PDA

View Full Version : Prince versus Pirate Bay


Shellhead
11-21-2007, 01:12 PM
http://tech.msn.com/news/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=5727654&GT1=10638

"Prince: The Artist Who Formerly Liked the Internet

"As reported Friday by CNET News.com, Prince plans to sue The Pirate Bay in three countries for encouraging copyright violations--the United States, France, and Sweden, where the Pirate Bay is based.

"File sharers who are now cursing Prince should remember that for nearly 10 years he has tried to solve a problem that has stumped the beleaguered record industry: how can you make money from digital music?

"Prince was the first major artist to distribute an album exclusively online, though he later decided to release the record on disc. He continued releasing music over the Web after leaving his record label, Warner Bros., in the mid-1990s. It was only last summer, after giving away millions of albums for free, that a spokesman told The New York Times that "Prince's only aim is to get music direct to those that want to hear it."

"Some believe Prince was disappointed by his online experiments. Whatever revenue he generated from Web sales doesn't appear to have been enough to prevent him from going to the record labels for help distributing his music on CD. Sony was due to release Planet Earth in the United Kingdom this year but backed out when Prince inked a deal with Britain's Sunday Mail to include a copy of the album with every newspaper circulated on July 15. The promotion also angered the country's music retailers.

"Online distribution arrangements developed by other musicians have yielded mixed results as well. Last month, the British band Radiohead told fans to download its album In Rainbows and pay whatever they wanted. ComScore, an Internet tracking service, reported last week that it estimated only 38 percent of those who downloaded paid anything at all. Radiohead's representatives responded on Friday by saying ComScore's data was "wholly inaccurate." Accurate or not, it wasn't the first--and not likely the last--novel music distribution idea that has disappointed.

"Perhaps Prince decided the time for experimentation was over. In September, he announced he was planning to sue YouTube, The Pirate Bay, and eBay for allegedly encouraging people to violate copyright. Since then he has sent cease-and-desist orders to YouTube and unauthorized fan sites. Each order requested removal of copyright content he claimed to own."

Interesting development. If that info about Radiohead is accurate, that certainly reflects poorly on their fanbase, and also on the whole business model of selling digital music over the internet. Prince has seriously tried to do it, and it hasn't worked out, so maybe this is a good time to re-assess what we think we know about the music industry business model.

MartinRedmond
11-21-2007, 01:29 PM
I think suing YouTube or websites for posting music videos is a tad ridiculous. No one's ever gonna pay money for a music video anyway. It's a promotional tool for artists. I mean, w/e. I think suing over song lyrics being posted is ridiculous as well.

jesse_custer
11-21-2007, 01:31 PM
If those data are true about Radiohead's album, how does that reflect poorly on the band's fanbase? People weren't responsible for paying anything. It was a dumb business decision.

I'm also curious about why we need to assess the music industry business model again. If people can get something for free without being prosecuted, a lot of them will get it for free. Meanwhile, the mainstream music industry will continue to produce lowest-common-denominator tunes so it can latch onto the last bit of diminished profit that it can acquire.

To me, the most interesting part of this post is Prince. He could be termed a hypocrite now, even though there is a difference between the artist himself distributing his product for free and others violating copyright. I don't doubt his standard for honest distribution. I doubt his concern for artistic expression.

Rattlehead
11-21-2007, 02:16 PM
I completely missed how in the hell eBay fits into all of this.

Ben Morgan
11-21-2007, 02:55 PM
Seeing as this is Prince, this doesn't surprise me

Shellhead
11-21-2007, 02:58 PM
I completely missed how in the hell eBay fits into all of this.

I'm guessing that Prince objects to the idea of people re-selling his music. He probably doesn't realize that they generally are selling music at a loss on eBay.

Spike-X
11-21-2007, 03:04 PM
The eBay thing probably concerns people selling bootleg material.

At least this current lawsuit has a little more validity than his recent one against his fan sites, demanding they take down pretty much everything, up to and including pictures of people's Prince-themed tattoos.

Why is it that when artists start to decline and sell fewer and fewer records, the first people they lash out against are their fans?

Rattlehead
11-21-2007, 03:10 PM
The eBay thing probably concerns people selling bootleg material.

At least this current lawsuit has a little more validity than his recent one against his fan sites, demanding they take down pretty much everything, up to and including pictures of people's Prince-themed tattoos.

