<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;promotions&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:48:18 PST</pubDate>
<title>EMI Was Actively Giving Away MP3s It Accused Michael Roberston Of Downloading Illegally</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/02122421460/emi-was-actively-giving-away-mp3s-it-accused-michael-roberston-downloading-illegally.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/02122421460/emi-was-actively-giving-away-mp3s-it-accused-michael-roberston-downloading-illegally.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall EMI / Capitol Records ongoing lawsuit against MP3Tunes and its founder/CEO Michael Robertson.  The initial ruling in that case went <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110822/17284715623/mp3tunes-ruling-protects-dmca-safe-harbors.shtml">almost entirely</a> against EMI, with one small exception that we'll get to soon.  EMI asked the court to reconsider the ruling, claiming that it had made some mistakes, but the court <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/04442116611/emi-loses-yet-again-its-quixotic-war-with-michael-robertson-mp3tunes.shtml">slammed EMI</a> for some questionable behavior, including taking a number of quotes completely out of context as an attempt to mislead the court.  The latest on that case is that following the appeals court <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/08343618389/breaking-appeals-court-sends-viacom-youtube-case-back-to-district-court-future-safe-harbors-still-uncertain.shtml">ruling</a> in the YouTube/Viacom case that sent that case back to the lower court, EMI pretended that the ruling changed everything and required a new ruling.  The two sides are currently filing motions back and forth over that, with MP3Tunes pointing out that nothing in that ruling actually changes anything, and EMI claiming otherwise.  Given the narrow aspects of the Viacom ruling, I think that EMI is still unlikely to get very far.  Still, it's fairly amazing how much time, money and effort it has spent on this case, even as the company itself got into serious trouble and was sold off in, effectively, a fire sale.
<br /><br />
Which then brings us to the other aspect of the case.  The one area in which EMI "prevailed" in the original case was in the part they filed against Robertson <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/0757251433.shtml">personally</a>.  The court had ruled on summary judgment that Robertson was liable directly for 47 songs that he had personally "sideloaded" into MP3Tunes.  However, even that part of the case was strange.  Initially, EMI had claimed that it had never, ever, ever authorized any MP3s to be given out for free for promotional purposes.  In response, Robertson <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100618/0409509875.shtml">crowdsourced</a> examples of over 1,400 cases where EMI was clearly giving away MP3s for free.  However, the court still ruled that he was liable.
<br /><br />
In the latest filing about that, Robertson <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/546967-mol-indiv-and-viacom.html" target="_blank">hits back on a number of points</a>, starting with the fact that the court ruled on summary judgment on the issue, even though EMI and Robertson had already agreed that the summary judgment part of the dispute wouldn't cover Robertson's personal liability.  Because of that, he didn't present the full argument for why he shouldn't be liable, and thus he's asking that the court allow that part to go to trial in order to show that the evidence of his own infringement is lacking.
<br /><br />
In order to support that, Robertson's filing demonstrates a few important things.  First, it shows a bunch of evidence that EMI purposefully and deliberately marketed its music to various sites asking them to give away MP3s and even to share the music widely.  Second, it shows that, despite being asked for this info during discovery, EMI did not provide it.  Instead, Robertson got it later from other sources.  This is a big no-no, and EMI may run into some issues for failing to hand over the required information during discovery.  Still, what the filing shows is that EMI regularly and frequently hired companies to distribute MP3s for free, and encouraged them to be put up on various websites and shared widely.  And this includes some of the songs that Robertson is accused of infringing and some of the sites he's accused of downloading the songs from.
<br /><br />
Reading pages five through nine in the motion he filed demonstrates this over and over again, including in an email from an EMI Publishing employee, who not only is planning a promotional download but says part of the plan is to "encourage as many third party online zines, podcasts, blogs, major web portals to host the MP3 for free download on their site."  Here's just a snippet of some of the examples Robertson turned up of EMI using free MP3s in marketing (which they did not properly disclose):
<blockquote><i>
For example, Definitive Jux (an EMI label) entered into an agreement with viral 
marketing firm, Better Propaganda, which granted Better Propaganda the right "to use, copy,
distribute, display and perform [a specified song] on and through the Internet and the World
Wide Web..."). This song remains available on the Better
Propaganda site. <b>Plaintiffs did not produce this document</b>....
<br /><br />
Similarly, Astralwerks (another EMI label) engaged Toolshed, Inc. ("Toolshed"), a Viral
marketing firm, to distribute sound recordings pursuant to a marketing program by which
Toolshed would virally distribute free MP3 downloads through various blogs and Toolshed's
own website. Importantly, Toolshed's webpage for downloads notes clearly that <b>"All songs
. . . are pre-licensed for use on your site. Simply browse, find music you like, and copy it to
your page."</b> .... Toolshed has done projects for
numerous labels, including EMI labels Astralwerks, Capitol Records, Caroline Records and
Definitive Jux Toolshed distributed free MP3s for numerous of Plaintiffs' artists --
including Air, Willy Mason, Bat for Lashes, Pacificl, Carbon/Silicon, The Perceptionists, and
Amos Lee -- including one of the same artists that Robertson is accused of wrongfully
sideloading.... <b>Plaintiffs
did not produce documents they exchanged with Toolshed relating to those projects.</b>
<br /><br />
One project by Toolshed is especially important: as emails (dated March 5, 2007)
provided to Robertson from Toolshed indicate, Astralwerks paid Toolshed to get websites to give
away MP3s for the new release of the album "Pocket Symphony" by Air, to be released on
March 6, 2007.... Toolshed achieved coverage, including free downloads
of a track and/or video placement, with numerous sites, including 3HiVe, Donewaiting, Kevchino, Music for Kids Who Can't Read Good, Muzzle of Bees, PopMatters, Sixeyes, Stereogum, Antville, and Kingbline..., some of the same sites and the same artist from which Robertson is accused of wrongfully downloading Plaintiffs' songs and which Plaintiffs have alleged are unauthorized sources of MP3's.... <b>Plaintiffs did not produce such documents. </b>
</i></blockquote>
In many ways, this is reminiscent of the whole Dajaz1 situation, in which the lawyers are insisting that the distribution on various blogs is infringing, at the very same time that their marketing people are begging those same sites <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml">to offer up the songs</a> as a promotion.
<br /><br />
Separate from all of this, but in the same filing, Robertson hits back on the claims that the use of cover art in MP3Tunes infringed.  The filing notes that MP3Tunes had licensed all the cover art from Amazon and that EMI never even bother to show that it held the copyright in the cover art.  All they showed was that the company had copyrights in the songs, but that's different from the cover art (and made more complicated by the fact that the copyright in the cover art might belong to the artists who created the art, rather than EMI).
<br /><br />
All in all, the filing reinforces what's already come out in the earlier rulings: which is that EMI seems to have an incredibly weak case here, but due to what appears to be a random infatuation with going after Robertson personally, is just throwing everything it can at him.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/02122421460/emi-was-actively-giving-away-mp3s-it-accused-michael-roberston-downloading-illegally.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/02122421460/emi-was-actively-giving-away-mp3s-it-accused-michael-roberston-downloading-illegally.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/02122421460/emi-was-actively-giving-away-mp3s-it-accused-michael-roberston-downloading-illegally.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oops</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121221/02122421460</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:02:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>BitTorrent Book Promotion Drives 40% Of Downloaders To Book's Amazon Page</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01064721193/bittorrent-book-promotion-drives-40-downloaders-to-books-amazon-page.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01064721193/bittorrent-book-promotion-drives-40-downloaders-to-books-amazon-page.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Popular author Tim Ferriss got some attention recently when his latest book, <i>The 4-Hour Chef</i>, was published by Amazon, with a big push to try to make it a best seller (the first Amazon published book to get such a push, apparently).  This scared off Barnes & Noble who refused to sell the book, because, apparently, it's run by childish and petulant execs.  Ferriss, who is known for his rather extreme ability to market the hell out of anything, has actually been using this to his own advantage, continually calling out the fact that Barnes & Noble is refusing to carry the book, and using non-standard promotion techniques, including having the book sold via Panera restaurants and... doing a big promotion deal with BitTorrent.  To be honest, I found some of the language used to promote that deal a bit misleading, as it appeared some people thought he was distributing the book itself via BitTorrent.  Instead, he teamed up with the company to distribute "an exclusive bundle" of extra, related, content.  That's still cool, but having watched some of the hype behind it, you could see how some might see it as bait and switch. 
