Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Chumbawamba Factor

Hemos posted about 9 years ago | from the marketing-to-the-masses dept.

Music 239

putko writes "Chris Dahlen has written about BigChampagne, a company that looks at peer-to-peer downloading to provide marketing data to record companies. By analyzing what folks are downloading, when and where, BigChampagne can tell the record companies what people like, what other records they like and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars. As mentioned in the article, record companies started using this information (secretly) even as they were trying to stop filesharing via the courts."

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Whoops, no time! (5, Funny)

Willeh (768540) | about 9 years ago | (#13595848)

I'd comment, but i have to download some Wesley Willis. Did you hear that, BigChampagne people? WESLEY WILLIS. http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php?b and=wesleywillis [alternativetentacles.com]

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

Re:Whoops, no time! (5, Funny)

mmkkbb (816035) | about 9 years ago | (#13595891)

"Rock on Chicago, Rock on London, Rock over RIAA."

Shouldn't that be "RIAA sucks a llama's nuts"?

Re:Whoops, no time! (-1, Flamebait)

Willeh (768540) | about 9 years ago | (#13595911)

I'd prefer "RIAA licks a bulldog's nasty asshole" ,myself.

Re:Whoops, no time! (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 9 years ago | (#13595955)

He kicked Spiderman's ass 'cause his keyboard got damage... or something.

Re:Whoops, no time! (1)

freewaybear (906222) | about 9 years ago | (#13596270)

Fuck with him, and find out! (He'll shoot you with his BB gun.)

Re:Whoops, no time! (0, Offtopic)

freewaybear (906222) | about 9 years ago | (#13596308)

75th post! Get On The Bus!

How RIAA Thinks (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13596439)

I'd comment, but i have to download some Wesley Willis. Did you hear that, BigChampagne people? WESLEY WILLIS Oh yeah, down with the RIAA!! How dare they profit from something illegal! Rock on Chicago, Rock on London, Rock over RIAA.

RIAA Guy 1: "One Wesley Willis download? An aberation. A blip, doesn't count."
RIAA Guy 2: "But if there are 10 downloads?"
RIAA Guy 1: "Then that means by our reckoning that there were at least 3 illegal downloads which happened somewhere and we need to prosecute!"

Re:Whoops, no time! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596475)

RIAA got on my nerves
They were running me amock
They ridiculed me calling me a bum
I whooped RIAA's ass

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

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

Rock over London
Rock on Chicago
Wheaties, the breakfast of champions

Legal Action (3, Insightful)

Krast0r (843081) | about 9 years ago | (#13595856)

"..and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars" i.e. information critical to prosecuting as many people as possible. Who here really believes that they will stop at monitering the tracks downloaded?

Re:Legal Action (2, Informative)

mmkkbb (816035) | about 9 years ago | (#13595913)

Right. If they were really interested in what people were listening to, they'd invest more time in AudioScrobbler.

Re:Legal Action (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | about 9 years ago | (#13596184)

I read "..and other information critical to deciding how to allocate marketing dollars" as information critical to pushing out the next Britney Spears album...

Frist pRost (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13595858)

Fript sropts w00t!

I get knocked down (5, Funny)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | about 9 years ago | (#13595859)

Well, I guess we get knocked down, but we get up again! They ain't never ever ever gonaa win!

Re:I get knocked down (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13596063)

My Karma gets knocked down, but it gets up again! They ain't never ever ever gonaa win!

Re:I get knocked down (1)

fm2503 (876331) | about 9 years ago | (#13596157)

We get a whiskey drink, we get a cider drink, we get a lager drink, we get a soda drink.........

[ot] lyrics (1, Funny)

wild_berry (448019) | about 9 years ago | (#13596374)

/me drinks to remind me of the good times.
/me drinks to remind me of the better times.

Textbook example (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13595865)

A classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do", methinks.

Re:Textbook example (3, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | about 9 years ago | (#13595963)

It's more like "making the best of a bad situation".