It's against eBay policy to sell bootleg material. You can get away with it for a short time, but they will suspend your account.


Why is it that when artists start to decline and sell fewer and fewer records, the first people they lash out against are their fans?

Sometimes they feel abaondoned by those same fans. Sometimes they feel the fans don't "get" the new direction they've taken, and blame them for their decreased popularity. Sometimes they felt the fans were beneath them all along.

Rattlehead
11-21-2007, 03:12 PM
I'm guessing that Prince objects to the idea of people re-selling his music. He probably doesn't realize that they generally are selling music at a loss on eBay.

That's a load of crap. If I pay $20 for a CD, it becomes my property, and I can resell it if I want. This is why I ahve very little sympathy for the music industry as a whole when it comes to downloading. The majority of the music industry are greedy idiots.

MartinRedmond
11-21-2007, 04:51 PM
If those data are true about Radiohead's album, how does that reflect poorly on the band's fanbase? People weren't responsible for paying anything. It was a dumb business decision.

Didn't they make 16 million dollars total out of it? Oh boo hoo. It serves Radiohead right for charging cash for poorly encoded MP3s. The problem with music companies is most don't want to sell you a crystal clear MP3 that can be copied but a CD can be copied so whatever. They should sell you perfect quality files. I wouldn't pay for a compressed JPG of a painting, especially with garbage artefacts in it.

rationalmadman
11-21-2007, 04:59 PM
Hmm there a twist to Radiohead's results I'm not sure anyone noticed. Radiohead now knows exactly how much thier fans value their music. Prince seems upset that people are listening to his work, without paying him, is this becasue he knows he overvalues his music? I think it would have been more interesting though if Radiohead had required everyone to pay something, but set the lowest possible amount at say, 1 cent.

jesse_custer
11-21-2007, 05:48 PM
Didn't they make 16 million dollars total out of it? Oh boo hoo. It serves Radiohead right for charging cash for poorly encoded MP3s. The problem with music companies is most don't want to sell you a crystal clear MP3 that can be copied but a CD can be copied so whatever. They should sell you perfect quality files. I wouldn't pay for a compressed JPG of a painting, especially with garbage artefacts in it.

I missed something. Where did you get this $16 million figure?

J. Robb
11-21-2007, 06:34 PM
I'm guessing Prince got a call from the IRS...

Sanagi
11-22-2007, 02:44 AM
I'm disappointed that Pirate Bay hasn't put up a response to this yet...

Anyways, haven't they proven themselves to be bulletproof at this point? If even the DMCA isn't open-ended enough to make torrent tracking illegal, I'm not sure what is.

The Mirrorball Man
11-22-2007, 04:14 AM
38% of Radiohead fans paid for something they could have dowloaded for free? I think it's very impressive.

MartinRedmond
11-23-2007, 03:21 PM
They paid for crap encoded Mp3s. Lots of people didn't make a donation because it's not an album. It's preview quality.

Voncaster
11-23-2007, 08:54 PM
I forget what the number was and I am not going to speculate. But I will say that I heard on mpr (minnesota public radio) that Radioheads back catalog was up a signifcant number after in rainbows was released. So perhaps it was a savvy business move after all.

The Mirrorball Man
11-23-2007, 11:20 PM
They paid for crap encoded Mp3s. Lots of people didn't make a donation because it's not an album. It's preview quality.

Most people don't care about high fidelity. In fact, most people don't care at all about sound quality.

SPAfreak
11-23-2007, 11:29 PM
38% of Radiohead fans paid for something they could have dowloaded for free? I think it's very impressive.

38% of fans paid for something that is pure profit for the band after paying for recording fees that they would have already had to pay a studio and server/bandwidth fees. I'd call that incredibly financially lucrative.

And no, most fans don't care about or notice sound quality. I'm guessing that at least half of those people out there complaining are only doing it because others have. Most computer speakers and mp3 earbuds aren't of sufficient quality to distinguish sound quality well.

Patient Boy
11-24-2007, 05:15 AM
They paid for crap encoded Mp3s. Lots of people didn't make a donation because it's not an album. It's preview quality.

Wasn't it at 160kbps and DRM-free? I think that makes it a better proposition than iTunes 128kbps downloads with DRM, although apparently AAC sounds better than MP3s at lower bitrates. I wouldn't know.