recycled crap, and people are getting tired of it. On the odd occasion that something fresh and new accidentally slips through and gets radio play, the music industry immediately signs a seemingly infinite number of clone bands that makes the “new, fresh” sound boring almost instantly. It seems the music industry doesn’t even care about making or promoting good music any more. Instead, they market a young, pretty face that can dance provocatively and lip-synch well, and push this on the radio stations to play while getting the tabloids to print large pictures of their breasts. If bands like AC/DC or Motorhead were to emerge today, they would never be successful; not because of poor record sales due to downloading, but due to the fact that they’re ugly so the record company wouldn’t promote them, if they picked them up at all. In the meantime, they’re falling all over themselves to promote Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, or any teenage tramp that can be airbrushed to look sexy.

The record labels cry about downloading cutting into the profits of the sales of albums. They put out “greatest hits” albums by 20-year olds with 2 or 3 albums under their belts, released with one new track to try and sucker the fans that already have both albums into spending another $20 for one new song, or re-releasing a 3-month old album with a “previously unreleased bonus track”. Then they can’t understand why people aren’t buying them, and cry foul that people are downloading the one new song instead.

I know not only the record companies are crying. Artists that have been around long enough to have enough clout to get a cut of the record sales are concerned about their cut, like Metallica that also clamor that “downloading is evil”, and then go on to sell over 9 million copies of their last album instead of 9.1 million. Boo hoo. Meanwhile, many younger, smaller artists favor downloading, because they know it’s the only way that people will get to hear the music and in turn come out to see their shows, because the record label sure as hell isn’t promoting them. But they can’t say that out loud, can they? If they do, guess which band is going to get dropped by the label?

So tell me, what does the CRIA do to promote metal? Oh, right, you’ve got a link to the top 50 “metal” albums in Canada, which after a quick glance at the top ten this week includes punk acts like Dropkick Murphys, Finger Eleven, and Billy Talent, and rock acts like Nickelback and Queen, but very little that resembles heavy metal. (Perhaps you should ask the Celtic punk band, Dropkick Murphys, what they think of being labeled as “metal”.)

And also tell me, without Demonoid, where would I have found out about bands like Evile or Dublin Death Patrol and made a decision to purchase their album online (because no record store that I have found in Canada carries either one). And god forbid the CRIA would care about the promotion of Canadian talent, such as longtime recording artist Annihilator, which released one of the better albums of 2007. However, I have yet to see their new album sold in any store in Canada, including HMV’s flagship store on Yonge Street in Toronto, and I ultimately had to buy a copy from a UK website. Considering the only place I had heard about this album was having downloaded it from Demonoid, do you really expect anyone to make this kind of effort to buy an album without ever having heard it?

The record labels and CRIA have gone to great lengths to tell us that downloading and sharing music is killing the music industry. Open your eyes and you will see that the music industry dinosaur has already been killing itself for years, and by resisting technology rather than embracing it and using it to their advantage. “Oh, but they have,” you try to insist, pointing to the sites devoted to selling music in mp3 format online. I notice that most of the metal bands I am interested in are still not available through these services. I also notice that buying an entire album ends up costing as much, if not more, than if I went to buy it in the store, even though there are no longer costs of materials or shipping that have to be paid for, and once again, I fail to come up with any sympathy for the music industry. I hope the music industry does die, because I know that music itself will not die so with the corrupt aspects of the industry gone, only then might music once again flourish.

Sincerely,

A former music buyer

Source: Demonoid Aftermath: An Open Letter to the CRIA

In the meantime, we thought we could take a look at some other Russian music sites, offering cheap music to the masses.

Winner: MP3Fiesta

MP3 Fiesta hold nearly 67,000 albums from nearly 17,000 artists. Prices are around the $0.10 mark for single tracks with full albums coming in at roughly $1.00. Tracks are available from 192kbps and they take major credit cards and PayPal.

LegalSounds

Another allofmp3 replacement, LegalSounds.com prices are $0.09 per song, full album downloads average $1 each. Music carried includes the US Top 100 Albums/Singles, European Top 100 Albums and UK Top 50. Tracks are available between 192kbps and 320kbps and they take major credit cards.

JustMusic

Just Music carry around 160,000 albums from 44,000 different artists. Prices vary according to the amount of credit you apply to your account and range between $0.11 and $0.15 per track. Tracks are available at 192kbps and they take major credit cards and PayPal.

GoMusic

GoMusic claim to carry over 35,000 tracks. Prices are $0.19 per track and around $2 per full album. Tracks are available in various bitrates and they take major credit cards.

