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?

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.

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.

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.

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.”

? 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).

” … 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!

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.’

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.

“So far, the only breaks that protocol have come from the artist side”

Can you give us a couple of examples, please?

Cheers!

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.

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!