Indiana Gregg has suffered a lot of online stick following a take-down request to The Pirate Bay.
She’s been villified and insulted and accused of being a greedy blond out for all she can get, to considerably understate the situation.
The reality, however, is very different.
She’s the mother of three kids — Julia, 15, Christian, 12, and Sophia, 10, and in addition to being a successful artist with 32 years of experience, is also an extremely intelligent and highly skilled entrepreneur who, in April 2008, founded Kerchoonz with her husband, Ian Morrow.
“The primary focus was to allow free music that would be able to compensate artist through advertising revenues allowing artists to set a price on their downloads and/or give away their music for free and take a cut of the advertising,” she told me. “Artists would be able to sell their tickets, merchandise from their profile page as well as in the general ’shop’ area of the site. So, we started cracking forward with this idea.”
Kerchoonz — Yup, it sounds like a sneeze 
— is currently in beta.
Here’s Part I of a two-part post. Tomorrow we’ll run Indiana’s thoughts on the world of music in the 21st digital century.
Woman at work
Indiana says she’s been a musician since she was six years old, starting out with the piano and later playing trumpet.
“At university, I worked as a professional performing vocalist and dancer,” she says. “I moved to France in 1994, gigging and raising a family.”
In 2004 she teamed up with her now husband, Ian Morrow, an din 2006, the two launched their own label, gr8pop, a year later releasing Woman At Work.
“Within weeks, and with a lot of television coverage, airplay, tours, and a good bit a press, we discovered that the result of our marketing efforts was primarily on sharing sites and social networks and as a small independent label were unable to break-even,” she says, continuing >>>
This was the point where gr8pop nearly became insolvent.
In June 2008, I sent a routine email to The Pirate Bay asking them to take down links to my album, Woman At Work, which was released in April 2007.
From my point of view, TPB was simply ‘just another site’ on my list of hundreds. Most of the sites wrote back and said, no problem, we’ve removed the file. But, after about 6 emails to TPB, Peter Sunde emerged at around 2am one night and a fury of email exchanges took place. I knew that writing to p2p sites wasn’t going to change my life or the fact that our label had nearly gone bankrupt a year earlier; but, in my mind, it was more of a moral issue that I was defending. We had started new business and sold some property, raised new investments and things weren’t bad in 2008 when I was writing to TPB.
In a year’s time, we had gone from being nearly insolvent to doing rather well with a couple new projects in the works to boot.
Having had consulted with the PRS/ MCPS a year prior to the TPB emails, I’d been told that writing to sites deemed ‘illegal’ was the only thing an artist could do to defend their work. Plus, I was on a mission. I truly believed (and still do) that websites that use music, film, and media to attract users and generate revenue should be contributing to the compensation of the creators. This is why over the past couple of years, we’ve been lobbying for a public license on the web along with a levy on ISPs net profits.
Kerchoonz aims to compensate artists for the streams of their music via advertising revenues. Kerchoonz has likewise developed a platform where musicians can upload their music and set their own price for their downloads, physical merchandise, and even their CDs. This platform will be released within the next month or so.
The Kerchoonz philosophy is that sites that use music as a medium to generate traffic should compensate artists for their work. The site has focused mainly on independent artists and labels. However, we have been in negotiations with the four major labels as well meeting with them on several occasions and negotiating proposals.
So, Indiana adds, “you might say that I have some insight from several sides of this ‘rubiks’ cube here having been involved in the technical, business, label, and of course, a performing artists and songwriter’s point of view, not to mention that I’m also a fan of music and a supporter of artists.
“I was a musician well before the internet became ‘public’; But, there are some things that perhaps I’ve talked about openly a bit too early … “
Jon Newton
November 11th, 2009 at 10:50 am
The confusion here is Indianna feels the Internet is for entertainment, which is false. I replied to this in another thread.
Entertainment is only a fraction of the Internet, despite the industry claiming otherwise.
What would be interesting to see is how her album sales and live performance attendance were impacted by the file sharing sites. Did her sales go up from previous releases? Did her attendance increase from previous performances?
The problem with a new label and new release is you have no history to compare it to.
Also, the problem with being a label is it relies solely on recording sales, does it not? What would happen if her gr8pop was involved in all aspects of her music, from performances to merchandising to.. CWF+RTB?