<br /><br />
However, it appears that my concerns may have been overblown.  Late last week, Ferris revealed that not only did the book land on various best seller lists (despite the lack of Barnes & Noble sales), but <a href="http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/11/30/the-4-hour-chef-bestseller/" target="_blank">an astounding number of people who downloaded that extra content bundle on BitTorrent also clicked a "support the artist" button</a>:
<blockquote><i>
For instance, BitTorrent conversion is NUTS. Of 210,000 downloads (of <a href="http://featuredcontent.utorrent.com/" target="_blank">this bundle</a>) earlier this week, more than 85,000 clicked through &#8220;Support the Author&#8221; to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0547884591/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=offsitoftimfe-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373&amp;creativeASIN=0547884591" target="_blank">the book&#8217;s Amazon page</a>. We all had to triple and quadruple check that to believe it.
</i></blockquote>
Now, of course, not everyone who clicks will buy -- and he admits that as well.  But, that's still an extra 85,000 people going to the Amazon page.  Some of them are likely to buy.
<blockquote><i>
Even at a 1% conversion after clicking an effective &#8220;buy now&#8221; link, that translates to 850 books&#8230; and BitTorrent is only accelerating. Wow.
</i></blockquote>
But BitTorrent is only for pirates and only hurts authors and artists, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01064721193/bittorrent-book-promotion-drives-40-downloaders-to-books-amazon-page.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01064721193/bittorrent-book-promotion-drives-40-downloaders-to-books-amazon-page.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/01064721193/bittorrent-book-promotion-drives-40-downloaders-to-books-amazon-page.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121201/01064721193</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Crowdsourcing A Live Show Lets Fans Spread The Word About How Awesome You Are</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121013/01024020697/crowdsourcing-live-show-lets-fans-spread-word-about-how-awesome-you-are.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121013/01024020697/crowdsourcing-live-show-lets-fans-spread-word-about-how-awesome-you-are.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about a new feature from Songkick, called Detour, that can be used to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120928/15284320544/songkick-helps-fans-bring-their-favorite-musician-to-london.shtml">crowdsource a concert</a> to guarantee for a performer that it's worth going to a show there.  Songkick now <a href="http://www.songkick.com/blog/2012/10/10/hot-chip-detour-goes-viral/" target="_blank">has another example</a>, which is even more interesting.  This one isn't just about pre-proving a profitable demand level for a show, but about engaging with fans, finding new fans and really getting people engaged.  It involved the band Hot Chip, who had an open day in their European tour, and was hoping to use it to play a "smaller" town -- one that many tours for similarly popular bands were bypassing.  Songkick found 3 towns that the band hadn't headlined before -- and then let the three towns compete.  What's interesting is how people in one town -- Folkestone -- went above and beyond to make it happen:
<blockquote><i>
What happened next though was incredibly exciting. A bunch of superfans in Folkestone decided that they were going to make it happen. As one fan said, "Most bands don't come to this part of Kent, they tend to stop at London." They got super proactive and started to email all their friends and even petitioned the local radio station and newspaper. It exploded and went completely viral in a matter of hours through fan to fan word of mouth marketing, Hot Chip sold out. Check out the sales curve of pledges for the show, the huge viral spike is when fans started to self-organise.
</i></blockquote>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/47iqS"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/47iqS.png" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Songkick has some interesting data points:
<blockquote><i>
Some interesting things we learned:<br />
- 70% of the people who pledged had never seen Hot Chip before. Detour is really creating new fan to artist connections.<br />
- 66% of the attendees found out about the show through their friends (The rest from Songkick and Hot Chip)<br />
- 1 (amazing) fan emailed over 2000 people they knew to try and spread the word.
</i></blockquote>
In other words, such a platform isn't just about fans getting an act to show up somewhere, but also about getting fans to <i>spread the word</i>, to evangelize and to help <i>build the fanbase</i> much bigger.  One thing we've definitely noticed about successful crowdsourcing campaigns is that they tend to create a sense of "ownership," which means that supporters have incentive to get their friends to support things too, which is a different form of "viral" marketing.  Songkick notes, also, how far fans will go to support acts they like:
<blockquote><i>
I think the thing that really blew me away was the level of self-organisation amongst fans. In a world where half the music industry is still focused on complaining about file sharing, people often forget that fan is short for fanatic. Hot Chip's fans are incredibly passionate about them and figured out a way to self-organise to make this show happen
</i></blockquote>
Now, there is one caveat that Songkick doesn't mention that could be worth exploring as well.  While it is great for those in and around Folkestone, does it upset those in Stoke or in York who are fans, but who didn't "win?"  It seems possible, though hopefully they went into this understanding that was a possibility.  Either way, we see that doing these kinds of things isn't just about pleasing existing fans, but finding more fans as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121013/01024020697/crowdsourcing-live-show-lets-fans-spread-word-about-how-awesome-you-are.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121013/01024020697/crowdsourcing-live-show-lets-fans-spread-word-about-how-awesome-you-are.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121013/01024020697/crowdsourcing-live-show-lets-fans-spread-word-about-how-awesome-you-are.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>neat-ideas</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121013/01024020697</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:12:02 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Nestle: Buy Our Candy So We Can Hunt You Down</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120920/11564120451/nestle-buy-our-candy-so-we-can-hunt-you-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120920/11564120451/nestle-buy-our-candy-so-we-can-hunt-you-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Corporate contests. They so often lead to hijinks at the hands of technology, such as that time the internet decided Mountain Dew's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/14544720050/famous-prankster-internet-hijacks-another-promotional-campaign.shtml">new flavor</a> should be "Gushing Granny." Oh, and there was that one online promotion that sent something called Taylor Swift to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120831/18494920234/4chan-reroutes-promotional-contest-lines-taylor-swift-up-concert-horace-mann-school-deaf.shtml">sing</a> at a school for the deaf. But, lest you think that this volatile mixture of technology and corporate contests is good only for laughs, picture the following.<br />
<br />
You're walking down a street in a European city, reading about how something someone did somewhere upset a major world religion, and you decide you need respite from the madness of the news. So you walk into a corner store, buy a candy bar, and tear it open, ready to bite into a soft, gooey explosion of stress-melting flavor-gasm. That, of course, is when the black helicopters and MiBs appear out of nowhere, rushing you with an ominous black suitcase. If someone froze you right there in that moment, what do you think you would likely expect to happen next?<br />
<center>
<p>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/59118198@N03/5415698349/" title="NUKE by qqqqqq47, on Flickr"><img alt="NUKE" height="192" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5013/5415698349_afecf6e8cc.jpg" width="300" /></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 10px">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/59118198@N03/5415698349/">source</a>: CC BY 2.0</span></p>
</center>
<p>
Well, you'd be wrong (probably). Because those aren't darkly dressed neo-terrorists that have for some reason decided to specifically blow you up with a neutron bomb (dear <i>lord</i>, you're self-centered). No, it's your friendly folks at Nestle, <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/marketing-gone-wild-candy-bars-stalk-you">responding to the GPS technology in your treat</a> to hand you &pound;10,000 in cold, pants-crappingly terrifying cash. It's all part of the new Nestle contest to reward customers by tracking them down via GPS technology in their candybars within 24 hours of being consumed. They named this campaign "Nestle: we will find you!", because apparently "Nestle: we could find and kill you for eating our products anytime we wanted to" didn't strike quite the right tone.<br />
<br />
Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that there's no reason for me to think this contest will play out the way I described above. Well, here's Nestle's own ad for the contest.</p>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sk2Lfgh1c4Q" width="560"></iframe>
</center>
<p>
Now, I'm generally all for creative promotions, but this all seems terrifying. A private company is going to track me down via GPS and throw a suitcase at me in a major city? Well, not me, since not only am I not European, but I'm one of the six people on the planet that absolutely hates chocolate...but <i>you</i>, sweet Euro-reader! It could be you who fudges your pants after eating fudge! So, in conclusion, the article gives a listing of the candy bars you should avoid if you don't want to be hunted down.