Re:Textbook example (4, Insightful)

Iriel (810009) | about 9 years ago | (#13596195)

The only problem with that idea is that it makes another point for the RIAA to look hypocritical. The record companies KNOW that a good number of P2P downloaders buy CDs from artists they download (I'm not saying everyone does to defend them, so don't flame me for all the actual media pirates). I just think that our lawsuit craven culture supports more excuses to sue little Cindy-Loo-Hoo out of her lunch money.

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

Re:Textbook example (1)

pianophile (181111) | about 9 years ago | (#13596234)

Cindy-Loo-Hoo

This should be spelled "Cindy Lou Who", actually.

I know you were just dying to know that.

Re:Textbook example (2, Insightful)

fshalor (133678) | about 9 years ago | (#13596414)

How could you catch that... and miss the open tag for the ?

He's right though. p2p is an issue. But it's one that's kind of more symptomatic of a larger problem.

The other news on this same /. day, of the artists providing a howto to circomvent the DRM on their own cd from Sony is a bit closer to the crux.

Manufacturers aren't listening to *either* artists or listeners. Which really sucks.

Re:Textbook example (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | about 9 years ago | (#13596392)

Don't wanna make waves, can't you see?

Maybe they should become alligator wrestler's and get their ears bit off.

My apologies to those who know who I'm quoting. And to who I'm quoting.

Really.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13595866)

First post?

Music servers (3, Interesting)

rawwa.venoise (881755) | about 9 years ago | (#13595868)

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

Do they erase the downloaded songs after? I wouldn't mind working there i guess ...

Re:Music servers (1)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | about 9 years ago | (#13595932)

If they're the copyright holders or working on behalf of they copyright holders they don't need to

Re:Music servers (1)

terrymr (316118) | about 9 years ago | (#13596336)

oh no ... you bought into the BS The record co is not the copyright holder usually. They're just a licensee ... check a copyright notice on a CD. Says something like "Copyright 2005 Band Name here. Published by very big music corporation".

Re:Music servers (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596012)

Lets see.

First No. they have no music servers.
Second No. They download nothing.

Finially they delete nothign because they download nothing.

Their program is actually nothign more then a statistics analasys program that harvets data from result sets returned by P2P searches.

It is complicated as fuck, don't get me wrong. But no music data ever trades hands.

Re:Music servers (2, Funny)

saigon_from_europe (741782) | about 9 years ago | (#13596292)

It is complicated as fuck...
Being /.-ers, we must admit it is then extremely complicated...

Re:Music servers (1)

rawwa.venoise (881755) | about 9 years ago | (#13596471)

Cool. So if they don't download nothing what stop people from floading the search with fake file servers?
Better yet they can't actually prove the files on my computer are from any RIAA associated artist, since they actually didn't test for the file content and i can have any file named Mariah Carrey for my thesis document if this make sense :)
So people should try to locate these searchers and flood them with shit !!! Shouldn't be much difficult since they don't take nothing. It's like the cops, they ask too much about the drugs and don't buy any ...

Win win situation (5, Funny)

wlvdc (842653) | about 9 years ago | (#13595882)

Both users and providers get what they want, illegally.

Eat Your Cake (5, Informative)

mfh (56) | about 9 years ago | (#13595885)

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

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

The RIAA is reacting to a market change; P2P. They are learning that P2P has value to them, perhaps more value than loss, in that they can get a real consensus on what people want. Furthermore, the RIAA can no longer deem P2P as an immoral behaviour that corrupts society, because the fruit from the tree has poisoned their self-professed purity.

Re:Eat Your Cake (0)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about 9 years ago | (#13595920)

Surely not. That would suggest realism, or at the very least sanity. We cannot let our betters make rational decisions, civilisation will crumble!

In fact, (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | about 9 years ago | (#13596004)

I oughta sue the RIAA for tracking what songs I'm sharing (my playlists are my intellectual property you know) and using that info as part of their business plan.

They owe me. But I'll consider the debt paid after my next several downloads.