Indianna, your new label is still relying on selling copies, we’re trying to say that that’s not a viable business model anymore. We’re giving you new ideas, gr8pop can do that! gr8pop can be indie and Connect With Fans and provide a Reason To Buy. We’re not making this up!
We’re trying to help you see that your music on TPB is a free distro means. Kerchoonz sounds like a great idea, but there should be options, options like “for free you get 5 of 10 tracks”, “for $5 you get CD quality all 10 tracks”, “for $10 you get the CD and the digital tracks”, “for $50 you get autographed vinyl, CD, digital tracks, pictures”, etc.. you are giving options besides “merchandise” which artist always assume is t-shirts. And then they reply “we can’t make a living selling t-shirts.”
You should also add the “donate” button where the fans have options to choose whatever they like, no demanding payment as this would seem like you’re trying to control, which is what the labels do, which is what fans and consumers hate.
You’re almost there with your ideas, really! You just have to trust us when we suggest something that sounds a little out there and makes you first think “oh my God, I’m going to be starving in the streets.” Because you won’t! You won’t have a gold plated Ferrari (see Metalicops on youtube, very funny) but you will have a good income.
You have to connect with the fans, impromptu performances in parks, community clean-ups, etc… Those are great ways to raise funds and awareness, but most of all, great ways to connect with fans! That word will spread and others will join!
Please trust us when we say “this isn’t going to work” especially when you try to tax or add a levy or use copyright to control. You don’t want to alienate, you want to encourage!
Also, remember that when advertising becomes focus you get TV and commercial radio, stuff no one wants littered with commercials that annoy and turn audiences elsewhere. And forcing them to do anything only turns them away.
Give them a reason to want your material and support you!
November 11th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hi Robert:
The kerchoonz platform does have all those options. An artist can sell anything they want on it and it displays in their ’shop’ on their profile. The only thing that we don’t have is a ‘donate’ button that is controlled by Kerchoonz. Artists can, however, add a button to their page at their discretion.
Playing in the park and doing a 2 year series of ‘home’ concerts is completely familiar territory for me Robert. I completely hear what you are saying. However, there IS cost associated with doing these kinds of concerts over a broader area. If you were to do a spreadsheet analysis and show me otherwise, I would believe you and I’m not the type of person who is frivolous with costs. We’re talking cheap hotels, tour vehicles, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Gregg go to the part where it says ‘Tours and Home Concerts’)
By the way, just in case there are comments about the wikipedia stuff, I don’t edit my wikipedia page. It was started by some fan in the south of England and I have nothing to do with it.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I didn’t look at your Wikipedia article, I haven’t researched you at all. To be honest, I don’t listen to the radio anymore, since they stopped playing a variety and went with what is popular on a 7x daily rotation.
What is the costs associated with a small group in the park? Limit to 30 ppl. There’s no worry about 30 ppl sitting on the grass, at least that was well within the limits when I was doing research for my wedding in Vancouver next year. Parks have limits to number of people standing or using chairs, but 30 ppl isn’t too much.
How much do you charge? How much does it cost or how do you commute to bring an acoustic and sit on a blanket and play? That’s what I intended, nothing big, just little ones. Do those cost money? Or is the “broader area” referring to trying to go from say one area of the city to another? The idea is cheap, cheerful, non-promoted beyond twitter or lottery where people meet and as long as they don’t invite everyone they know, it’s a go for the show.
If you want I could get fees but those would apply to actual damage to the parks. The cost of running a cyclocross race in a public park is very high because, to be honest, we really do a number on the parks. It takes over a month for the grass to recover and that’s if it wasn’t too wet. It’s amazing what 100 cyclists can do to a park when just running/riding for an hour.
I think the donate option should be promoted to the artists. There are a few I’ve downloaded from and enjoyed their music and would like to donate. I only wanted a song or two and if it were not on iTunes or something similar, it would be difficult to give them any funds.
Plus, let’s not forget we all know that even iTunes is under pressure to give up the cash to the labels who don’t give squat to the artists. So a donate that goes straight to the artist is best.
Also, how do you handle licensing? What happens if say The Cure wanted to join kerchoonz? Their label would create havoc and all the money would go to Geffen instead of Robert/Simon/Porl/Jason.