<blockquote>
<p>
<i>The grand prizes for Nestle's We Will Find You promotion, involve these four chocolate products: KitKat 4 Finger, KitKat Chunky, Aero Peppermint Medium and Yorkie Milk.</i></p></blockquote>
</p><p>
($10 says there's a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/07215720294/poor-ben-jerry-must-have-had-rough-adolescence-if-they-think-ice-cream-can-be-confused-with-porn.shtml">porno parody</a> of those candy names out there somewhere.)
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120920/11564120451/nestle-buy-our-candy-so-we-can-hunt-you-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120920/11564120451/nestle-buy-our-candy-so-we-can-hunt-you-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120920/11564120451/nestle-buy-our-candy-so-we-can-hunt-you-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-scare-the-nougat-out-of-you</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120920/11564120451</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:47:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Does Anyone Who Develops New Products In Hollywood Ask 'Would I Ever Actually Use This?'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120314/01453118097/does-anyone-who-develops-new-products-hollywood-ask-would-i-ever-actually-use-this.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120314/01453118097/does-anyone-who-develops-new-products-hollywood-ask-would-i-ever-actually-use-this.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For all the lip service the MPAA has been paying to the claim that it loves tech innovations and wants to work with the tech industry to build cool things, why is it that every new "innovation" the industry comes up with only seems to make life complicated for people in ways that make no sense at all?  For example, we recently talked about Warner Bros. ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120306/05190517999/only-hollywood-would-think-that-this-disc-to-digital-program-makes-sense.shtml">disc-to-digital offering</a> in which people who want a digital version of movies they have on DVD can drive to a store where someone will rip the movie for them.  In a world where the ability to rip your DVDs in the comfort of your own home is commonplace, that makes no sense at all.
<br /><br />
I think we can add to this "huh?" discussion: the new effort from Fox, in which the studio will be <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/fox-to-promote-home-video-sales-with-shopping-mall-and-smartphone-initiatives/#utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">putting up giant murals in malls</a> to try to make it "easier" for you to buy DVDs.  Here's how it works according to Deadline.com:
<blockquote><i>
As part of an exclusive one-year partnership with Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, the malls will have a wall with cover art and QR codes for many the studio&#8217;s home videos. People who want to buy the movie or TV show can download a smartphone app called Fox Movie Mall, available for both iPhones and Android devices. It will enable them to scan an image and go directly to a Web site to complete the purchase for a DVD or Blu-ray disc shipped free to their home.
</i></blockquote>
So, yeah.  You go to a mall (physical) and download a special app (digital) which you then use to  scan a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120307/06130018010/qr-codes-ugly-overused-doomed.shtml">silly</a> QR code (digital) to be sent to a website (digital) to order a DVD (physical) to be shipped to your home (physical).  There are a bunch of ridiculous extra steps here and I can't figure out how any of this makes sense.  If you have people in a mall already and you're trying to get people to buy physical product, why not just let them scan and pick up the physical product?  If you're focusing on the digital components, why require a specialized app that no one's going to want to download, and then <b>not</b> offer a digital version of the film?
<br /><br />
Fox execs claim that they expect this new effort "to reach as many 60 million people over the next four months with the mall wallscapes."  I guess that depends on your interpretation of "reach."  If you mean 60 million people may walk by and ignore these murals, perhaps that's true.  Though that suggests Fox must be spending a ridiculous amount of money to get these murals pretty much everywhere.  If you mean that 60 million people will actually pay any attention at all to this convoluted system to buy an obsolete product fewer and fewer people actually want, well, then someone's done a miscalculation somewhere.
<br /><br />
Seriously: how hard is it for folks in Hollywood to ask this simple question: "Would I ever use this product that I'm developing?"  If the answer is "not in a million years" perhaps it's time to move on to building products that consumers actually want.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120314/01453118097/does-anyone-who-develops-new-products-hollywood-ask-would-i-ever-actually-use-this.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120314/01453118097/does-anyone-who-develops-new-products-hollywood-ask-would-i-ever-actually-use-this.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120314/01453118097/does-anyone-who-develops-new-products-hollywood-ask-would-i-ever-actually-use-this.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-do-what-to-do-what-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120314/01453118097</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:46:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>ABC Affiliates Blocked From Interviewing Johnny Depp Because He Is Promoting A Film Not Produced By Disney</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10300216502/abc-affiliates-blocked-interviewing-johnny-depp-because-he-is-promoting-film-not-produced-disney.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10300216502/abc-affiliates-blocked-interviewing-johnny-depp-because-he-is-promoting-film-not-produced-disney.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Disney recently released the fourth entry of the <i>Pirates of the Caribbean</i> on DVD. With this, the full force of Disney's marketing muscle is on the loose. This includes enforcement of a clause in Depp's contract that prevents any ABC affiliate from interviewing him if it relates to any non-Disney film. 
<br /><br /> 
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=otmshank">Otm Shank</a> writes in to let us know that the Austin based <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/disney-bans-abc-affiliates-from-talking-with-johnny-depp-about-the-rum-diary_b26398" target="_blank">KVUE, an ABC affiliate not owned by Disney, attended a premiere of Depp's new movie <i>The Rum Diary</i> but was not allowed to interview him</a>. As pointed out by TVSpy, KVUE reporter Shelton Green said: 
<blockquote> 
<i>We came here expecting to talk with one of the biggest names in Hollywood. But apparently Disney doesn't want Johnny Depp&rsquo;s new movie, premiering here at the Paramount, to get more exposure than his newest 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. So they didn't allow us to interview him, nor did they allow us to get video of him.</i> 
</blockquote> 
Is there really a point to this embargo? I don't think so. By enforcing this embargo on ABC affiliates, Disney is not helping to promote its films, but is rather forcing these local stations to lose value with their viewers. Which do you think most viewers and fans of Johnny Depp want to watch, a report about not being able to interview Johnny Depp or an interview with Johnny Depp? I guess Disney doesn't care about the fans of the actors they work so hard to 'protect'.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10300216502/abc-affiliates-blocked-interviewing-johnny-depp-because-he-is-promoting-film-not-produced-disney.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10300216502/abc-affiliates-blocked-interviewing-johnny-depp-because-he-is-promoting-film-not-produced-disney.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111025/10300216502/abc-affiliates-blocked-interviewing-johnny-depp-because-he-is-promoting-film-not-produced-disney.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>taking-the-ball-and-going-home</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111025/10300216502</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:54:37 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Drake Tells Universal Music To Stop Taking Down The Music He's Leaking</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been an interesting week for Universal Music.  The company was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/01370314750/universal-music-goes-to-war-against-popular-hip-hop-sites-blogs.shtml">outed</a> for their secret war on various hiphop blogs, including some of the sites of their own artists, such as 50 Cent, whose personal site was declared  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/16364214774/did-universal-music-declare-50-cents-own-website-is-pirate-site.shtml">a "pirate" site</a> on a list that Universal helped put together.  Now, super popular Universal artist Drake is <a href="http://www.examiner.com/entertainment-news-in-toronto/drake-lashes-out-at-universal-records" target="_blank">lashing out at Universal for issuing takedowns over his own music</a>.  Apparently, like many artists who value the promotion, he's been leaking his own tracks to the various hiphop sites and blogs that Universal has declared evil.  And Universal has been taking them down, leading Drake to <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/drakkardnoir/status/83985711300214784" target="_blank">tell them to stop</a>:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/XtAwx.png" width=450 />
</center>
Now, as I'm sure people will quickly point out, he signed a contract with Universal, and that means he almost certainly handed over the rights to the music in question.  To some extent, you can argue that if he was doing it for the people instead of for Universal Music, he shouldn't have signed a deal that gave all the rights to Universal Music.
<br /><br />
However, even granting that, this shows yet again how far out of touch Universal Music is, and how its claims that it's protecting "artists" are full of it.  The artists know how promotion works these days.  Universal Music, apparently, does not.
