Dubstepforum.com

gnome wrote:

apmje wrote:Blogs got me into Dubstep which has eventually lead me to buying a lot of music.

Just saying.

Exactly. People who respect the music buy it. People who don't, don't. You won't stop piracy and you will waste valuable time and effort trying to.

Exactly. I don't think its a bad thing that these tunes are out there, at least people will be listening and enjoying and of course some won't buy it but you do get people, such as myself, who have bought the tune and a lot more from it.

apmje wrote:

gnome wrote:

apmje wrote:Blogs got me into Dubstep which has eventually lead me to buying a lot of music.

Just saying.

Exactly. People who respect the music buy it. People who don't, don't. You won't stop piracy and you will waste valuable time and effort trying to.

Exactly. I don't think its a bad thing that these tunes are out there, at least people will be listening and enjoying and of course some won't buy it but you do get people, such as myself, who have bought the tune and a lot more from it.

Its the popular notion of omitting the benefits of unconventional advertisement. It is so ubiquitous that I have had to refuse going through with business ventures with some before even proposing a mission statement, they are often so short-sighted and cannot grasp that the long-term goals and aims can be achieved by these means. Its no surprise that most had MBA's either.

Also, I cannot stress it enough that Piracy is not what is taking place when one d/l's these files alone, it isn't until one unlawfully acquires (steals) these products by X person/label and begins re-selling them as their own for their own profit, which is what piracy ACTUALLY is. Citing copyright laws and intellectual property claims does little if nothing to deter others whether you misuse words and clauses by the way.

Case in point: I was handed a bootleg of DSA 4 and 2 in 2006 in a low bit rate. Weeks later I started to buy music, including those 2 releases, something I had not done as I relied on 'the scene' stuff before to do so; this was mainly due to the fact that it was unknown at the time even in the UK so its scarce nature forced me to make a decision: either purchase or go without. And so began the journey of scraping every penny to get a 3-4 releases every month or so and PAYING to see the very same people who made the music at a rave when the opportunity presented itself. Its been ~4.5 years now.

Cheers for the replies people. I know there's not one correct answer, but I've read through what you all have said and will have a long think about what to do. I'm not sure I agree with the defeatist "don't bother" attitude, but time is money and I can't sit around 23 hours a day firing off DMCA emails to people. Need to reach a good compromise.

Well I'm going to keep my opinions about all this to myself, but I do find three facets of this discussion very interesting.

1) Piracy and File sharing is not the same thing. Though it could be argued that file sharing too costs labels and musicians a lot of income. Common theory is that: hat which can be downloaded for free, will hardly ever be paid for unless you are dealing with :
A) Vinyl DJ's
B) Collectors of the physical product
C) Music Purists who think creativity should be rewarded and music has an attached dollar value to it. In other words : What most would consider to be common sense in commerce : you create and distribute something <=> you get money for that.
D) People who simply don't know how to access/download files for free on the internet, even though they would if they could.


2) We always assume 1) to be true. But I wonder if there was ever any study about this? Is it true that people who download your music off the internet for free, probably never had any intention of buying the physical product in the first place? If so, the business doesn't lose anything by these actions and then file sharing could be seen as a great promotional deal because the opposite direction could be true: people who had no intention of buying your product in the first place, might be tempted to purchase a physical product after they have downloaded it, if you can convince them to. Which would effectively mean somehow bringing A-B-C into play. Of course this is a very Black/white stance and probably the truth is somewhere in the middle.

3) Legal Digital Downloads of sites such as beatport, boomkat, junodownload etc. have their own part to play in all this. In a way, they cheapen the physical product and effectively damage the integrity of categories A and C also bringing about changes in hard and software (serato for example). On the other hand, they might persuade people of (2) to still go ahead and purchase the digital product for a heavily reduced price, giving the artists a possible additional income stream.

Very interesting matter, I wonder if there has been any academic/scientific research into this subject. Links anyone?

I still think people who claim "free publicity" as an excuse to share music are idiots and 99.9% of the time they aren't an artist releasing music, or a label publishing the music and probably torrent away all day anyway.

As for making people 'want' something, people should be wanting to buy a product for the music alone, not some fancy novelty idea behind it.

ashley wrote:I still think people who claim "free publicity" as an excuse to share music are idiots and 99.9% of the time they aren't an artist releasing music, or a label publishing the music and probably torrent away all day anyway.

So fucking true. Most people saying this bullshit have no frame of reference and have no clue what sales figures look like for the average vinyl/digital label in dubstep.