This is the problem with pay sites, we know the artists on the labels will get screwed and many will shy away. You’ll have to really do good press (God I hope you don’t pay for that) to promote how kerchoonz gives the money to the artist and supports all artists equally and doesn’t get bought up by a label and changed to $2 per song loaded with DRM. (see how we react to labels? It’s like conditioning or something).
November 11th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Hi Robert,
On Kerchoonz, independent artists simply put in their pay details and get paid directly . Obviously, we have to deal with the labels differently and I’ve explained how that works in a piece that I wrote and passed over to Jon. It will explain the dilemna with the labels at the moment (and another reason why a public license could help solve that part of the rubiks cube- as I call it. Because there are at least 8-sides to this -and that’s before you get to the whole ‘live side’- You have 1) performing artists, 2) songwriters, 3) societies who collect on the behalf of the performers and/or songwriters 4) labels and/or investors 5)ISPs and Telecoms 6) Websites & Broadcasters 7) session musicians 8 ) Producers/engineers/studios)
We won’t be able to solve the rubiks cube until we look at the current situation from all sides (which requires having an understanding of each. we will remain in a position where government jumps in and things like 3-strikes are put into motion. 3-strikes opens up a can of worms and will ultimately lead to more progressive legislation.
Nevertheless, Robert, to answer your question about playing in parks, you’ve inadvertently brought up an important point about artists playing locally. What if your fanbase is 1000 miles away? Or, in fact, in the case where a recording has received publicity via PR, tv, radio, etc.and the result has been a lot of downloads on a P2p network, how does the band or artist know where to go play? If you live in Inverness and your fanbase is in the South of Wales, it can get a little pricey for the band, agree? Or, what if your music is mostly downloaded in North America? How many public parks would even an acoustic set need to hit before it covered the cost of the flights, accomodation, and travel (and then, you still have your rent to pay).
All of the recurrent motifs about how musicians should and/or shouldn’t make money are simply ‘motifs’.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
There is something I want to say about this, and I’ve been trying to work out how to express it. And which I think is maybe why you received so much grief, Indiana, for getting into that flame-fest with The Pirate Bay.
I’m sorry this might be quite a long comment… But it matters.
The kind of idea your Kerchoonz website is trying to create makes a lot of sense to me, and I can think of several other ventures which are trying variations on the theme. Which ones of these have a good/effective business model for the 21st century is open to question, I’m convinced already from what I’ve seen that some of them do.
However… it is, and always was, incorrect to characterise The Pirate Bay as a site making money by doing the equivalent, and not remitting anything to the artists. It isn’t, and it wasn’t, and maybe it’s not quite obvious why not, because on the face of it, it looks like it is, and combined with the provocative name they intentionally painted a target on themselves.
Why is it different to Kerchoonz? This is a fine point, and I’ll try to explain.
The Pirate Bay does not host any material. Nor does it serve anything to people downloading. All that it does is collate “torrent” links, which are just that, links to content that has been submitted to them, that is hosted on a computer somewhere else, and shared for free/non-commercially from that person. When someone gets a torrent from The Pirate Bay, they get a tiny package of information which tells their computer who is sharing it. They then receive the content from the “swarm” associated with that, without any further communication with TPB.
This is important. It means that there is no revenue from TPB reaching the people providing the actual content, and any revenue TPB do earn from advertising is exactly related, in a free market supply/demand sense, to the added value of the service they provided by indexing the availability of those.
If the proposal that has been discussed here, to exempt non-commercial sharing from copyright, were put in place, then we are essentially saying that this would be absolutely fine if TPB weren’t involved, and the sharers had found each other another way. But if that’s the case, then surely providing a service of linking people, to do something entirely legal, is added value, and worth whatever revenue they can earn from it, however they manage that? If not…. Then I can’t understand how any search engine could be legal, just as Google search allows you to filter for filetype torrent, the only difference being they are a large corporation with deep pockets, lawyers, and a less provocative name?
Much more questionable, in my view, are private/registration only sites, which charge a membership fee for access to private torrents, or other means of download, which aren’t as visible as TPB, and really are directly profiting but in a very sneaky way. There’s at least one I’m curious about, which someone (not a member of PPUK, I’m happy to say!) pointed me at, as a way to get “free stuff” by paying a membership fee, and without being visible.