<br /><br />
And this raises a much bigger issue: as ICE continues to seize domains and the PROTECT IP Act continues to move forward, are these really "rogue sites"?  After all, if the artists themselves find them <i>valuable</i> as a means of promotion, and disagree with their own labels about whether or not these sites are useful, why is the government solely relying on the labels' definition of "rogue" sites?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>stop-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110624/10313514841</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:29:28 PST</pubDate>
<title>Rapper Sues ESPN, Amazon, And1 For Promoting His Song Like Crazy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110205/00414412977/rapper-sues-espn-amazon-and1-promoting-his-song-like-crazy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110205/00414412977/rapper-sues-espn-amazon-and1-promoting-his-song-like-crazy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/" target="_blank">Eric Goldman</a> was kind enough to send over this somewhat odd lawsuit by the rapper Michael "Dutch" Jackson, filed against And1, ESPN, Amazon and others.  The lawsuit is a little confusing and odd on many levels, but let's see if we can get through the basics.  Jackson apparently wrote a hiphop song called "I Am The Greatest," which he claims he had not published or released.  Somehow (and it does not appear to be explained how), shoe maker And1 got ahold of this unpublished unreleased song and (according to Jackson) put it on one of a series of mixtapes it was releasing as part of a marketing ploy to sell shoes.   Apparently, even though the mixtapes were widely released for download and copying, Amazon also sold the mixtapes.  ESPN's involvement is not at all clearly spelled out.  Basically, it says that ESPN "associated itself" with And1's mixtapes, but does not say how:
<blockquote><i>
As a result, the ESPN Defendants recognized that by associating their various products and services with the hip hop, rap and R7B musical genres and with And1 and the Marketing Plan, the ESPN Defendants would also receive increased good will and brand name recognition among the Urban Oriented Consumer demographic, would receive increased website traffic to their websites, and would enjoy increased marketing, sale and distribution of the various products and services sold by ESPN Defendants, including those involving the game of basketball, to such Consumers.
<br /><br />
The ESPN Defendants thus intentionally set out to associate themselves with the Mixtapes distributed by And1 and the ripple effect copies, described above, that it also knew would be produced, distributed and shared by others, and to profit therefrom.
</i></blockquote>
This seems like guilt by association, even though the details of that association are never actually made clear.
<br /><br />
As for Amazon, anyone can set up a store and sell stuff.  It doesn't automatically make Amazon guilty of infringement.  There's no indication that any sort of DMCA notice was sent to Amazon concerning these mixtapes either.
<br /><br />
More oddities: apparently Jackson wrote the song in November 2006, but did not release it.  And1 is accused of including the song in a mixtape in 2008.  Yet... Jackson didn't actually get around to getting a registered copyright on the song until May 10th of 2010.  That, of course, would limit whatever damages he might be able to get (perhaps significantly).  If it's true that And1 took and used the song without permission, then it sounds like he may have a decent case against that company... but the others seem like a big stretch.
<br /><br />
Oh, and just to make the whole thing even more confusing.  I just checked out YouTube, and it appears Dutch Jackson has his own YouTube channel... and on that YouTube channel, posted back on September 30th, 2009 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyl0_rvOnPo" target="_blank">is a video of the song -- complete with a ton of clips of Lebron James</a>.  You would have to imagine that Jackson does not have permission to make use of those clips.  In fact, it didn't take long to notice that at least some of the clips in the video <i>are from ESPN</i>.  So, it seems that Jackson was perfectly thrilled that he was getting all this attention and promotion <i>for free</i> in relation to the NBA.  And while he was aware of that, he didn't go rush out to get that song registered at the copyright office.  Also, if you're going to sue ESPN for infringement, you probably shouldn't put up a video that includes clips from ESPN.
<br /><br />
If you step back and look at it, it appears that Jackson and this song got an amazing amount of free promotion from the use of his song in the mixtape.  Even if it was "unauthorized," it seems like a massive amount of attention that Jackson could capitalize on to get more attention for himself -- something he appeared to realize himself with that video.  In the lawsuit itself, Jackson's lawyers admit that the mixtape went viral.  So why not just build off of that, rather than suing a bunch of companies who probably had no idea about the song?
<br /><br />
Anyway, I've embedded the video below.  I'm guessing it may disappear soon after I do, so I've also got a screenshot of the YouTube page below that, with the video stopped at a point showing an ESPN clip:
<center>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dyl0_rvOnPo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br /><br />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/cQKtf.png" width=560 />
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110205/00414412977/rapper-sues-espn-amazon-and1-promoting-his-song-like-crazy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110205/00414412977/rapper-sues-espn-amazon-and1-promoting-his-song-like-crazy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110205/00414412977/rapper-sues-espn-amazon-and1-promoting-his-song-like-crazy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-dare-you...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110205/00414412977</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:56:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>More &#038; Bigger Mistakes Discovered In Homeland Security's Domain Seizures</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been covering the ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/15302012021/who-needs-coica-when-homeland-security-gets-to-seize-domain-names.shtml">domain name seizures</a> by Homeland Security's Immigration &#038; Customs Enforcement (ICE) group over the last few weeks, and it seems that nearly every day we come across more info that makes the seizures look like a bigger and bigger mistake.  We already noted how strange it was that a group of the seized domains were hiphop blogs and forums that were <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/00245312049/if-newly-seized-domains-were-purely-dedicated-to-infringement-why-was-kanye-west-using-one.shtml">regularly supported</a> by some of the leading stars in hiphop.  Furthermore, we discussed how the specific affidavit that was used to show "probable cause" to get the warrant to seize these domains was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101221/00420012354/full-homeland-security-affidavit-to-seize-domains-riddled-with-technical-legal-errors.shtml">full of technical and legal errors</a>, was written by a guy who just graduated college, Agent Andrew Reynolds, and seemed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml">rely heavily</a> on MPAA and RIAA claims.
<br /><br />
With one specific site, dajaz1.com, we noted that the songs used by Agent Reynolds to support his claims, had actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03324012341/homeland-securitys-evidence-domain-seizures-also-included-songs-sent-labels.shtml">been sent</a> by the artists or record label representatives themselves.  Dajaz1 is a blog, not a forum.  Agent Reynolds called it a "linking site" which downplays and/or ignores the fact that there is a lot more on the site than just links.
<br /><br />
I've now seen the specific email and other evidence as well, and it certainly looks like dajaz1 was asked to promote all four songs that Agent Reynolds listed by the artists or representatives of the artists.  There were four songs listed in Agent Reynolds' affidavit, and in each case it appears that the songs were sent by official representatives for the specific purpose of promoting them.
<ol>
<li><i>Deuces</i>, by Chris Brown
<br /><br />
This song <i>was released for free by Chris Brown</i>, as a part of a mixtape entitled Fan of a Fan -- apparently released as part of the effort to rehabilitate Brown's reputation, following the <a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29106475/ns/today-entertainment/" target="_blank">incident with Rihanna</a>.  It was only after the song was released free, and a bunch of (you guessed it) hiphop blogs and forums started promoting it, that his label, a subsidiary of Sony Music decided to release it commercially.  That song was sent directly to dajaz1 from someone at Brown's record label, using an email from the record label, and it's clear from the email that the sender is urging the recipient to spread the songs.
<br /><br />
</li><li><i>Long Gone</i>, by Nelly
<br /><br />
This song was sent directly by a VP at the record label, who was <i>thanked</i> in the blog post on the website, which linked to where the song could be downloaded.  A simple search by Agent Reynolds of the person thanked on the blog posting (which I did) would quickly uncover the fact that the person was a VP at the record label.
<br /><br />
</li><li><i>Fall For Your Type</i>, by Jamie Foxx
<br /><br />
This song was sent directly by a known promoter of music, who has worked with the major record labels.  The email clearly suggests that it is promoting the song for the rightsholder, and directly encourages the recipients of the email to download and share the song.
<br /><br />
</li><li><i>Mechanics</i>, by Reek Da Villian
<br /><br />
This one's interesting, since Reek Da Villian is not signed to a major record label, but is an artist whom Busta Rhymes has taken under his wing, and has been supporting and promoting for a while now.  That song was apparently sent directly by Busta Rhymes -- though I did not see that email.  However, considering that his work is not represented through an RIAA affiliated label, it seems odd that Reynolds would rely on an RIAA representative to later claim that this file was infringing.  There's even a sort of odd admission of this in Agent Reynold's affidavit, where he notes:
<blockquote><i>
"Based on my review of public record listings, as well as conversations with RIAA representatives, I know that as of October 26th, 2010, <b>all</b> of the above referenced songs were determined to be "Pre-release" or not yet released for purchase to the general public, <b>three</b> were copyrighted, and the copyright holders did not authorize their third party distribution over the Internet by DAJAZ1.COM or any other website."
