User User name Password  
   
Wednesday 25.11.2009 / 07:37 PM
Search AfterDawn.com:        In English   Suomeksi   På svenska
afterdawn.com > news > piracy figures used to increase profitability for record labels
Show topics
News
News

Piracy figures used to increase profitability for record labels

19 September 2007 14:05 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 16 comments

Piracy figures used to increase profitability for record labels Finally giving evidence that P2P and piracy aren't as bad as the MPAA and other outlets would have you believe, according to the recent leaked internal Media Defender email, piracy is actually used by some record labels to increase profitability.

The email tells us that Interscope records, and most likely other record labels are using P2P to determine how well they can market a new single. The email shows a specific instance recently in which music from Nicole of the group "The Pussycat Dolls" was monitored via P2P to see whether it was profitable to release her next single.

"Nicole from pussy cat dolls has a single called “whatever u like”. It’s not selling well on itunes or playing that great on radio. A song called “Baby Love” just leaked (I don’t know how long ago). Interscope wants to know if Baby Love is picking up steam on p2p. They need to make a decision by early next week on whether they should switch to this song as the single. Please get me a score comparison on Monday for these two tracks. Also, please put beyonces, fergie, gwen, and nelly furtado singles as comparisons."
read the email.

So next time you decide to download an unauthorized song, remember that the RIAA could possibly sue you for it, but it will also help lead to the next hot single on the radio in which the labels will make money off your decisions.

Source:
TorrentFreak


Permalink to this article

Get AfterDawn's news to your favourite feed reader! Share this story with your friends!
 

 
Related articles:

  • Huge European raid aims for piracy release groups (21 September 2007)
  • IFPI shuts down six eDonkey servers (19 September 2007)
  • Embarrassing MediaDefender emails distributed on Bittorent (17 September 2007)
  • Media companies advise innovation and risk taking (16 September 2007)
  •  

    « Previous news article
    IFPI shuts down six eDonkey servers
    Next news article »
    NBC will offer downloadable TV shows
     Post your comment
    Discuss this article! 
    dude845 (Senior Member) 19 September 2007 16:34 Send private message to this user   
    They are absolute morons..
    Martone10 (Newbie) 19 September 2007 17:26 Send private message to this user   
    WTF these guys are a**holes i cant believe they make a big fuss about piracy but then they turn around and use it to choose the next hit single for an artist then they will sue you for downloading songs this may be the smartest thing ive ever heard
    Pop_Smith (Senior Member) 19 September 2007 17:55 Send private message to this user   
    Maybe its to get around the "It takes money to make money" rule.

    If they sue others and scare them into paying that way the RIAA/MPAA doesn't have to pay for marketing to find out what type of song/movie should be released next as their "I hope this catches well" track or movie.

    Peace
    webe123 (Inactive) 19 September 2007 18:28 Send private message to this user   
    It seems as if the RIAA is taking a "if you can't beat 'em..... Join 'EM" approach Now if they can just get out of the dark ages thinking that suing people is going to help their cause.....

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19 September 2007 18:28

    hughjars (Inactive) 20 September 2007 2:53 Send private message to this user   
    Of course they're just hypocritical, cynical, spiteful, short-sighted ba*tards being totally fake to the truth,
    sharing generates sales that would otherwise never be made.

    (personally I think much of this 'piracy noise' is just a con for dopey shareholders & politicians/legislators they think believe their 'otherwise we would have made trillions!' cr@p)

    The whole point here is - or ought to be - wrapped up in the parts sharing can't give you, the 'added value' that comes with the full retail package......but of course that implies they actually have to shift their bloated idle a$$es and be bothered about and make the effort to release an attractive value product in the 1st place.

    There are numerous examples in my own collection where I have d/l'ed the ripped version of something and then bought the retail version on the back of that to get full Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 audio etc etc.

    I know I am far from alone in this.

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20 September 2007 2:54

    runar (Newbie) 20 September 2007 3:13 Send private message to this user   
    absofuckinglutely brilliant thinking :D
    emugamer (Member) 20 September 2007 8:00 Send private message to this user   
    Originally posted by hughjars:
    There are numerous examples in my own collection where I have d/l'ed the ripped version of something and then bought the retail version on the back of that to get full Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 audio etc etc.