Re:Eat Your Cake (1, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 9 years ago | (#13596048)

Huh? Obviously if the record companies felt the information was worth the loss in sales, they wouldn't be complaining about P2P in the first place. The record companies are protecting their self-interests, they're not idealogues against online music sharing. If offering free music over P2P made business sense, they'd be right there hosting their own torrents, and including little stickers on the CD case, saying "just download the FLAC off torrentspy, instead of wasting your money!"

And why would this have any effect on what a judge would say? Judges apply law, they don't review businesses' profit margins and force companies to shift legal strategies to maximize their profits. What planet are you from?

Re:Eat Your Cake (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#13596154)

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

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

It's the same thing to them.

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

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

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

Sad but true. Listen to free music by bands that don't need the RIAA.

Re:Eat Your Cake (3, Insightful)

Andorion (526481) | about 9 years ago | (#13596252)

Would a judge not side with the police getting stats on drug users to see where they congregate and what kinds of drugs they prefer?

The RIAA is the one selling, so I guess they're the drug dealers with the bought police in your analogy?

Re:Eat Your Cake (1)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#13596267)

The RIAA is the one selling, so I guess they're the drug dealers with the bought police in your analogy?

Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

They're just being pragmatic (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about 9 years ago | (#13596259)

You can use a technology even if don't like it. They're trying to ban the P2P stuff, but until then why not collect marketing data from it. Sheesh, these two activities are probably handled by different parts of the organization. If you think any use of P2P (even looking at usage stats) is an endorsement of the technology, then you should also support the RIAA on most of their claims - i.e. that technology xyz is infringing copyrights. Or that since some guy in BFE would have bought a song if it weren't available for free, we may conclude that all downloads are lost sales, etc...

Think before you type.

Re:Eat Your Cake (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 9 years ago | (#13596272)

Chumbawamba are a band from the UK

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

Re:Eat Your Cake (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 9 years ago | (#13596278)

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

Re:Eat Your Cake (1)

sabernet (751826) | about 9 years ago | (#13596323)

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

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

this is akin to the police using the money stolen from those banks to increase their annual budget.

Re:Eat Your Cake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596333)


Please. If I own a store and I keep a running tally of what has been shoplifted in the past month does that mean I should just allow it to happen?

The Recording Industry makes its money selling recordings. So how exactly does known what recordings are popular help them when they're giving the recordings away?

Re:Eat Your Cake (2, Insightful)

dR.fuZZo (187666) | about 9 years ago | (#13596352)

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

And, for those of you who are interested in why Chumbawamba might actually be mentioned when it comes to P2P music downloading: Chumbawamba were a one hit wonder. Their one song came out, people ran out and bought the album, and then got pissed off that they spent so much money on one song they liked and a bunch of crap they didn't. When people have the choice to buy/download just the songs they like, they'll do so. They won't get 15 Chumbawamba songs if all but one of them are crap.

I'm sorry... (1)

GoatMonkey2112 (875417) | about 9 years ago | (#13595898)

that data is protected under the DMCA. Please wait patiently for your court summons.

That explains so much (4, Insightful)

Walkiry (698192) | about 9 years ago | (#13595921)

Lots of crap music that sounds mostly the same keeps being marketed by the suits. One of the most heard phrases when it comes to justify downloading copyrighted music off the net: "I just download the crap that's not worth paying for."

Hmmmmm...

Re:That explains so much (1)

StarvingSE (875139) | about 9 years ago | (#13596187)

I usually download, and then upon listening to it realize its crap I'm glad I didn't spend money on first.

Like many others on here (I believe, at least), I download first, listen to it, and buy later if its any good.

Re:That explains so much (1)

the web (696015) | about 9 years ago | (#13596228)

That's what I've been saying since napster. They actually think I would've bought the stuff I downloaded? The record companies would be in the same shape if Napster existed or not. The percentage of people that actually download INSTEAD of purchasing are slim the way I see it. Probably about the same number that used to shoplift music back before those fancy detector gates were put in. The only difference today is that they don't lose any tangible product inventory now. (i'm certain there's still store theft today)
 
Truth be told, I have made many wiser (and less) purchases as a result of file sharing, but that's a very very dead horse.