</i></blockquote>
Note that he says <b>all</b> were pre-release, but only <b>three</b> were copyrighted.  Of course, this is another example of where Agent Reynolds shows his confusion about the law.  All new and original creative works in the US when set in fixed format are automatically covered by copyright (technically "copyrighted" is not a verb, also).  What Agent Reynolds probably meant, but got wrong, was that the Reek Da Villian song was not <i>registered</i> (which is not required to be covered by copyright).  Still, if we assume that he believes what he wrote, how is it copyright infringement when Agent Reynolds himself admits that one of the songs is supposedly <i>not covered by copyright</i>?  And why would the magistrate judge allow that?
</li></ol>
So that's that.  The four songs used by Agent Reynolds to support the domain name seizure of dajaz1.com, all appear to have been sent for the purpose of promoting in this manner.  The Dajaz1 site was quite popular with DJs, and was regularly used by labels, artists and promoters as a way to get their music out to those DJs.  It does not appear that Reynolds checked into any of this.  Instead, he simply asked Carlos Linares, the VP of Anti-Piracy Legal Affairs for the RIAA, who claimed that all four songs represented "pirated songs" that were "unauthorized copies of rights holder's works," even though there are questions about whether or not he actually knew that for a fact, or even had the right to speak for some of the artists/songs in question.
<br /><br />
On top of that, if you dig into the dajaz1 website, you quickly see that it is not at all focused on just offering up as much as possible to download.  In multiple cases, the blogger notes that he will not post links to too many tracks from an album, suggesting that the site is not at all focused on getting as much infringing material up as possible, as implied in the affidavit.  If that was the goal, why would it specifically refuse to post links to more than just a few songs?
<br /><br />
Separately, the person I spoke with from dajaz1 claims that, contrary to Agent Reynolds' assertion that the site had signed up for a Valueclick advertising account, no such account was actually set up.  He claims he's willing to state that under oath.  Agent Reynolds' claims that the account was set up using an email address that was associated with the site.  I'm not sure who's right in this instance, but the whole thing does seem questionable.
<br /><br />
The further you dig into this, the deeper you get into just how <i>ridiculous</i> the music industry works these days -- with various subsidiaries and independent promoters and DJs and mixtapes, and all sorts of stuff that the labels very specifically support with one hand, while pretending to be above all that with the other.  There are more details that I'm still researching, but some of it suggests that the <i>last thing</i> the major record labels want is for this to go to court, because it'll expose all sorts of things that the labels are doing that they probably don't want exposed.
<br /><br />
Either way, even if we go with Occam's Razor and assume that these four cases are examples of the left hand (lawyers) not knowing what the right hand (promotions/marketing) was doing, it highlights why it's a total mistake (and probably a violation of the law) for Homeland Security to have simply seized these domains without an adversarial hearing -- or <i>any</i> contact with the sites in question themselves.  Some of our commenters have insisted that all of these sites were "obviously criminally infringing," but the evidence suggests an extremely different story.  And it's that sort of thing which is why we're supposed to have due process in the US before we shut stuff down or seize things.
<br /><br />
Contrary to what some believe, copyright infringement is rarely a "black and white" case -- which is why we have trials to determine whether or not something is actually infringing.  This is even more true in cases of <i>criminal</i> copyright infringement, which has a much higher bar to prove.  So it's beyond baffling that Homeland Security and the magistrate judge who approved these seizures felt that it was simply okay to seize them prior to any adversarial hearing, where much of these details might have come out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>another-day,-another-set-of-mistakes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101222/02112912376</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:36:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03324012341/homeland-securitys-evidence-domain-seizures-also-included-songs-sent-labels.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03324012341/homeland-securitys-evidence-domain-seizures-also-included-songs-sent-labels.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already covered some of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/01190512310/homeland-security-presents-evidence-domain-seizures-proves-it-knows-little-about-internet---law.shtml">the serious problems</a> with the "affidavit" filed by Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit, highlighting confusion about both how the internet works and the law itself.  The affidavit was written by a recent college grad who appears to have little experience in the subject matter.  What we had seen so far was only a partial version of the affidavit, covering the reasons for seizing Torrent Finder's domain.  It was full of both technical and legal inaccuracies, which are troubling.   The NY Times apparently got its hands on the entire affidavit (though, oddly, doesn't appear to offer it for download, as far as I can tell), and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/media/20music.html?_r=1&#038;src=twt&#038;twt=nytimestech" target="_blank">showed part of it to the operator of dajaz1.com</a>, one of the sites that was taken down.  The operator of the site notes that many of the examples used in the affidavit of infringing content were <i>sent by the record labels themselves</i>, and he showed the NY Times reporter the emails from labels sending the songs that were named in the affidavit.  Hopefully the guy who operates the site has lined up competent legal help, because the more evidence that comes out in this case, the worse and worse Homeland Security/ICE is looking.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03324012341/homeland-securitys-evidence-domain-seizures-also-included-songs-sent-labels.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03324012341/homeland-securitys-evidence-domain-seizures-also-included-songs-sent-labels.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/03324012341/homeland-securitys-evidence-domain-seizures-also-included-songs-sent-labels.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-gets-worse-and-worse</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101220/03324012341</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:21:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Vodo Sets Up Currency To Encourage More Promotion</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101003/23372411262/vodo-sets-up-currency-to-encourage-more-promotion.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101003/23372411262/vodo-sets-up-currency-to-encourage-more-promotion.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the debate over business models that embrace file sharing networks, one of the more interesting projects to watch has been Vodo, which is a platform for filmmakers who wish to release their works via file sharing setups, and to enjoy a promotional boost for doing so.  Movies released via Vodo have done quite well, both in getting attention <i>and</i> in getting monetary support.  The company has now updated its system and has added an interesting element: <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-backed-film-platform-to-reward-influencers-101003/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">an internal currency, called "Do," to encourage people to promote</a> the works.
<br /><br />
That is, if you point people to a download -- you can earn some "Do" every time someone visits an artist's website or downloads the work or even agrees to give money to a content creator.  This could be interesting to watch, though I do wonder how well it will work.  On the positive side, as we were just discussing in our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100927/22032911187/our-own-dark-helmet-shares-lessons-from-crowdfunding-experiment.shtml">Dark Helmet case study</a>, one of the most important things in getting modern business models to work is to get your biggest fans to help promote you.  However, at the same time, we've also warned about the risks of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/17410510116.shtml">artificial incentives</a> to promote some content, you run the risk of people <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100831/02183710830.shtml">questioning the motives</a> for the promotion.  If Vodo can balance this, it could be quite nice, but that balance is very much an open question.  I agree that it's important to make people comfortable promoting you, but I worry that creating such incentives leaves it very much open to gaming, rather than legitimate advocacy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101003/23372411262/vodo-sets-up-currency-to-encourage-more-promotion.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101003/23372411262/vodo-sets-up-currency-to-encourage-more-promotion.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101003/23372411262/vodo-sets-up-currency-to-encourage-more-promotion.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>alternative-economies</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101003/23372411262</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>BitTorrent Begins Directly Promoting Content Creators Willing To Embrace New Forms Of Distribution</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/15311610640.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/15311610640.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've covered the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/01333410038.shtml"><i>Pioneer One</i></a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100723/17032510346.shtml"><i>Yes Men</i></a> video releases via BitTorrent, in combination with Vodo, and now BitTorrent Inc. is trying to ramp up similar efforts as well. This week it's helping to promote <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-backs-artist-bundles-album-with-new-downloads-100816/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A Torrentfreak %28Torrentfreak%29" target="_blank">a new album released via BitTorrent from the artist PAZ</a>, as it kicks off an effort to help those who embrace BitTorrent for distribution.