Your website, by contrast, I’m presuming provides fast, easy, reliable access to the downloads, at a fair price, and with confidence that there’s no malicious content etc? All of that is commercially viable, plus you’re selling the confidence that some of the revenue goes back to the artist, which TPB cannot have. That’s competing for the scarcity of attention, and of trust, and I believe you can make that work – and that non-commercial freedom to share, including that aided and abetted by search engines, will add to your potential to do so, not subtract from it.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
@ Robert:
“I’ve explained how that works in a piece that I wrote and passed over to Jon”.
You’ll be able to read this on a2f2a tomorrow.
Cheers!
November 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Rubik’s cube?
Slightly off-topic, can’t help but respond to this however, as I just ordered my Xmas present to myself (a 7×7 Verdes cube), I already own 3×3, 4×4, 5×5, and 6×6 cubes… I can mostly solve these from memory, the even-numbered ones can have parity issues I haven’t memorised the solution for yet, the 5×5 one is the easiest so far.
It’s my form of meditation when I need to chill and forget anything else I’m thinking about, and just see the patterns flow. I have to try and put my 6×6 cube back together again, an unhelpful cat managed to dump it on the floor and some pieces snapped out. Hopefully I won’t end having to break it into all 212 constituent pieces again, in order to reconstruct it, like the last time.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
@IG (sorry for the shorthand, I hope it isn’t offensive)
If your fanbase is 1000 km away, then yes you’ll not have the impromptu freedom. However, that is when you consider touring. And during tours, you do the same thing.
If you are big enough to afford to tour, then you can afford to have a day in the park. Let’s say you have the following dates:
Windsor Jan 14
Toronto Jan 15
Ottawa Jan 16
Montreal Jan 18
Quebec (city) Jan 19
Montreal Jan 21
Ottawa Jan 22
North Bay Jan 23
Sudbury Jan 24
Winnipeg Jan 26
You’re touring with just the minimum, a van and some equipment being towed along.
You do realize that while there is time for 1-2hr pre-show gigs or afternoon gigs? You could mange a 1hr gig in a park, no lights, just acoustic, pre-show, mid afternoon, for $15 a person, up to 50 ppl max.
If the demand 1000km away is too small to visit, obviously you can’t play in the park, you wouldn’t and I didn’t imply playing in the park as a substitute for touring. It is an addition. Yes it will take more out of you, but it is only 1 hour and it is very intimate.
Fans will spread this to other fans in other cities. This will generate more people interested in seeing your shows, purchasing your music, hitting that donate button, etc…
There is a way, is all I am saying.
In your cube, will you include fans/consumers? Because all 8 sides get didly squat without the fans/consumers being given a reason to buy!
Unless of course you levy/license every possible source of music. Which could be good, more indie artists who create for the love will come into existence and they will receive the support of the fans who feel alienated by levy/licenses.
I know what you are after, but “guaranteeing” income isn’t possible with art without strict laws and we know what that does, in the short term you’ll get money. However in the long run, you won’t get squat. People will find a way to share freely and people will support those who create directly, but only those who do not demand payment.
Think of the busker, if they are demanding money, almost in your face for performing on the street while you walk by, how do you (the passerby) feel? You’ll feel less likely to donate than those that simply play and give their soul to their performance.
Do you agree?
November 11th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
” This was the point where gr8pop nearly became insolvent.
In June 2008, I sent a routine email to The Pirate Bay asking them to take down links to my album, Woman At Work, which was released in April 2007. ”
So, are you suggesting the pirate bay was responsible for your ‘insolvency’ ? Is it your belief that Torrent sites in general for a lack of revenue at that time ?
” In a year’s time, we had gone from being nearly insolvent to doing rather well with a couple new projects in the works to boot. ”
Since pretty much anything you put out there is still locatable as a torrent, meaning absolutely nothing has changed since the previously mentioned ‘insolvency’ , doesn’t that suggest to you that maybe, just maybe, sharing had nothing to do with previous problems ? And on the subject of torrents .. all of those same torrents are locatable using a standard Google search, so why go after TPB and not google since even if the pirate bay vanished today with no trace all of those torrents could still be found and used.
What sites are making money ?
How much ?