Dubstepforum, facebook, e-zines, blogs, youtube, etc is free publicity for people who care about dubstep

F_______ulz and torrents are free music for people who don't care to support dubstep labels


the idea that someone is going to illegally download a release, enjoy it immensely, and then go to a site and purchase said release because they enjoyed it so much isn't a commonly shared one.

ashley wrote:As for making people 'want' something, people should be wanting to buy a product for the music alone, not some fancy novelty idea behind it.

First of all, just to mention it, my text never claims such things nor do I personally.

But frankly, that's not how any commerce works though. Perhaps this is not true for arts.
Agreed that in a perfect world, this would happen, but how many people today legitimately purchase music JUST for the music? I'd consider myself part of that category but I'd also consider myself a minority.

You have people buying music because someone else buys it (a lot of popular music) just like a lot of commodities. Or because someone else wants to hear it (look at the chemical charts throughout the year, I'd say a lot of the best selling vinyl is material that your average fan will want to hear on a night out) hence what DJ's purchase. Then you have collectors come into play who buy something because it is by a certain artists or label (even though the tune itself might not be the best ever) or because it is limited or comes with some sort of gadget.
I wouldn't underestimate the amount of music that's get purchased for other reasons along with the fact that it is good music.

I know this example isn't 100% correct,

but look at Burial's new record selling out in a matter of minutes without anyone ever hearing it. Sure Burial has proven in the past that his music is good. Still, I don't think you can argue that his record sold out so fast just because it is good music.

joeki wrote:I know this example isn't 100% correct,

but look at Burial's new record selling out in a matter of minutes without anyone ever hearing it. Sure Burial has proven in the past that his music is good. Still, I don't think you can argue that his record sold out so fast just because it is good music.

few factors...

Thom Yorke is also on the release
So is Four Tet
Burial doesn't often release music
Vinyl (production numbers could potentially be low)
Multiple stockists of said vinyl = smaller share per store

So you could imagine Bleep having 10~30 or so vinyls and the fact new Burial is rare, let alone the radiohead hype

ashley wrote:I still think people who claim "free publicity" as an excuse to share music are idiots and 99.9% of the time they aren't an artist releasing music, or a label publishing the music and probably torrent away all day anyway.

As for making people 'want' something, people should be wanting to buy a product for the music alone, not some fancy novelty idea behind it.

Had I not the the confidence in knowing of what was said was true (participating in the same acts) I would take issue with what you are saying. If you can't keep up with demand of creating a product that is both adequately priced and tailored to your demographics needs and wants (fancy novelties included) you're setting yourself up for a self-defeating pursuit.

Also, I'm waiting for the digital release of Mental Universe, and ONLY Mental Universe, despite having access to a 320 to it right now, it took all of 3 seconds to locate it and it has nothing to do with 3rd party servers or torrents. So, without getting into the moral and ethical side of this argument, I'd say that claiming that 99.9% are idiots is a gross exaggeration, and is a clear indication of your glib perception of the situation and the Market dynamics which have been spoken of here. I really do think you are out of your depth, and if you think profits are no adequately being met either change your approach or quit. There are other labels who believe that the benefits far out weigh the risks, and act accordingly. Competition is a brilliant thing, I highly suggest you look at Thinking's message in the Can't Sleep/Lurka Tempted thread.

Lastly, I find it amusing (not really) that anyone still relies on academic support or claims to substantiate the notions and premises of the subject matter spoken of here, when first hand testimonies (direct demographic feedback) have been given to you--granted the scale/population could be greater. Suffice it to say, even if Kode9 showed up with a thesis that concluded with something corroborates that file sharing cost producers money they would otherwise maintain as profit, I'd laugh in his face and walk away for several reasons, chief among which is that academics have as much knowledge of commerce as a fish does about space travel: none. Which is why they are academics, State-financed employees (sic) who's skills (or lack thereof) largely have no place or desire in a free-market system had it not been mandated by the State in the first place.

And just to scrutinize the matter further, could it be said that your vinyl release would not have been sold to the public with errors on the stickers had you spent more time focusing on your product? Or devising that the vinyl release met more rigorous quality control procedures? I'm not picking on you or the label, I'm just trying to defend my argument, which as you can see has empirical substance beyond just name calling.

Demand isn't the problem.

Competing with a supplier that is offering the same product for free is the problem.