MP3 Skyline

MP3 Skyline appears to be offering a huge amount of music. The site claims a staggering 2.2 million tracks available from over 128,000 artists. Prices are around the $0.35 mark for single tracks and encoded at 192kbps. Major credit cards and PayPal are accepted, along with other payment options. They also have a free download of the day, currently ‘Seeing Red’ by Killing Joke.

MP3Sale

MP3 Sale boasts a cataolgue of over 90,000 albums from 23,556 artists. Prices are $0.15 for a single track with full albums around the $1.50 mark. Tracks are encoded at 192kbps and the site takes all major credit cards, PayPal and a wide range of other payment options.

iSound

iSound currently offer nearly 60,000 albums from 14,000 artists. Prices start at $0.11 per track up to a maximum of $0.15, depending on the amount fo credit deposited in your account. Tracks are encoded at a minimum of 192kbps. Major credit cards and PayPal are accepted.

Enjoy the music!

Source: Top Cheap Russian AllofMP3 Alternatives

All albums are Creative Commons licensed, and available in MP3 (~200Kbps) and Ogg Vorbis (300Kbps) format. They can be downloaded with your favorite BitTorrent client and Emule.

Jamendo has more great features. You can share albums you like on your blog, write a review, or make a donation to support your favorite artist. Some artists already promised to include a list of supporters in the booklet of their forthcoming albums. Both artists and music fans will profit from this model. Everybody wins, except for the big record companies of course.

Source: Discover and Download Free Music Albums with The Spiral

The national news agency is reporting that this is the first such ruling in Spain. The law in Spain dictates that there needs to be “an intent to profit”, for someone to be held liable for copyright violation. A few years ago, the recording industry tried to sue 4,000 filesharers in Spain on the grounds that “intent to save money” is the same as “intent to profit.”

It seems like Spain is one country that’s really standing up and saying ‘no’ to what they think isn’t right. A Spanish Senator is suggesting that the law firm broke the law by “intercepting private communications” without a court order. The firm replied by saying that by using “older P2P software” the names of the files traded and IP addresses were publicly available to them.

The Spanish law firm that was filing the lawsuits on behalf of the recording industry said that they would demand maximum jail sentences for each convicted individual plus compensation equivalent to the market value of each file illegally distributed. It claimed that the P2P piracy in Spain had cost them more than $96 million.

Source: Spanish judge: Non-commercial filesharing is legal

According the research, only 14 percent of Canadians have downloaded music from P2P networks in the last 12 months. This is down from 15 percent last year. The percentage has been steadily decreasing over the past few years. It was at its height in 2002 and 2003 at 21 percent, then went down to 19 percent in 2004.

To dwell a wee bit longer in the stats, the demographic that had the highest filesharing activity was the young one. 39 percent of 12-17 year olds downloaded in the past 12 months, in comparison to 3 percent of those over the age of 46.

The RIAA’s Canadian arm, the CRIA commissioned a survey earlier this year that focused on the percentage of people that had ever used filesharing services at all. This number was clearly misleading as a whooping 69 percent of the 12-17 year olds and 64 percent of 18-25 year olds had tried using one or more of the many services at some point of time, but hadn’t necessarily kept using them. Therefore the CPCC’s figures seem to contradict the CRIA’s and quite clearly prove that filesharing is declining in Canada, even though certain parties would like to believe otherwise.

Source: P2P usage going down in Canada

They’d rather sue them. But enormous and continuing opposition from the music monopolies notwithstanding, the indies and p2p networks survive, meaning music lovers have for years been able to satisfy their unyielding passion and thirst for music, entertainment, and information.

Now Froggie Would A Wooing Go takes on a new meaning. Something called SpiralFrog is lurching in with Big Four Organized Music cartel founder-member Vivendi Universal to offer (you guessed it) a, “secure environment where music lovers can satisfy their unyielding passion and thirst for music, entertainment, and information”.

“Secure” means users won’t be terrorized and/or sued by the RIAA or any of the dozens of other Big Four ‘trade’ organizations such as the IFPI, BPI, CIRA, ARIA, and so on and etc

The Frog will force users to sit through brain-dead advertisements before they can download, and the songs will polluted with Microsoft WMA DRM (Digital Restriction Management) so they won’t play on Apple iPods which isn’t, of course, anything new.

Naturally, sharing will be strictly forbidden. Froggers will also have to allow alien anti-p2p software into their computers to stop them from making copies of tunes they download, share them or burn them.