Where do you come by your information ?
November 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Hi ya Robert again:)
yes, of course, the fans consumers are basically the ‘middle’ of the cube (there are only 8 sides to a rubiks cube, though…soz.. lol) But, in my scenario, I’m implying that the fans of music implied anyway. They are the central focus essentially.
Also, you do realize that if every indie artist started to play in public parks, there would be a problem. That’s why I did it with house concerts instead for a good while.
Often there is a cost or ’street performers license’. And realistically, you’re talking about busking in the park because you are still implying asking for money.
In my scenario, the fans will never have to pay a levy or license and free exchange will take place as a result. In my opinion, fans already pay anyway (when it comes to the web) because they pay their ISPs monthly.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@John Barron lol. we have that in common
November 11th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
@Dresdnik
I’m understanding what you’re referring to, but, you would need to spend some time presenting some kind of alternative thought based upon at least some data to convince me that it makes since for me to enter into some form of debate with you. I see you’re provocation. However, I’m missing out on where it’s coming from? I recognize that you exist and that you care and also that you are making commentary. However, I’m not sure what you’re implying. Are you wanting to persuade me that bittorrent clients and p2p sites aren’t producing any advertising revenue? Do you want to conclude that somehow artists are receiving a proven net benefit? Are you saying that the evidence that I sent to the BBC is not true? (These are questions, I see that you have questions as well, but, I’m trying to work out what exactly you are looking for and how you think I can or cannot answer them.) * I read you. I see that you have something to say. I’m just not on the same wave length with you and I’m not sure how to interpret.
let me know what you’re thinking and explain it to me in a more ‘blond’ way 
lol
November 11th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
by the way, I’m not being humouring, or sarcastic at all. I just don’t understand how to interpret @ Dresdnik. Reading my comment back, it could very well sound like I’m trying to ‘take the piss’. Not at all the case.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:51 am
In terms of the debate, Dreddsnik’s unanswered questions to Indiana Gregg are relevant ones: which torrent sites are making money and how much?
The questions are relevant if you believe that artists are due a slice of the profits. There are many people who could use that kind of information in furthering their argument. Being able to show what is commercial and what is non-commercial is crucial. And not easy.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:55 am
@jon barron,
I understand your point and completely understand the differences between a torrent tracker and what you would consider a ’social network’ or a music service which you have pointed out. However, the truth is, although it looks like there is a difference, I don’t believe that there actually is. The difference between Google and TPB is that with TPB, a user downloads a client which sits on their personal computer in order to uniquely access files that are specifically ‘directed’ by the tracker, generating traffic to files. Users who access those files via ’searching’ the tracker were exposed to advertising. Google is much less specific thn that. Google’s purpose is index everything. Every word, every number, every url, every file. It’s existence, by default, might also assist to infringe copyright, however, unlike TPB, it’s sole existence doesn’t rely on a desktop client that allows people to search whereby the sole motivation is to find a free copy. That’s where I don’t agree with the TPB/ Google comparison.
It’s one of the reasons why, after going into an NDA with Bittorrent a couple of years ago, our legal counsel advised us to steer clear due to the ambiguity legally that ’sharing/copying’ copyright material represents. However, nothing is to stop a torrent site from a) generating advertising revenue and b) sharing a portion of those revenues back with the creators it exploits.
Let’s take our good old friend ‘the mp3′ and call him ‘Joe’.
Joe mp3 doesn’t care whether he is hosted on your computer or on somebody’s web server. In fact, Joe doesn’t care where he is. He can be streamed over the net or on an ipod, or on any player. Joe can be linked to, tweeted, sms’d, bluetoothed, infra-red’d, Joe can go loads of places and do loads of things. I understand the idea behind non-commercial use; however, the very essence of this kind of non-commercial use renders commercial use pretty much obsolete, wouldn’t you say? (Ok, apart from sync licenses obviously).
November 12th, 2009 at 9:34 am
” by the way, I’m not being humouring, or sarcastic at all. ”
Yes, you are.
In another thread you suggesting that I am ‘trying to fool the kiddies’.
You made a claim.
You claimed that p2p sites make lots of money, so they should pay. In response to that I asked you three questions.
Which sites make money ?
How much do they make ?
Where do you come by your information ?