I'm sure all of you have gimmick ideas about how to get people to purchase shit but that all costs money to make happen. Download cards, inserts, gatefolds, colored vinyl, etc, all that shit costs money. So you either need capital to make that happen (good luck, most people in dubstep are broke) or you need a willing and able distro to buy into it (again good luck most distros don't take those type of risks given the climate of vinyl sales these days).



If I'm outside Best Buy giving away free xbox's and Best Buy is selling them for $200 which are you going to take?

Lets say for $200 best buy is going to give out a free game, a $50 value. Or you can take my free Xbox (and download the game once its online for free)

Lets say they're selling a limited edition Halo kit with an extra controller.... or you can take my free xbox

First :
I have yet to see neutral and unbiased empirical data concerning the matter at hand and that's why I think a scientific writing (be it a thesis or whatever) about the subject matter would do no harm. Your post suggest a biased attitude towards academic and scientific writing to me. Fact is that should such a writing ever be considered (if it doesn't exist already), it could take into account your market economy principles and the first hand demographic experiences you speak of on a large scale and combine both. Saying a scientist (probably an economist concerning the subject matter) has no knowledge of how commerce works, is simply not true and frankly, I don't understand why you would even bring that up.

Second :
I'll put my cards on the table here and say the following :
I don't know whether file sharing hurts record sales so I will make no statements about that. But I can imagine it does for the reasons pkay stated.
I do feel that if record labels give extra incentive to buy a physical product, it will boost sales. The problem with such incentives was raised earlier by the label-owner of Lodubs and now again by pkay. They cost money.

Let us take the Clubroot release. Making this a limited run of 500 copies boosted sales, I'm sure of that, I bought one. But on the other hand, selling only 500 double CD's will make you only so much profits. So later digital downloads followed and the bonus tracks were made available on vinyl (which I also purchased, but from a DJ'ing standpoint which I alluded to earlier).

There are promotional ways of dealing with this matter and I'll gladly suggest some if need be, whether they will ever provide a sufficient sales rate remains the question. I personally don't know. But I've seen it work with instrumental music (mainly albums), whether it works with singles of dance music I wouldn't know.
Also, I'm not saying this is the case for any of the labels involved in this thread but the fact is many smaller labels are offering a sub par product these days. If I can choose between a free fresh piece of tuna, or cheap canned tuna, I know what your average person would take.
And no doubt, it would hurt the tune population.

the problem with a good label and a bad label is they both start off as a new label. If they're bringing in new artists with potentially new sounds they're risks all the same and you're trying to convince a distro to take a chance on you.

Without capital you're gonna get involved in a P&D and at that point you're being controlled by your sales figures via your distro. I think people underestimate how much sales effect the average label. A leak, or early/heavily pirated piece can literally kill a label. It could be the most hyped bit on the planet, if your distro doesn't see it they don't buy into it.

That said the risk reward is skewed insanely against the label.... the solution from a label stance is to go digital as the risk is far less. The overhead is a fraction when you're going digital and for every label that makes that choice a nail is put in the coffin of vinyl and without the distro lovin often times doesn't get the exposure a great artist deserves.

It's a losing battle with piracy but one you kinda have to fight.... when I was actively directing the labels I was involved with I made a point to push hard to keep tunes from being pirated until they were released and the first few weeks afterwards. I went into watermarking tunes and cutting off dj's from getting tunes and saw some noticeable benefits.... just makes me wonder if i focused hard during those times and saw benefits, how much benefit would we have seen if it would have been a constant nonstop thing?

ashley wrote:If you don't send a proper DMCA notice your email will be ignored.

Theres currently no way to get anything removed from The Pirate Bay, but I've had swift responses from a lot of file sharing sites who removed our files in around 24 hours.

Make sure you sign up to Google Alerts too...

What is the benefits of using Google Alerts? People have spoken about it, but I don't know what it is!

Lets not argue too much about this

As far as practical solutions for getting copyrighted material removed from websites, is DMCA our only practical option?

Also, what about preventing our material from reappearing? I've already contacted a few sites, got the shit removed, then watched it come back online a week later. How can I save the hassle of emailing them every week saying the same shit?

Does anyone have any experience with those companies who will chase up copyright infringements for you to save hassle?

pkay wrote:Demand isn't the problem.

Competing with a supplier that is offering the same product for free is the problem.

I'm sure all of you have gimmick ideas about how to get people to purchase shit but that all costs money to make happen. Download cards, inserts, gatefolds, colored vinyl, etc, all that shit costs money. So you either need capital to make that happen (good luck, most people in dubstep are broke) or you need a willing and able distro to buy into it (again good luck most distros don't take those type of risks given the climate of vinyl sales these days).