But it's Old News and a Dupe! (1)

AEton (654737) | about 9 years ago | (#13596458)

If it really "explains so much" for you, then I guess you weren't reading Slashdot two years ago when it was covered [slashdot.org] on at least two [slashdot.org] separate occasions.

It's dupetacular!

Charts (4, Insightful)

WebfishUK (249858) | about 9 years ago | (#13595926)

Does this mean that at last we can get charts which really reflect what people are listening to?

Re:Charts (5, Insightful)

screevo (701820) | about 9 years ago | (#13595956)

I think the sad fact that you are missing is, the Billboard charts do accurately reflect what people are listening to.

Let us weep together for youth.

Re:Charts (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 9 years ago | (#13596394)

replace "are" with "want to" then. Just because they are spoon feed crap doesn't mean they want crap.

Re:Charts (1)

screevo (701820) | about 9 years ago | (#13596443)

The reason the charts dont reflect what you want is simply this: The same people who rage against the machine and complain, they are the same people not buying CDs, not listening to the radio and requesting songs, etc. So they complain and complain, but never really do anything.

Meanwhile, it's the fans of mainstream music who ARE buying CD's, watchign MTV, listening to the radio. They participate in the advertising mediums, so they get listened to. They want the "crap", and they are vocal about it. So they get it.

While I may be sad at what is popular, I don't complain because, really, I don't care if my favorite band is on the charts. If they are, rock on. If not, does it make me enjoy them any less? No.

no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13595970)

They can't guarantee they own what we like.

Re:Charts (1)

SimonCoxUK (915912) | about 9 years ago | (#13596405)

You can get charts on exactly what people are listening to: http://www.last.fm/charts/ [www.last.fm]

Let me just say that... (3, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | about 9 years ago | (#13595958)

...I was never a big fan of "Tubthumping". Look at one of my latest posts (Sunday night) in a friend's JE about the worst music evar.

I'll also say, why in the hell is the music business so fired up to make nothing but hit records instead of providing people with access to music with artistic integrity? Yeah, they should make money, there's no doubt about that. They are, after all a businesses and they exist to make money. But, don't they also exist to give artists a voice? Whatever happened to that part of the equation? When did they discard the idea that popular music can also be truly artistic expressions of a musician's mind, body and soul? I don't even have a problem with there being people who make million dollar incomes when they do nothing more than pencil pushing in the whole cycle of musicial distribution. But, the musicians who actually create the stuff should be making at least as much as they do because without the artist, the business is nothing.

Re:Let me just say that... (2, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | about 9 years ago | (#13596059)

Today's music industry would never have given Hendrix, The Dead or most the popular artists of the 60's and 70's.

Re:Let me just say that... In response... (4, Insightful)

GecKo213 (890491) | about 9 years ago | (#13596092)

why in the hell is the music business so fired up to make nothing but hit records instead of providing people with access to music with artistic integrity?

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

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

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

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


Ahh, my rant is now over. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Ebonic Spelling Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596218)

All they sing/rap about is how many Hoes they can or have slept with...

Unless you are talking about gardening tools, that should be "ho's" not "hoes." Ho' is short for "whore." You can leave off the ' for the silent leading "w" but it really belongs there in place of the "re" at the end, and you certanly should not add an "e" when you make it plural.

You also should not have capitalized it in the middle of a sentance. Wuzzup wi' dat, dawg?

Rush... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596473)

"Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity"

As to rap, somebody finally made a rap song I like. It's called "Gold Digger" and AFAIK it isn't for sale, only for download.

So take that, GWB and RIAA!

Re:Let me just say that... (1)

Threni (635302) | about 9 years ago | (#13596346)

> But, don't they also exist to give artists a voice?

That's it, just like Microsoft exists to allow programmers to release their code to the public.

