Friendly Fire

markle · Post by **markle** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:39 pm

Got a tip from a friend (thanks Chris Rooted) about a blog called toomanyscenes.blogspot.com who had put up a review of Jamie Woon's "Wayfaring Stranger". It was complementary and i'm sure read by quite a few people.

HOWEVER!!! The author also put up an free MP3 download of the BURIAL REMIX. By the time i'd seen it there had been 601 downloads. If you convert that into dosh if those people had bought it on itunes that would have made £474. Now, i'm not in this game for ££££. But i am in it to breakin' even and puttin' out the next project.

I was Pished!!!

The author has now taken it down.

boomnoise · Post by **boomnoise** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:40 pm

gutted mate.

paulie · Post by **paulie** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:42 pm

Kill him.

conspira · Post by **conspira** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:51 pm

not good at all!

boomnoise · Post by **boomnoise** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:53 pm

i'm pretty sure one or both of the guys who run the blog post on here actually.

batfink · Post by **batfink** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:54 pm

Paulie wrote:Kill him.

^^^^^^
some good advice here.

markle · Post by **markle** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:55 pm

boomnoise wrote:i'm pretty sure one or both of the guys who run the blog post on here actually.

Then they should know better.

boomnoise · Post by **boomnoise** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:58 pm

i could be wrong but i know for sure that they post on another board i use.

markle · Post by **markle** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:59 pm

Can we expose them?

7 below · Post by **7 below** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:04 pm

Whilst I completely disagree with sharing of underground releases like this and totally agree with getting them to take it down I don't think you can ever equate number of downloads with cash. This mistake is certainly made in every file-sharing legality discussion. Surely out of those people who downloaded, if it cost them to download:

- some wouldn't dl due to cost
- some wouldn't dl because they didn't like the preview clip or don't want to take the risk
- some would pay and dl
- some would pay or buy the vinyl even though they had downloaded illegally already

plus there may be some reduction in numbers due to multiple downloads from the same person.

This discussion has already taken place many many many times before as to whether file-sharing harms music. My opinion is it harms underground music which is most likely to be internet based (and therefore shared copies are imminently available) and not so much commercial music (which is largely shop based - and I'm including iTunes in this as a 'shop' as it is user friendly and has copy protection built in). But I don't believe that 601 = £474.

So, er, don't worry too much about it?

*edit - but yeah, do try and kill them...

masstronaut · Post by **masstronaut** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:07 pm

They could at least have waited until the record was available. Tsk.

Unpaid-for DLs for something like this will probably work as good promotion really, but leaks onto P2P networks prior to release can seem like they are stealing the official release's thunder somewhat. If they got sent promos then this is really inconsiderate, especially if it's been done for the cache, what.

markle · Post by **markle** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:10 pm

7 below wrote:Whilst I completely disagree with sharing of underground releases like this and totally agree with getting them to take it down I don't think you can ever equate number of downloads with cash. This mistake is certainly made in every file-sharing legality discussion. Surely out of those people who downloaded, if it cost them to download:

- some wouldn't dl due to cost
- some wouldn't dl because they didn't like the preview clip or don't want to take the risk
- some would pay and dl
- some would pay or buy the vinyl even though they had downloaded illegally already

plus there may be some reduction in numbers due to multiple downloads from the same person.

This discussion has already taken place many many many times before as to whether file-sharing harms music. My opinion is it harms underground music which is most likely to be internet based (and therefore shared copies are imminently available) and not so much commercial music (which is largely shop based - and I'm including iTunes in this as a 'shop' as it is user friendly and has copy protection built in). But I don't believe that 601 = £474.

So, er, don't worry too much about it?

*edit - but yeah, do try and kill them...

i hear ya!!! Still pished!!!

thinking · Post by **thinking** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:12 pm

masstronaut wrote:leaks onto P2P networks prior to release

this is the most annoying part of it. And the complete lack of respect.

What's wrong with people, can't help biting the hand that feeds??

reso · Post by **reso** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:15 pm

There goes my 50 quid then. Some chief put some of my tunes on a torrent site as well not a happy bunny.

7 below · Post by **7 below** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:17 pm

ThinKing wrote:
masstronaut wrote:leaks onto P2P networks prior to release
this is the most annoying part of it. And the complete lack of respect.

What's wrong with people, can't help biting the hand that feeds??

Surely if they got hold of it before the release date, it should be pretty easy to hunt down the actual culprit not just the internet persona?

juliun_c90 · Post by **juliun_c90** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:23 pm

was it a 320 or a shit quality version though?

if the latter i don't think its too bad, could stimulate sales even (though its still not actually within their rights to unilaterally decide to post someone else's music to be publicly available).

is there anyone out there who hasn't invested some $ on the basis of hearing a low quality mp3 and wanting to investigate further?

kaizen · Post by **kaizen** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:32 pm

that sounds like a rite tnuc..... should defo kill, 10times over. no need for that....

u should try joining mcps and prs... they chase up anything owed to you by anyone who plays tracks done by the artist/publisher.....

my mate did that, was owed a shit load from somewhere but couldnt find out where, mcps and prs took a court order out on the people owing my mate..... got a nice little happy sum of cash back

thinking · Post by **thinking** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:41 pm

reso wrote:There goes my 50 quid then. Some chief put some of my tunes on a torrent site as well not a happy bunny.

only thing to do is flood the p2p networks with fake files marked "brand spankin Reso dubs BIGBIGBIG!!!" and just upload MP3s of you calling them coints.

[b]racket · Post by **[b]racket** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:10 pm

ThinKing wrote:only thing to do is flood the p2p networks with fake files marked "brand spankin Reso dubs BIGBIGBIG!!!" and just upload MP3s of you calling them coints.

ahahaha thats a brilliant idea

jack sparrow1 · Post by **jack sparrow1** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:14 pm

ThinKing wrote:
reso wrote:There goes my 50 quid then. Some chief put some of my tunes on a torrent site as well not a happy bunny.
only thing to do is flood the p2p networks with fake files marked "brand spankin Reso dubs BIGBIGBIG!!!" and just upload MP3s of you calling them coints.

stuff like this is just gunna make people stop sharing stuff even maybe producer to freinds in the extreme

properly gutting

victim of it myself via bearshare and limewire the flanges

naming no names but he was trusted and he wont be again

Friendly Fire

Friendly Fire

Who is online