I simply asked you to back up your claims with references that the rest of us can read, and evaluate. You had to have reached your opinion somehow. Did you read an article that said ‘X site makes Y amount of dollars’ ? etc .. I am asking you to back up a claim. It’s a very simple request, and you have been dancing around it, and slowly getting insulting which none of the p2p’rs have done, so far only the artists have done that.
Do you have sources for your claims or not ?
November 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am
” In terms of the debate, Dreddsnik’s unanswered questions to Indiana Gregg are relevant ones: which torrent sites are making money and how much? ”
Seriously, are those three questions THAT difficult for anyone to understand ? You understood them perfectly, I’m pretty sure everyone else understands them. If my questions REALLY appear that obtuse could someone with better skills please translate them so they can be easily understood by ‘everyone’ ?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:29 am
” Joe can go loads of places and do loads of things. I understand the idea behind non-commercial use; however, the very essence of this kind of non-commercial use renders commercial use pretty much obsolete, wouldn’t you say? ”
No, I wouldn’t.
The fact that Itunes can have strong sales, AllofMP3 is still making money , and sharing is increasing ( not decreasing ) shows that non-commercial use can do pretty well right along side with sharing for non-commercial use. There is even an article on this site about strong sales in the UK.. If you visit a torrent site and check the torrents with the most seeds or the most popular torrents, you will find that they almost invariably correspond with the current top SELLERS. Sharing and sales are synergistic
November 12th, 2009 at 10:33 am
@Dreddsnik One example is to look up and read the TPB trial. The financial penalties were in direct proportion to the advertising revenues they were generating the way it has been presented in the case. Are you saying that websites who have advertising on them are not generating any income?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:45 am
@dreddsnik What I didn’t understand is why you are asking me questions about how much money other sites make? Advertising for the internet globally in 2008 was something like $45 billion. Obviously, p2p takes less bandwidth to operate than a traditional website with media sitting on the servers. So, the logical assumption that profits would be higher for p2p sites as they are less costly to operate.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
” @dreddsnik What I didn’t understand is why you are asking me questions about how much money other sites make? Advertising for the internet globally in 2008 was something like $45 billion. Obviously, p2p takes less bandwidth to operate than a traditional website with media sitting on the servers. So, the logical assumption that profits would be higher for p2p sites as they are less costly to operate. ”
So you have no references then. You have made a ‘logical assumption’. As to TPB, the ‘revenues’ they supposedly generated are still being debated. Also, as has been pointed out, they did not host, have in their possession, or stored on any computer in their direct control ANY copyrighted materials, none of yours or anyone elses’. Those same torrents can STILL be found using a standard Google search. How much does Google pay for the revenue it generates ? I am asking you those questions because YOU presented the premise that P2P sites generate considerable revenue on the strength of copyrighted offerings. Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that you had facts at your disposal to back up the claim. If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up with more than just ‘assumptions’ reasonable, logical or otherwise. Now that you have acknowledged that less bandwidth is involved, since Torrent P2P sites do not actually have any of your material on them, maybe you can tell me why you accept Google doing the same thing without complaint ?
Now let’s see if we can have reasonable debate without insults. So far the p2p’ers have been able to manage it.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
@Indianna
Dred is asking for real info, speculation is all we saw during the trial. It’s easy, let’s try “p2pnet has 2 visible ads, Google earns $1500 a day from a banner ad space, so that means p2pnet earns 2×1500 or $3000 a day from the two banner ads, I think that p2pnet is raking in a killing and should compensate the authors linked too.”
In a CIVIL case, which copyright falls under, it is very easy to pass that off as real facts, because you don’t really need proof. You just need to sing and dance.
“.. generating any income” and millions of dollars as claimed during the TPB trial are two different things. p2pnet generates income but it ain’t anywhere near what people could speculate.
We have to be careful when lumping websites that link to or provide a connection service or host material that actually earn profits from those that are non-profit or barely keeping the owners afloat. Just because one site makes heavy profits doesn’t mean they all do. And no advertising company is going to advertise for big bucks on TPB, think about it, that’s like advertising methedone at a heroin house. The people who frequent TPB or use LimeWire or something similar hate advertising and advertisers know this so they don’t pay much. Google on the other hand appeals to just about everyone who searches and many more who tolerate or are influenced by advertising will be there as well, so ad costs go up.