<br /><br />
One of the obvious benefits of using BitTorrent or other forms of free music distribution is that it makes it easier for people to hear your music.  But, of course, you still need to convince them to make that first step and download -- and so these recent efforts to use a BitTorrent release specifically to promote a bit of content is interesting.  I imagine that the skeptical response is that "this only works when just a few artists are doing it."  That may be true in the present form, but I would bet that if more and more content creators embrace these forms of distribution, in combination with smarter business models, there will be many ways to deal with it, including greater personalization/filters for those who are actively promoting their works via platforms like BitTorrent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/15311610640.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/15311610640.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100816/15311610640.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-step-forward</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100816/15311610640</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:19:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ashton Kutcher, Lionsgate Play Up 'Pirating' Own Film As Part Of Promotion Stunt</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/1152569649.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/1152569649.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Hollywood Reporter is <a href="http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/06/why-is-ashton-kutcher-pirating-his-own-movie.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">scolding actor Ashton Kutcher and Hollywood studio Lionsgate</a> for a weak promotion for their new movie, <i>Killers</i>.  Apparently, Kutcher has been going around telling everyone that he likes the movie so much he's going to "pirate" the film and put it online.  First he <a href="http://twitter.com/aplusk/status/14782767584" target="_blank">tweeted the following</a>:
<blockquote><i>
I'd like 2 invite U to the premiere of Killers. June 1 I'm going live 2 the web &#038; Pirating the 1st 10 min of Killers from the premiere
</i></blockquote>
From there, he apparently went on The Ellen DeGeneres show and <a href="http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1559078.php/Ashton-Kutcher-plans-to-pirate-first-13-minutes-of-new-movie-Killers" target="_blank">said something similar</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"I love it. I like the movie so much I'm going to show it online, on the web, I'm going to pirate the first 13 minutes of the movie."
</i></blockquote>
Since then he's made a number of similar statements in his Twitter feed, suggesting that he's going to broadcast those 13 minutes straight from the theater at the premier.  Of course, as THR points out, this is all a publicity stunt by Lionsgate, previewing the first 13 minutes of a film -- something that a bunch of films have done in the past, especially when a studio doesn't think the film will get very good reviews.  THR's chiding is silly, complaining about how calling this "piracy" is some sort of insult to people in the movie industry:
<blockquote><i>
Probably not so awesome for anyone who works in the worldwide antipiracy community. Or the people who have been laid off recently from the studio home video divisions because sales have plummeted in part due to rampant online theft.
</i></blockquote>
As if the film wouldn't find its way online otherwise? As if the problem has something to do with this more efficient distribution system, rather than an inability of the industry to adapt.
<br /><br />
However, what I found really telling about the whole thing isn't the "poor choice of words," but how the industry appears to have this total double standard on the issue.  One day it will claim that camcording a movie is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070502/173805.shtml">absolutely destroying the industry</a>, and that tough new laws are needed to put people in jail... and the next day it will play up the fact that its going to bogusly pretend to "camcord" one of its own movies and release it (or, the first few minutes of it) online.  Like Viacom insisting that YouTube is destroying its business, while <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1226148617.shtml">surreptitiously</a> trying to upload its own videos in a way that looked "pirated," the industry says one thing and does another all the time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/1152569649.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/1152569649.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/1152569649.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>double-standards</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100601/1152569649</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 06:55:23 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Justice Department Asking Questions About Apple Trying To Block Labels From Offering Deals To Amazon</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1856379573.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1856379573.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in March, we wrote about reports that Apple had gone around and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1051248391.shtml">pressured various record labels</a> to stop working with Amazon on its "MP3 Daily Deal" promotion.  The reports suggested that Apple had told the labels that it would not promote any releases that were featured as Amazon's Daily Deal.  As we noted at the time, this sounded like a classic "restraint of trade" situation that the government tends to frown upon, especially when performed by what might be considered the dominant player in the market.  I'm not sure I believe it <i>should</i> be an antitrust issue, but it certainly is the kind of thing that the government gets upset about.
<br /><br />
So it should come as little surprise at all to find out, indeed, that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20005973-261.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">the Justice Department is now looking into this</a>.  Of course, it's early, and nothing may come of it, but you would still think that Apple would be a bit more careful than blatantly telling partners not to work with a competitor.  Or does Steve Jobs hope that his powers of persuasion will wow over the Feds as well?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1856379573.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1856379573.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1856379573.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>restraint-of-trade...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100525/1856379573</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:46:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Apple May Anger The Antitrust Gods: Pressuring Labels To Stop Participating In Amazon Daily MP3 Deals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1051248391.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1051248391.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Yet more indications that Apple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1303598369.shtml">no longer thinks</a> it can really compete in the marketplace.  After finally going on the offensive and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml">suing HTC</a> over its Google Android phone implementation, apparently Apple is pressuring music labels over how they deal with competitor Amazon when it comes to music downloads.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=paperbag">Paperbag</a> alerts us to the news that Apple is supposedly <a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/magazine/upfront/e3i5207f9d259b81f62d46a894f7a55e1bd" target="_blank">demanding labels <b>not</b> participate in Amazon's successful MP3 Daily Deal</a> promotion.
<blockquote><i>
Sources say that iTunes representatives have been urging labels to rethink their participation in the Amazon promotion and that they have backed up those warnings by withdrawing marketing support for certain releases featured as Daily Deals.
<br><br>
In response, label executives at Capitol, Capitol Nashville and Jive recently opted against participating in Daily Deal promotions they had been considering for Corinne Bailey Rae's "The Sea," Lady Antebellum's "Need You Now" and Ke$ha's "Animal," sources say.
</i></blockquote>
Apple's concern, apparently, is over Amazon scoring temporary exclusives for early sales.  Given Apple's dominance of the digital sales market, you could certainly see the FTC reading this as being an antitrust violation.  It will be interesting to see if this effort comes back to haunt Apple.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1051248391.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1051248391.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1051248391.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ftc-calling-on-line-3</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100303/1051248391</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:41:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>More Indie Movie Makers Realizing The Benefits Of Releasing Movies Free Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1228027568.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1228027568.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There really isn't that much new in this recent article in Time Magazine about <a href="http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1950005,00.html?xid=newsletter-europe-weekly" target="_blank">indie film makers releasing their movies for free online</a>.  The article covers some of the more well-known cases of filmmakers doing so.  But what's interesting is to see this in such a mainstream publication like <i>Time</i>.  Now, since we've already discussed most of the examples used in the article, I know what the critics will say immediately: that none of these count because they weren't huge multi-million dollar successes like <i>Avatar</i>.  But, of course, that's the wrong comparison.  These are indie filmmakers, and the comparison should be to where they would likely be right now if they had <i>not</i> released the film for free online.  In most cases, it seems quite clear that they would have a lot less attention, a lot fewer people having seen the movie, and -- for those who implemented smart business models to go with the free release -- would have made a lot less money.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1228027568.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1228027568.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1228027568.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091231/1228027568</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:50:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Musician Christopher Bryant 'Opens For Himself' To Connect With Fans... And To Find New Ones</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091228/1748127524.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091228/1748127524.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We're always interested in cool promotional and marketing ideas from content creators, and Hypebot alerts us to the news that musician Christopher Bryant is planning a neat concept for his solo shows: throughout 2010, he'll <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/12/christopher-bryant-works-to-gain-new-fans-by-opening-for-himself.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A typepad%2FDqMf %28hypebot%29" target="_blank">"open for himself" when playing live</a>.  Basically, he's playing two sets, but the <i>first set</i> will all be music by another artist.  The first such artist is Ben Harper, who is apparently a huge inspiration to Bryant:
<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jf5HpldnWBk&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en_US&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jf5HpldnWBk&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;hl=en_US&#038;feature=player_embedded&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