If I'm outside Best Buy giving away free xbox's and Best Buy is selling them for $200 which are you going to take?

Lets say for $200 best buy is going to give out a free game, a $50 value. Or you can take my free Xbox (and download the game once its online for free)

Lets say they're selling a limited edition Halo kit with an extra controller.... or you can take my free xbox

So am I to believe that despite misusing words on several accounts you are complaining that your business venture is at a disadvantage because you lack initial investment/capital, thus correlate that to file-sharing (NOT PIRACY). You clearly seem to have lacked a risk-management process in your business strategy prior to undertaking what is clearly a task beyond your capacity.

Listen, you chose to sell/market a particular product, you chose an intangible one (if I understand you correctly) you must assume the risks and inherit liabilities of dealing with an intangible product in the digital world. If you can't come up with strategy that overcomes the obstacles imposed upon you whether they are fleeting finances/resources or changing social perceptions of exchange its clear your product never had a place in the Market much less with your approach. I find your argument (if you can call it that) nothing more than an inexhaustible need to repeat these over-dramatic platitudes of how the Market should conform to your circumstances; its absurd, because I saw labels like Deep Medi, Tempa, Techtonic, Chestplate, Osiris, Wheel and Deal, Black Boxx etc... come up through the same way with similar limitations and now they are the labels being sought after by all the new talent. I'm sure they had to make similar difficult sacrifices which are not unique to anyone of them, either. And yet here they are.

Either do it or don't. You have a choice.

Intended Malice wrote: misusing words

Intended Malice wrote: anyone of them

don't play grammar police unless you're batting 1.000 asshole

You're hellbent on bigging yourself up so have at it.

£10 Bag wrote:Lets not argue too much about this

As far as practical solutions for getting copyrighted material removed from websites, is DMCA our only practical option?

Also, what about preventing our material from reappearing? I've already contacted a few sites, got the shit removed, then watched it come back online a week later. How can I save the hassle of emailing them every week saying the same shit?

Does anyone have any experience with those companies who will chase up copyright infringements for you to save hassle?

To get back to the topic at hand, DMCA Is the only really internationally recognized way to get it done.

As far as preventing, like I mentioned earlier it's easier to pick your battles. Most people are aware of the high traffic sites. It's best to get on them and let them know you're gonna talk to them each and every time you see one of your tunes up. They'll eventually start to do it on their own or just be quick to help you out.

I've also had a few sites make it where they've edited the labels name to be ******** so it fucks up their links and topics. Really about developing relationships with the moderators of these forums/blogs.

As far as companies, a label i worked with years ago hired one and they went insane and had our own youtube channel removed on accident lol. They were very effective but I think they're fairly pricey

Mis-spelling and mis-using are two different matters entirely, I do not claim to be absolutely free of the former, either; its just that after 2 different people (myself included) have stated several times and explained at length that piracy and file-sharing is not the same thing you continue to misuse the word in your statements.

Given your poor rebuttal I think I'll simply omit your presence in this conversation. Much like I do US dubstep as it shares similar characteristics as your own in its approach of doing things. Good luck to you, though I doubt we shall ever encounter each other either in conversation or mutual exchange.

Intended Malice wrote:Mis-spelling and mis-using are two different matters entirely, I do not claim to be absolutely free of the former, either; its just that after 2 different people (myself included) have stated several times and explained at length that piracy and file-sharing is not the same thing you continue to misuse the word in your statements.

Given your poor rebuttal I think I'll simply omit your presence in this conversation. Much like I do US dubstep as it shares similar characteristics as your own in its approach of doing things. Good luck to you, though I doubt we shall ever encounter each other either in conversation or mutual exchange.

Piracy implies intent of financial gain which a large majority of these sites accomplish. Be it outright selling of mp3s, banner ads, rapidshare payments, etc. It qualifies as piracy.

The number one problem right now isn't p2p programs. It's rapidshare/megashare blogs and forums where the owners of the sites are setting up sites to direct traffic towards them for profit.... they purposely upload popular tracks in order to be paid for downloads..... Multiple courts have recognized income made from banners and hosting sites constitutes piracy and not a peer level problem

Explain to me again how this is not piracy? Money made off redistribution = piracy

Not to mention that there are sites that literally take mp3s and sell them without the permission of the artists lol. You have no clue what the fuck you're talking about and no matter how long you make your run-on sentences it won't change that fact.

Cant download vinyl!
Fuck digital.