@Dreddsnik
I missed the insults part, but I can tell you’re getting heated too. Please try to let any insult you feel roll off, it isn’t worth it.
Just a few things to think about while you debate!
November 13th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@Robert
Before this site was made, I made a meager contribution by drawing up a proposed ‘framework’, or guidelines. One of the potential problems addressed was that after the slashing that Lily Allen, Metallica, and some other artists received due to their views on the subject, that a very strict policy be in place, and that insults and deliberately emotional and misleading terms were not to be used ( calling file sharers thieves, calling artists lackeys etc .. ) so that the Artists could feel safe in commenting, so that they wouldn’t need to fear ridiculously rash rebuttals that they were getting elsewhere. So far, the only breaks that protocol have come from the artist side, which I find ironic, since they were designed so the ARTISTS could feel protected. They shouldn’t have to ‘roll off me’ because they don’t have a place in a rational debate in the first place.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@ Dredd:
“So far, the only breaks that protocol have come from the artist side”
Can you give us a couple of examples, please?
Cheers!
November 13th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@Dred
The difference between google and TPB (IMO)
http://a2f2a.com/2009/11/11/woman-at-work/#comment-702
No, I didn’t ever suggest that TPB made Gr8pop insolvent. We wrote to hundreds upon hundreds of sites at the time. The result of a marketing campaign had resulted in a great deal of ‘use’ and some sales, but, made it very difficult to break-even in spite of touring, sales, etc. Basically, hundreds of independents went under last year along with the biggest independent distributor in the UK. Nearly all of which don’t have anything to do with the RIAA.
I gave you a short list of sites that exploit and generate ad revenues from music but don’t compensate artists. It’s fairly long though if I were to list them all.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
@Dredd,
I have not found anything insulting from Indianna. Maybe BB a few times but he’s doing the job of 3 ppl plus his own work, so that’s understandable, though not acceptable. I haven’t seen him post so maybe he’s stepping back for a while, which is good, we need him refreshed and he needs it too.
I think you’re inserting tones you’ve experienced before into the words you read from Indianna? Maybe?
She’s not said anything insulting. She’s argued different views, which is fine, and has totally different views of the internet than we do and that’s fine too.
This takes time. And I still think both p2p-ers and artists really don’t fully understand each other, they just think they do.
Let’s first admit we think we understand, but the debating proves otherwise!
So let’s first try to understand,not agree, just understand, really understand, like you understand basic calculus or programming in C. Really understand each other’s views and where they come from.
Less debate, more listening and sharing first.
Then we can work on the debate as we’ll know a little better what the others are thinking or at least have a better understanding why ‘they just don’t get it.’
November 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
@ Robert:
” … still think both p2p-ers and artists really don’t fully understand each other, they just think they do.”
That’s 80% of the problem. But if we all hang in, well get that sorted.
Off topic, Billy has finished a gig in Germany and just arrived in Canada where he’ll be touring for the rest of the month. So he’s a bit busy travelling and being an artist, for the moment.
Cheers!
November 13th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
@robert
? now you’ve confused me. Google & p2pnet don’t have the same traffic figures. Ads are based upon cpm’s and/or cpc (and sometimes sponsorship) Comparing the two is illogical in my opinion.
However, in a traffic-based website targeted public license, if p2pnet was using other people’s work to drive traffic (not linking to it, because linking is entirely different. When you link, you are generating traffic back to the source) then it would be a situation where a contribution could be made via the license. (for example).
@Dred
I want to apologize if at any point you felt insulted by me in any case. It certainly was not intended. I’m also sorry that I didn’t really understand what you you were looking for in some of the questions. Revenues are different from profits (as you know), however, just like all business, covering costs is paramount and generating profits is essential to survival (in a business situation). It seems evident that TPB was being run more like a business, upselling T-shirts and selling ad space, etc. along with taking donations for servers. There are some rules that apply to not-for-profit organisations, but, in this case, it would be very difficult to deem their activity as non-commercial (IMO).
November 14th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Indiana,
sorry for the delay responding – this site moves so fast…
It seems you have a misunderstanding in a way… There is no special “desktop client” that is associated with TPB but not with Google.