Now, of course, this might not sound like anything special.  It's just a musician playing a bunch of cover music before playing his own music.  But the positioning is quite smart.  It's positioned in a different way that draws attention and helps better connect with fans.  Not only that, but it helps this up-and-coming musician get some additional attention from fans of a much bigger artist.  It's a very smart move.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091228/1748127524.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091228/1748127524.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091228/1748127524.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cool-ideas</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091228/1748127524</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:05:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Does It Make Sense That A Non-Official Advertiser Can't Give Away Sporting Events Tickets?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091224/0133417500.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091224/0133417500.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in October, we wrote about how the Philadelphia Eagles were trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0131106417.shtml">stop radio stations</a> from doing promotional giveaways of tickets they had legally purchased.  The team basically claims that the terms (which no one reads nor technically "agrees" to) on the back of the ticket forbid such uses of the tickets.  Instead, clearly, the Eagles wanted to <i>sell</i> the rights to do promotional giveaways.  Now there's a similar lawsuit involving Major League Soccer and FIFA.  JJ points us to a lawsuit in which the organization that handles marketing for both soccer organizations is <a href="http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2009/12/post_33.html" target="_blank">quite upset at Black &#038; Decker for doing ticket giveaway promotions</a>.  The reason why they're so upset?  B&#038;D competitor Makita is "the official power tool" of both soccer leagues in the US.  In this case, they're arguing trademark infringement and breach of contract, though both seem questionable.  If it's an accurate promotion, such that B&#038;D is literally giving away legally purchased tickets and merchandise, then as long as it doesn't suggest endorsement from the soccer leagues, there shouldn't be much confusion.  As for the breach of contract, if B&#038;D never agreed to the contract, it's hard to see how they can be held to it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091224/0133417500.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091224/0133417500.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091224/0133417500.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hard-to-see-why</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091224/0133417500</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:40:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Songs Used In Promotions Get A Ton Of Sales... So Why Does The Music Industry Try To Make It Harder?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1204406678.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1204406678.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=ethorad">Ethorad</a> was the first of a few to write in pointing to an article over at the BBC, highlighting how old songs are <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8200283.stm" target="_blank">finding new life and <b>new sales</b></a> after showing up in a commercial -- or being used on TV during a popular event.  In other words, getting your music more widely heard leads to more ways to make money.  That, of course, should be obvious.  And yet, why is it that so many in the industry are trying to make it so much harder to get music heard by putting up tollbooths at every stop?  You have the RIAA/Soundexchange working overtime to put an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1907526556.shtml">additional tax on radio play</a> and you have ASCAP/BMI trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090917/0505016226.shtml">get fees for everything</a>, from the 30 second previews online to ringtones.  Of course, the more you put a toll on such things, the less the songs are used, the less they're promoted and the less opportunity there is to increase sales.  It's really amazing sometimes that these big organizations don't seem to comprehend the basic idea of a "promotion" and how that helps sales.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1204406678.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1204406678.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1204406678.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>short-term-thinking</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/1204406678</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:02:18 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Best Practices In Online Promotion Of New Music Offerings</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/0207016147.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/0207016147.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.basbasbas.com/blog/" target="_blank">Bas Grasmayer</a> alerts us to a paper he's written as part of the research for his thesis on the future of music distribution.  This isn't the full thesis, but is a quick <a href="http://www.basbasbas.com/online_promotion_of_new_musical_content-Bas_Grasmayer.pdf" target="_new">analysis of 5 different musical acts</a> (pdf) and the new music launches they did.  All five are ones that we've talked about here: <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070930/214524.shtml">Radiohead's name your own price</a> deal for <i>In Rainbows</i>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/171933538.shtml">Trent Reznor's tiered reasons to buy</a> for <i>Ghosts I-IV</i>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/0149433617.shtml">Groove Armada's spam your friends</a> EP sponsored by Baccardi, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1154504899.shtml">Danger Mouse's blank CD-R</a> and book given out after EMI wouldn't release his latest project and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090619/1705245296.shtml">Mos Def's t-shirt album</a>.  The paper gives a pretty good summary of all of them, and concludes with some key points:
<blockquote><i>
<b>What does NOT work (well)</b>
<ul>
<li><b>Not going all the way.</b> Fans love free music and so do people that are not
familiar with an artist's work, but if you're going to give something away then
really give it away. If you don't, you won't get the attention you were hoping for
and might even disappoint some fans instead of connecting with them.</li></ul></i>
<li><b>Creating unnecessary mediums instead of utilizing existing ones.</b> While
the Bacardi B-Live Share application looked cool (now offline), it was completely
unnecessary. Instead of creating a digital dashboard with meaningless graphics,
it could have been executed in a much simpler fashion by utilizing existing social
networks or filesharing websites. IF you're going to set up such a thing, then at
least make it interactive, social (in terms of enabling users to interact with each
other) and add value (with videos or a game for instance). You could even use it
to sell other products of the band or artist.</li>
<li><b>Expecting people to pay for what they can get for free.</b> People might pay,
but most will pick whatever way is most convenient. Usually, this is by remaining
seated at your computer and by avoiding complicated online payment procedures.
Sure, people should use legal ways to buy music, but the reality is that people go
for convenience.</li>

<b>What does work (well)</b>
<ul>
<li><b>Giving fans a reason to buy.</b> Instead of expecting people to pay for something
which they can, perhaps more easily, get for free, create added value. This is
what Nine Inch Nails, Mos Def and Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse all did very
well. Instead of expecting people to pay for the music, they all created something
besides the music which people would be more willing to pay for.</li>
<li><b>Freemium</b>. By offering something for free, one connects with fans and they will
spread the word about you (as long as what you're offering has value). Once
attention has been garnered, and perhaps sympathy has been won, you can
offer a premium product. This is how Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have been
successful with aforementioned albums. First you give something for free, then
you market your premium; freemium.</li>
<li><b>Understanding that the package IS the product.</b> This goes for all of the
cases, except for Groove Armada. In the case of Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse
as well as Mos Def, the package was actually the reason to buy the product. In the
case of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, they marketed the package as premiums,
perhaps understanding that it's hard to make money if you have to compete with
free, meaning music downloads.</li>
<li><b>Buzz.</b> By generating buzz, you can turn people just turned on to your product
into fans. These fans can then later be marketed to when trying to sell premium
packages (or subscriptions for example). Even if they don't buy, having them
talking about your brand or product increases the buzz. This works best if they
can give others free samples (free music) to see for themselves how great the
brand or product is.</li>
<li><b>Co-branding.</b> By co-branding, the two brands can both benefit of each others'
resources and skills. In the case of Groove Armada and Bacardi, the latter benefits
mostly from Groove Armada's image and the ability to promote themselves on all
Groove Armada-related products, this includes live performances. Groove Armada
on the other hand, benefits from the resources Bacardi has, for instance to set
up the website and network for the distribution of the music, as well as their
marketing capacities. Both are connected to different audiences and by working
together, they can promote each other to their respective audiences, perhaps new
ones.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
I think this is a fantastic list -- and the results of other experiments we've seen seem to support many of the points on this list as well.  The rest of the paper is also worth reading, and I look forward to the final thesis.  Of course, two small quibbles: the paper cites me a couple times, including claiming that I coined the term "competing with free."  I can't take credit for that, though I have no idea who coined it.  I was under the impression the phrase was in widespread and common usage prior to me ever mentioning it.  Second, it claims that to get <i>In Rainbows</i> that the "minimum donation" was a penny.  Perhaps that's technically true, but the real minimum donation was nothing at all -- and you could still download the album.  Bas seems to recognize this, because later in the paper it mentions that many people got the album for free.  Overall though, for folks who are paying attention to this stuff, this is a nice summary.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/0207016147.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/0207016147.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/0207016147.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>worth-a-read</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090910/0207016147</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:13:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Music Reviewer's Blog Suspended For Promoting Music</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1427276008.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1427276008.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's really funny to watch the old record labels try to understand the whole music blogging culture.  The folks in the promotions department send music bloggers mp3s and encourage them to post them, knowing that it'll get the musician attention.  That's a good thing.  But the folks on the legal side go the other way... often sending takedowns to the very same bloggers.  <a href="http://twitter.com/rafikam/status/3564059739">Rafi Kam</a> points us to a ridiculous situation involving Warner Music Group, who hired a firm called Gray Zone to help "deal with" unauthorized tracks being shared online.  Apparently Gray Zone tracked down a song by Gucci Mane that was on well-known music reviewer Andrew Noz's website <a href="http://www.cocaineblunts.com/blunts/?p=3798" target="_new">and sent an angry cease-and-desist to both Noz and his hosting company using all capital letters</a>, including the phrase: "IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL LINKS, REFERENCES, DOWNLOADS, VIDEOS, STREAMING AUDIO, AND MP3 FILES ASSOCIATED WITH GUCCI MANE."