Chumbawumba factor? (0, Redundant)

benjcurry (754899) | about 9 years ago | (#13595961)

Check this out for maximum Chumbawumba Factor: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/features/weekly/05-0 8-22-the-chumbawamba-factor.shtml [pitchforkmedia.com] I assume the title came from this story?

Re:Chumbawumba factor? (1)

benjcurry (754899) | about 9 years ago | (#13595989)

LOL...that was the story linked to...I guess I assumed it linked to something else because I read that story a month ago...*burp*

Re:Chumbawumba factor? (1)

screevo (701820) | about 9 years ago | (#13596014)

I do believe that would be a safe assumption... Wait, let me try something... RTFA! Did I do that right?

Re:Chumbawumba factor? (1)

benjcurry (754899) | about 9 years ago | (#13596021)

*deep bow*

Have their cake and eat it too! (3, Interesting)

GecKo213 (890491) | about 9 years ago | (#13595973)

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

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

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

Re:Have their cake and eat it too! (3, Insightful)

Txiasaeia (581598) | about 9 years ago | (#13596099)

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

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

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

Re:Have their cake and eat it too! (1)

bakuretsu (521487) | about 9 years ago | (#13596248)

Actually, you're exactly right. I wouldn't doubt that Adobe looked the other way when it came to private individuals pirating their software.

It is a matter of public record that Autodesk (when they were still Autodesk) honored very old (read: version 10, 11, 12) serial numbers in later generations of their AutoCAD software (read: Windows-based). The general consensus was that they wanted to get the knowledge of their software out there so that it would have a continued life cycle in the corporate world where site licenses cost much more.

In other words, they made piracy of their products by "regular people" almost TRIVIAL so that the software would have greater value in the long run. Who would buy a site license for software that nobody knows how to use?

Market Data (3, Insightful)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13595991)

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

So it looks like whether you're paying for it or getting it for free somebody is using this data for their profit. This is why I don't, for example, use those supermarket discount cards. The data they collect from me is more valuable to them then the money I save.

Re:Market Data (1)

screevo (701820) | about 9 years ago | (#13596089)

So you will abandon a benefit just because someone else might benefit more?

Thats like turning down a charitible donation because you dont want the other person to get a tax break. Kinda petty.

Re:Market Data (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13596216)

It is not just about giving up a benefit so that somebody else can't benefit more. Companies use this data to figure out how to market to me. They then use this marketing to attempt to take more of my money. Just one person not buying into this won't make much of a difference but it's a start.

Re:Market Data (1)

screevo (701820) | about 9 years ago | (#13596233)

And how exactly does this - a company gathering a better understanding of which products and services you would be interested in - hurt you?

Re:Market Data (1)

mysqlrocks (783488) | about 9 years ago | (#13596288)

As I said in my last post, they use this data to market to me in an attempt to take more of my money. I think of myself as pretty immune to the influence of marketing, however, it is impossible to be completely immune. So, I do the best I can. I am not saying that marketing is evil or that these companies are trying to "hurt" me. I am simply saying that I want to be fully aware of what is influencing my decision to make a purchase.

Stop profiting or stop lobbying (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | about 9 years ago | (#13595995)

I'm sorry, but either the RIAA should stop actively profitting from p2p or they shouldn't be allowed to put people through courts and pressure their congressmen into creating laws to outlaw it.

The fact that they can profit from p2p while hassle their customers, to me, seems to be a perversion of the law and shouldn't be allowed.

Heh (3, Funny)

Otter (3800) | about 9 years ago | (#13596029)

At one meeting, a famous producer turned down an urgent call from one of his biggest stars so that he and Garland could keep talking about computers. "He turns to me and says, 'Hey, kid, when was the last time somebody told you you were more interesting than Axl Rose?'"

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

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

Don't forget the recent past.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596051)

... when (even today!?) you could not listen or audition before you buy simply because of the RIAA's and record store policies and practices.