You can do a specific search for torrents (filetype:torrent) on Google, and it is no different from search TPB, you will find both material which infringes copyright, and which does not, and in neither case is necessarily obvious which is which (both index torrents that point to material that is legal to share, as well as illegal).
In either case, to download any torrent I use exactly the same desktop client (actually, there’s a wide ranging of competing options, as it’s an open protocol), and in neither case does the search provider know or care what I am using, neither do they know what I’m actually downloading and whether it’s what it claimed to be, or if it’s still active, and whether my download will be successful or not. The torrent could be dead, or something else entirely than what I’m trying to download.
Yes, you are right, the longer-term legalising non-commercial sharing does knock the bottom out of the commercial sale of copies, at least in the way you are thinking of them now, and very much because you can’t distinguish between e.g. Google and TPB.
The reality is that once created we can distribute any material more efficiently and effectively by p2p than by any other means, and the “unit copy” naturally prices to zero, at least in and of itself. Everyone can copy and duplicate, and will do so, and most copies made will be done for free.
That doesn’t, however, quite mean that you can’t ever sell a copy, that still is possible, you sell to people who are cash-rich and time-poor, who want to get a quick/fast download and know they’ll get exactly what you promise, and who want to pay to help support the creation of new work. The prices that it’s possible to charge, however, will be what the market will bear for that, and not the rates that were possible to exact under monopoly conditions where distribution was controlled (think AllofMP3 pricing, for digital downloads).
What you can also do, however, is take advantage of P2P and filesharing, to allow you to provide downloads cheaply, even if demand on your server is high. Provide a torrent tracker yourself, and enough download capacity so that you’re always seeding it from your site… And then submit the torrent to the tracker sites, all of them, as well.
If you make it fast/simple/easy for your fans to go through your site, and give you (a reasonable, small) payment, then those who can do that and don’t want the time/opportunity cost of searching for unofficial downloads that might be anything and might not work, will do that.
If you have a particular download that becomes vastly popular, it won’t crash your server, because the wider P2P network will take up the load; on the other hand, if you have something rarer that someone really, really wants, but the unofficial/unauthorised trackers aren’t working because it isn’t popular… Then they will find they can get it from you, because you’re still seeding it.
And for the people who just go and search the torrent sites, and find/download it without paying? They would never have paid anyway, and in fact on popular downloads (if you do what I say and adopt P2P instead of fighting it), they will actually be taking load off your server for your paying customers, helping you distribute, so they will in fact be returning something to you, without you even having to know who they are, ask for or pay for their assistance distributing.
It really does require a different way of thinking, however, how to embrace this, and use the vastly efficient distribution method, which works precisely because it is decentralised and uncontrolled. Attempts to centralise or control it necessarily interfere with how it works, and then the more efficient uncontrolled/fanbased P2P networks are always going to be ahead of the game.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@John Barron
Additionally, Trent Reznor put his music on torrent sites, including the Pirate Bay. Guess what that did for his paid-for sales? When people who are against paying into something where the labels win and the artists are screwed see “oh man, he’s with us, he’s using p2p and torrent sites” they PAY!
Yes, that’s part of the established trust! Trent isn’t stupid, he knows that a small fraction of what is acquired was paid for, but he also knows people downloaded it for free and then paid for it. He also made more money than ever because of it. His tours were bigger and better than ever! He loved it! The fans loved it!
Why can’t indie, small, new artists do this? You won’t get 100000000 downloads and dollars instantly and maybe never. But you will grow in fanbase and if you are willing to try and keep at it you will make a good living! If you want to reach Trent’s level, then don’t stop, go social nuts, connect with the fans times ten. You’ll go as far as your skills will take you.
If you continue to improve your craft you’ll improve your fanbase.
Again, think outside the box.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:07 am
@ Jon Barron
I see what you are saying and it was something that we have looked into for Kerchoonz in the past; however, there is still the situation whereby if we seeded everything from our server, we would still be in a situation where we would need to license the music from the majors, independents, etc. (under current copyright legislation and without a public license in place). Right now, the labels have a strong handle and there isn’t much leverage there. License fees are one of the reasons why even itunes (according to Jobs) is costly. And, not to mention, that in the digital age, it’s not sure if theses licenses (advances) are distributed down to the artists. Maybe they are?