They’ll also have to re-qualify by checking in at the Frog’s site every month. If they don’t, access will be cut off.

Significantly, former RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) boss Jay Berman is at the top of the Frog directors list. He’s the ‘Berman’ in Berman Rosen Global Strategies with protege Hilary Rosen, another ex-RIAA boss, as the Rosen.

And to further digress, “Jay Berman was also on the board of Loudeye, owner of Overpeer the spoofing company that planted spoofed recordings on the web to the annoyance of music consumers and the amusement of unauthorised sites who increased their value as traffic increased to cope,” a p2pnet reader commented, also pointing out, “Unfortunately cheating music consumers with fake recordings wasn’t a long term business propostion with Overpeer recently closed down.”

Anyway, “Offering young consumers an easy-to-use alternative to pirated music sites will be compelling,” states Frog ceo Robin Kent. The target audience is people between aged 13 to 34, “an advertiser’s dream,” as he states it.

Older users can, presumably, go fish.

Warner Music, EMI and Sony BMG, the other three members of the Big Four cartel, will be watching keenly.

Will significant numbers of the hundreds of millions of people who currently steer well clear of the paltry, over-priced corporate offerings, preferring the p2p networks and indie sites, now switch to the Frog site?

Not a hope.

Interestingly, Kazaa is expected to introduce a free-with-advertising service, “when it reintroduces itself as a licensed, legitimate distribution business,” says The New York Times.

Sharman Networks recently achieved its ambition of years by ‘settling’ with the cartels and as p2pnet said, “the deal with the Big Four also means Kazaa will be resuscitated“.

SpiralFrog hops into North America in December, and into the UK close to the start of 2007.

p2pnet

Source: SpiralFrog to offer “free” downloads

The Inquirer writes:

Amy had been chosen as one of ten young artists to feature on the My Music chart that launches in October across 1,400 UK schools. But her inclusion was blocked by the BPI after its snoops discovered she is signed to Flowerburger Records, an independent record label which is running an online petition drumming up opposition to the BPI’s policy of suing music fans who use p2p websites.

Amy and a group of sympathizing children protested against this outrageous decision yesterday by holding balloons with supporting messages in front of the BPI office in London.

The BPI sure does begin to look a lot like the RIAA, their US counterpart.

Source: Anti-Piracy lobby bans Kid From music chart

Futuristic Sex Robotz was founded by Coaxke and PC Speaker during a Keystone Ice induced drunken haze in late 2004. They dish out the cold, hard truth with skill and creativity unlike anything the internet has seen before. Gangsta style…

The album “hotel coral essex” covers topics like the MPAA, the BitTorrent site Empornium (cheggit!), and World of Warcraft.

Rating: 4/5

Featured track: Fuck The MPAA

[audio:http://www.TorrentFreak.com/music/05_Fuck_The_MPAA.mp3]

website: futuristicsexrobotz.com
Download album: torrent

Track List:

01. Van On Fire
02. Welcome To The Internet
03. Back In The Day
04. Law & Order
05. Fuck The MPAA
06. The Positronic Pimp
07. Hey, Ladies
08. WoW
09. Dishwater
10. LiveJournal
11. Back To The Future
12. Don’t Make Us Kick Your Ass
13. Empornium
14. If I Ruled The World
15. Checking Out

Source: Album review: hotel coral essex by futuristic sex robotz

Source: Jamendo Reaches 1000 Albums Mark

Dawn Barger, manager of the Decemberists says:

For the most part, MTV and VH1 won’t touch video unless bands have sold a huge number of records, it’s impossible to get rotation.”

Publishing a video on BitTorrent, is cheap, easy and efficient. The hardcore fans helped to seed the torrent and within a couple of days the torrent was downloaded more that 2000 times.

Slim Moon, founder of Kill Rock Stars, the Decemberists’ record label responds:

“No matter where you stand on issues of copyright, a network like BitTorrent is really for exactly this kind of thing When you have content that you want to freely distribute, it seems like … the most logical way to distribute.”

The video for “Sixteen Military Wives” was shot for less than $6,000 at a high school in Portland, Oregon, and features members of the band participating in a Model United Nations, a simulation popular in high schools to teach students about problem-solving and international relations. In the video, Decemberists singer Colin Meloy represents the United States and boldly declares war on Luxembourg, a not-so-subtle jab at the Bush administration’s decision to go to war.

By the way, their album “Castaways and Cutouts” probably looks familiar to most people in the BitTorrent community.

grab the torrent

Wired article

Source: The Decemberists Release Music Video on BitTorrent

Source: The BitTorrent Song