I have educated my children specifically *against* that behaviour and hold up the RIAA and "artists" as example of a bad deal, done in poor faith (the chumbawumba factor) And that they should keep their money for more tangible rewards.

Does it threaten their lawsuits? (1)

ValourX (677178) | about 9 years ago | (#13596057)

If the RIAA is profiting from P2P, doesn't that threaten their lawsuits against file sharers?

Re:Does it threaten their lawsuits? (1)

slushbat (777142) | about 9 years ago | (#13596171)

Not at all. The whole point of the lawsuits is to be so intimidating nobody will dare contest them. Being a bunch of completely immoral hypocrites just makes them more scary.

wrong correlation (4, Insightful)

airuck (300354) | about 9 years ago | (#13596061)

Wouldn't this market analysis reveal which music people are willing to pirate rather than purchase?

Re:wrong correlation (1)

hackstraw (262471) | about 9 years ago | (#13596221)

Wouldn't this market analysis reveal which music people are willing to pirate rather than purchase?

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

High downloads indicates something regarding the tracks, and low downloads should speak volumes :)

Re:wrong correlation (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | about 9 years ago | (#13596264)

No. It will just cause a recurring cycle: Currently they stock stores with nothing but rap and hip-hop. This study will show that downloaders are looking for *ANYTHING* else to listen to, so they'll just stock less rap and more music. Of course then it will be the hip-hop kiddies that are downloading everything and things will shift back the other way again. The basic problem is that a business has to focus on where it sees the most profit and can't please everyone - right now they are only focusing on teenage brats who wear doo-rags, have more of their underwear exposed than hidden, and have weapon-grade car stereos.

Re:wrong correlation (1)

Ugly American (885937) | about 9 years ago | (#13596285)

I prefer to have my collection on the computer; it saves wear and tear on my disks, and I can just skip around through my library as the mood strikes me. So in my case, it would be a good representation of what sort of music I'll pay for.

Of course, god only knows what they'd make of the fact that roughly half of my collection is soundtracks.

marketing tool? (1)

zmollusc (763634) | about 9 years ago | (#13596085)

So they are seeing what appeals to downloaders so they can tailor things that they are trying to sell? Isn't that a bit like (yeah yeah copyright infringement!=theft. I said LIKE!) seeing what shoplifters steal in order to find out what people will buy?
"Well, it seems that small, easily concealed items will be the big sellers, guys! Nobody will be buying big bulky stuff, so don't get any more freezers or beds in stock as we will never sell them."

Chumbawamba (3, Interesting)

joebutton (788717) | about 9 years ago | (#13596090)

In case people get the wrong idea from the article, Tubthumping is *not* the only good record Chumbawamba have made, and it's not even very different stylistically from some of their other stuff.

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

Also a great live act.

Re:Chumbawamba (1)

aug24 (38229) | about 9 years ago | (#13596117)

Cheers for the heads-up. I'll download them tonight, have a try ;-)

J.

Re:Chumbawamba (3, Informative)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | about 9 years ago | (#13596411)

Some fine choices, sir!

Chumbawamba make a huge collection of back catalogue stuff and oddities available for free download [chumba.com] . If you liked Tumbthumping you probably won't find much of interest ;-) Likewise, mainstream politicos may be offended by what's on offer here. <voice type="outraged">these guys are like... anarchists!</voice>

Same with Anime (3, Informative)

dogolopee (886299) | about 9 years ago | (#13596141)

The companies that licence anime in america do roughly the same thing. They watch the fan sub community for what is popular, then licence it and sell it.

You fools! (2, Funny)

msormune (808119) | about 9 years ago | (#13596148)

P2P software are clearly a clever way for RIAA to get people to listen more music, because it's "cool" to stick it to them! In the meantime the RIAA has a perfect tool to spy on people's musical tastes! In order to really hit them where it hurts, you MUST immediately stop all P2P activity and continue to purchase your music legally, thus ending this mind probing!

The Chumbawamba Factor (5, Funny)

ayjay29 (144994) | about 9 years ago | (#13596164)

The Chumbawamba Factor...