<br><br>
Noz didn't see the email, which his filter assumed as spam, but his hosting company did and suspended his entire site.  Nice of them.  When Noz contacted them, they told him that, based on the above sentence, he needed to go through his blog and remove every reference to Gucci Mane (after all, that's what letter said).  Apparently, Noz had written about Gucci Mane quite a bit, so that was a lot of work.  Of course, the letter is wrong.  While there may be a copyright issue with downloads, it's difficult to see where there would be any copyright claim at all  when it came to links, embedded videos (hosted elsewhere) or references.  That's actually copyfraud by Gray Zone, on behalf of Warner Music Group, by claiming copyright on things that it does not have rights over.
<br><br>
Either way Noz scrambled and spent hours deleting <i>everything</i> on his site about this particular artist.  <i>After</i> all of that, he spoke with a VP at Gray Zone who said that Gray Zone and Warner were really only demanding that he take down a single track.  But, of course, that's not what the takedown notice said.  Noz points his anger at Warner Music, asking why folks from Warner Music email him tracks all the time... but then get his entire site taken down for those very same songs?  This isn't just the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, it's the right hand shaking someone's hand, and the left hand smacking that guy in the face for shaking the right hand.  And people wonder why the big labels are so hated?
<br><br>
I actually spoke with both Warner Music Group and Noz to try to find out more about this.  Noz says that he's not sure if the one particular song was actually sent by someone from WMG, but that he gets hundreds of songs a week, many of which come from WMG, and he helps promote many of those tracks, so he finds it pretty ridiculous that rather than just contact him and politely ask him to take down the song, they had his entire site taken down.  WMG noted that it, as a corporate entity, wasn't directly involved with this, but that it was handled by a subsidiary, Asylum Records.  Asylum then sent over a statement:
<blockquote><i>
Apparently, unauthorized copies of the unfinished and unreleased track "I Got All Of That" by Gucci Mane have been stolen and sent out to certain websites by parties unknown to us.  In cooperation with the artist and his manager, we instructed our third-party vendor to notify websites to take down the unauthorized track from their sites immediately.  We appreciate the cooperation of sites that recognize that this unfinished song does not represent the artist's complete vision and may have been obtained illegally.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, that doesn't really address the issue.  The complaint from Gray Zone didn't just target that one song, but <i>all</i> content related to this artist, and because of that, it forced the guy's blog offline -- all the while he's receiving plenty of songs directly from the record label.  You can understand where there might be some confusion there.  At the very least, someone should have just contacted the guy directly with a friendly request, rather than sending the immediate ALL CAPITALS cease-and-desist threat.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1427276008.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1427276008.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1427276008.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>left-hand,-meet-right-hand...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090826/1427276008</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:28:16 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ideas For CwF+RtB Promotions</title>
<dc:creator>Insight Community</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.insightcommunity.com/case.php?iid=1326</link>
<guid>http://www.insightcommunity.com/case.php?iid=1326</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>As you know, we've been running our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php">CwF+RtB</a> experiment for a few weeks now.  We're looking to do new promotions and special "this week only" types of offerings, on a regular basis.  Two weeks ago, the special offer was a free Techdirt hoodie or free lunch with Mike Masnick, with the purchase of both the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=500">Book Club</a> and the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=550">Music Club</a> packages.  This past week, we tried separating out just Amanda Palmer's signed book and CD for those who didn't want the entire Music Club.  We've got plenty of ideas for other promotions, but we thought, why not get some ideas from you?  And we'll do it as an Insight Community case, as well, to demonstrate again how the <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/">Insight Community</a> works.  So, the way this will work is that you get to suggest ideas for promotions within CwF+RtB (or potentially new tiers that go beyond the 1 week promotion), and if we use your idea (this only applies to the first person to suggest that particular idea), you'll get a free <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=400">Approaching Infinity package</a>, with the book signed by Mike (that doesn't come with the regular package).  So, you'd get Mike's signed book plus a free t-shirt.  We look forward to your ideas!</p><p><em><img align="left" src="http://www.techdirt.com/images/ic-bauble.png" alt="ic" /> This is a case from the Insight Community, a powerful new marketplace that connects companies with intelligent communities like Techdirt.  <a href="http://www.insightcommunity.com/">Click here</a> to learn more.</em></p>
<ul>
<li>Insights Due: <b>17 Aug 2009, 11:59PMPT</li></p>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.insightcommunity.com/case.php?iid=1326">View Case Details at InsightCommunity.com</a></p>
 ]]></description>
<slash:department></slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090810/121900</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 May 2009 11:51:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>20th Century Fox Sends Takedowns Over Its Own YouTube Mashup Contest</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1114284771.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1114284771.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We're seeing this all too often these days, but 20th Century Fox is the latest company to force videos offline over copyright infringement claims on something they officially endorsed.  In this case, it involved a <a href="http://newteevee.com/2009/05/05/20th-century-fox-sics-takedown-notices-on-its-own-mashup-promotion/" target="_new">mashup contest promotion</a>, where Burger King and 20th Century Fox created a promotion asking people to create their own mashups of Seth MacFarlane's online animated series <i>Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy</i>.  So that's just what people did... and now at least one has had his account suspended due to copyright infringement claims from... 20th Century Fox.  In this case, it was also a guy who had a vast history of using YouTube and all his videos are gone, with YouTube telling him he has no option to have his account reinstated.  That'll really get people excited about participating in future contests.
<b>Update</b>: Good news!  Apparently all of the attention this has gotten has helped the user get his account reinstated.  However, it's still quite problematic that it was taken down in the first place... and that it required publicity to get reinstated.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1114284771.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1114284771.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1114284771.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-one,-guys...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090506/1114284771</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:24:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Disney Giving Away Free iPhone Game To Promote Movie</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0411342672.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0411342672.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Terry Westley points us to yet another example of how companies are recognizing that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml">content is advertising</a>.  Disney has apparently <a href="http://www.appleiphoneapps.com/2008/10/disney-promoting-movies-using-apps/" target="_new">released a free iPhone game</a> that's fun on its own, but which also serves to help promote an upcoming movie release.  While some will dismiss this as just being a cheap way of advertising, you have to wonder what happens when movie makers start making these sorts of games really, really good.  Then what happens to game developers who think they can get away with charging for their mobile phone games?  Suddenly it becomes a lot harder to support that model if there are other businesses that are using a model where, the more games that are given away for free, the more it helps the rest of their business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0411342672.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0411342672.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0411342672.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-how-it's-done</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081028/0411342672</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:46:17 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Mattel Apparently Learned Nothing From Hasbro's Scrabulous Disaster</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2207462088.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2207462088.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you recall, Hasbro's decisions on how to deal with upstart Scrabulous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080730/1936041842.shtml">backfired badly</a>.  The company first threatened Scrabulous, then tried to do a deal with them.  When that failed it (finally!) built its own Facebook Scrabble and then sued Scrabulous.  Rather than working to Hasbro's advantage, this backfired in a huge way -- pissing off plenty of people who swore never to use Hasbro's version of the game.  And then it was just a matter of days until the Scrabulous guys came out with a new game that was close to Scrabble, but different enough to likely avoid all copyright and trademark claims.
<br /><br />
Now, Hasbro only owns the rights to Scrabble in the US and Canada.  Mattel owns the rights elsewhere.  Now, seeing that Mattel had the distinct advantage of seeing how much backlash there was against Hasbro for its actions, and how poorly Hasbro's own Facebook Scrabble was received, you might think that Mattel would try a different path.  Nope.  <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/scrabulouss-woes-spread-worldwide/" target="_new">Mattel has now forced Scrabulous offline</a> outside of the US as well.  To be fair, the guys from Scrabulous overplay their reaction as well.  It's not <i>that</i> shocking.  After all, this is how companies react these days.  Rather than going with the faux outrage, why not just release WordScraper and get people to sign up for that, rather than any "licensed" version of Scrabble?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2207462088.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2207462088.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2207462088.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>doing-the-same-thing-repeatedly...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080825/2207462088</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>