    I know I am far from alone in this.
    Same here.
    SProdigy (Member) 20 September 2007 8:23 Send private message to this user   
    Originally posted by hughjars:
    There are numerous examples in my own collection where I have d/l'ed the ripped version of something and then bought the retail version on the back of that to get full Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 audio etc etc.

    I know I am far from alone in this.
    Indeed my friend. Indeed.

    I refuse to buy something that is absolute crap. Maybe monitoring P2P "buzz" on some of these artists can help them effectively put less crap. Then again, they are being hypocrites about this whole concept in the first place.
    DVDdoug (Junior Member) 20 September 2007 10:45 Send private message to this user   
    It seems quite logical to me. If a song is poplular on P2P, it's probably going to be popular in general. Since they are monitoring P2P traffic anyway, why not maximize use of the data?
    MightyOne (Junior Member) 20 September 2007 12:42 Send private message to this user   
    Sounds logical to do.

    If nobody wants it for FREE, then why would they want to pay for it !

    It would be nice if "THEY" at least stopped with the BS. If the time ever comes that "THEY" decide to tell the truth about something and come clean...nobody will believe them. They cried "wolf" too many times.
    redux79 (Member) 20 September 2007 13:39 Send private message to this user   
    While random people are being sued for shock value, record label’s are spying on the same p2p streams to figure out which bubble gum pop single to release next. The mpaa is going to make my head explode!!!
    SuomiP (Member) 21 September 2007 0:55 Send private message to this user   
    How to block MD

    "MediaDefender is a kind of the criminal organization which acts by the support and money of international media companies.

    For your protection:
    1) Download

    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3812404/Medi...or_PeerGuardian

    2) Unpack.
    3) Add this list to your Peer Guardian 2 program."
    maitland (Newbie) 22 September 2007 15:35 Send private message to this user   
    I think this is great news. This is exactly what media companies should do. They will never stop piracy, but if they are able to use it to their advantage, everyone wins.


    ~Maitland
    JAYMES71 (Newbie) 22 September 2007 15:51 Send private message to this user   
    Just three words:

    NEW WORLD ORDER

    'nuff said. Asshole RIAA, MPAA and all other hypocrappers.
    militantm (Junior Member) 23 September 2007 6:50 Send private message to this user   
    does anybody actucally think "they" want any of this to stop? at this point the industry can't survive without it. they don't want you stop dui or speeding in your car, it's all profit to them, they don't care if your a freaking turnip, their gonna get their blood somehow. if they have to break a couple eggs to make an omlet so be it. it's all about their bottom line, it's all a free advertisement and profit. they don't want you to think they look at it that way but the reality is they actually do. here's a for instance, right now I'm watching Van Halen tour rehearsals on the web. do you actually think they would allow that to leak if they didn't want it to? they're trying to create a buzz, good or bad in this case, vip tix are $1000 and $500 and they don't even tell you what seat your getting. onsale to public is $125, they gotta move those seats, so they have crate a motivation to get the working class to spend that kinda money. those are the dollars they're looking for. the fat cats are few and far between, the working class make up the majority no matter what they would have you believe.
    borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 28 September 2007 4:08 Send private message to this user   
    This is the way they should see technology as a plus not as a minus due to the fact that they can gage popularity is a plus for them at a minimum cost.
     Post your comment
     

    Subscribe to our newsfeed

    Get the latest headlines delivered directly to your favourite RSS reader or content aggregation service by using the links below.

    AfterDawn.com: News - RSS feed
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Add to MyMSN

    Search for headlines

    Search through our news archive.

    Last week's most popular software downloads

    Digital video: AfterDawn.com | AfterDawn Forums
    Music: MP3Lizard.com
    Gaming: Blasteroids.com | Blasteroids Forums | Compare game prices
    Software: Software downloads
    Blogs: User profile pages
    RSS feeds: AfterDawn.com News | Software updates | AfterDawn Forums
    International: AfterDawn in Finnish | AfterDawn in Swedish | download.fi
    Navigate: Search | Site map
    About us: About AfterDawn Ltd | Advertise on our sites | Rules, Restrictions, Legal disclaimer & Privacy policy
    Contact us: Send feedback | Contact our media sales team
     
      © 1999-2009 by AfterDawn Ltd.