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

Ripping the night away
Ripping the night away

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

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

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

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

'Don't cry for me
RIAA...'

Is this wise? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13596188)

...BigChampagne, a company that looks at peer-to-peer downloading to provide marketing data to record companies...As mentioned in the article, record companies started using this information (secretly) even as they were trying to stop filesharing via the courts."

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

The Drink (2, Informative)

Nf1nk (443791) | about 9 years ago | (#13596197)

Remeber folks before it was band Chumbawamba was a drink..
it is a cider drink..
it is lager drink..
it is a whisky drink...

6oz hard cider
6oz lager beer
1oz whisky
mix in a pint glass, with no ice.
It tastes better than it sounds

Art does not a majority make... (1)

rmdyer (267137) | about 9 years ago | (#13596240)

I don't know about everyone else here, but as an artist I don't create a work based on what other people want. Art is a personal expression and a desire to bring your dreams to life. If others like your art then so be it, otherwise art is being used as a drug to only make the viewer feel good. This has the effect of developing a habit, which is exactly what the music companies want.

How accurate is this? (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13596241)

Think about it. Do P2P downloads indicate what's hot (and what is to be spoofed next)? Or does it just indicate music people won't pay for otherwise?

refund (1)

netcrusher88 (743318) | about 9 years ago | (#13596242)

Wait - if RIAA is benefiting from P2P, let's get together and bring a class action lawsuit against them for defamation, with them saying that P2P harms the music industry. Oh, and let's get that 12-year-old girl's $90 million back.

chart hyping (1)

zmollusc (763634) | about 9 years ago | (#13596256)

Hmmm..... if there are music charts in print media of which tracks are being shared on-line, it won't be long before the music labels are funding server farms with virtual filesharers to market their product.
"Hey Kids, have you heard about the latest hot new band *insert manufactured band here*? Their debut single is being torrented by 156,463,372,346,589,521,455,878,978,357 seeders online and you can buy the whole album for only £20 in your local store. Hurry now and look kewl in front of all your friends!!!!"

Just Business (1)

Chiperdean (913158) | about 9 years ago | (#13596355)

So the secret plan is to sue just enough people to keep it in the news and get everyone hyped up to download more files. Then they get their marketing analisys from the company and can try to market to which way people are leaning. BRILLIANT!!! don't take on the world, just enough to make people hate you enough to do it out of spite....ôô

The RIAA is not a record label. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13596356)

The RIAA is not a record label. They have no artists, catalog, or anything directly to do with music EXCEPT that they are the trade organization for the music industry (think of a union for businesses). Music labels pay the RIAA dues, and the RIAA does various functions from lobbying to certifying platinum and gold records.

As far as suing goes, most labels have little to do with it, except that they are a member of organization who has made that a part of the agenda. Most of the good people at labels are more concerned about ensuring that their artists (their responsibility!) is being heard by the largest audience possible. Lawyers are concerned about piracy, the remaining ~99.9% people at a label are concerned about the wellfare of their artists.

Statistics that indicate an audience is how things get spins on radio and finally into stores. We're not talking top 10 records here (they already have an audience); we're talking new artists with often very localized audiences. People at labels are fighting to expand the audience of these new artists, who may only sell a hundred CDs a week, incontrast to a top 10 record that sells 1,000-50,000K/wk.

Please realize that nearly all people who work at a record company care about only one thing: the artists. Its a very personal thing. Potentially lost sales from piracy is the last of these people's worries.

The large music companies are dinosaurs (4, Interesting)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | about 9 years ago | (#13596413)

You can clearly see that BigChampagne is only looking from a mainstream perspective. From their limited point of view, Chumbawamba is a "one-time punk band".

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

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

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

They are a dinosaur.

The "Chumbawumba" factor? (2, Funny)

Recovering Hater (833107) | about 9 years ago | (#13596456)

So am I to infer that someone is "pissing the night away"? I keed, I keed. I don't need any explanation of who they are either...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?