Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither

from the make-it-stop dept

At the always wonderful SF Music Tech conference yesterday, I went to what should have been a fascinating panel discussion about “artist revenue streams.” It had Kristin Thomson from the Future of Music Coalition, talking about their wonderful artist revenue streams project, as well as Steve Rennie, who manages the band Incubus, among others. And then there was the third panelist, East Bay Ray, of the band The Dead Kennedys. Despite that band once mocking the whole “home taping is killing music” argument, it appears that he’s now turned into one of those grumpy old musicians who demands that everyone else figure out a way to pay him.

So, rather than an interesting discussion about artist revenue streams, the panel basically turned into a big rant from East Bay Ray complaining about all these internet sites that don’t pay him. His misunderstandings were legion. He held up a screenshot of a file sharing site in Russia, showing Dead Kennedys songs on them, and noted that he doesn’t get paid for those. And, of course, those sites have ads. This is the thing that gets me. A group of music industry folks, led by Jon Taplin at USC, who don’t seem to have the slightest clue about how online advertising actually works, keep insisting that when they see an ad from a big company on a site that has infringing materials, it means that “the pirates are getting rich and the artists are getting screwed.”

What I find amusing is that professional musicians so often insist that others are simply not qualified to speak about the music business. And yet, they have absolutely no problem pretending they know how internet advertising works. Let’s make this simple: internet display ads pay next to nothing — especially on sites like the one that Ray was complaining about. Those kinds of sites can only get deals with complete bottom of the barrel remnant ad providers, whose payout numbers are so small that most people would laugh. Some — like Google’s AdSense — only payout if people click, and these days no one clicks on banner ads. They don’t even see them. These sites make next to nothing. I’d be amazed if they can clear $0.05 CPMs. That is, if they’re lucky, they get five cents for every 1,000 views. If they’re lucky.

Furthermore, folks like Ray are blaming the sites, which tend to be platforms or conduits for sharing, rather than the hosts or the actual people responsible for uploading the works. Either they don’t understand this or they don’t care, but they really seem to want to blame the middleman for the actions of end users.

Steve Rennie tried to talk Ray down a few times, with little luck. Rennie, rightly, pointed out that whining about the pennies some Russian site might get is a really fruitless activity, when there’s so much opportunity to make revenue elsewhere. Why not focus on the actual revenue opportunities, instead of whining about the two and a half cents some Russian site got?

And, of course, Ray’s anger isn’t just at Russian file sharing sites, but basically every legitimate site as well. Even if they pay, they don’t pay him enough. He, of course, singled out YouTube and further demonstrated his near total ignorance of the world by insisting that YouTube has “forced 12,000 musicians out of work.” You might wonder how that’s possible, and read the link for the full “math” and try to hold back the guffaws. The short version, as far as I can figure it out, is that he argues that YouTube only pays artists 35% of the revenue they get, but they should be paying 70% “like Apple.” And then:

So, if they had done the same percentage as say iTunes, 30/70 instead of 65/35, that’s a difference of about $600 million. Now if you take a middle class musician, say, $50,000 year, year in and year out, divide it into $600 million, that’s 12,000 people that Google has siphoned the money off.

And that’s 12,000 people that are now working in the salt mines of Walmart.

There are so many things wrong with this that I’m afraid to even try to list them all. First of all, YouTube revenue is incremental revenue on top of other revenue. This is revenue that did not exist at all prior to YouTube setting up ContentID and monetizing those views. This is not money that was somehow taken away from artists. Second, the revenue is not evenly distributed as his simple “division” implies. Bigger artists get more views, so even if his other nonsensical argument about how Google should fork over more of the money made sense, the “missing” money would still go disproportionately to bigger artists anyway.

And, of course, there are so many other factors at play here, including a whole bunch of musicians who only have careers because of YouTube. The fact that this “logic” is even considered seriously is so bizarre.

Rennie pushed back on some of Ray’s claims, and Ray just went on something of a rampage, comparing internet sites to companies that exploited child labor in the past. When Rennie suggested that YouTube and other internet services were providing new and incremental revenue streams that simply didn’t exist before, Ray referred to Rennie as “massa,” which is incredibly obnoxious. He later insisted that “pirate sites are on the payroll of multinational companies,” and then said that the internet companies were “pimps” and that “iTunes pays their ‘girls’ 70%, but Google only pays 30%.” The fact that these companies created brand new revenue streams for him never seems to even enter his consciousness.

Finally, when people pointed out that there are a growing number of artists who are successful primarily because of the internet and new business models and services, he mocked those success stories, arguing that they got lucky — saying that it’s “just like a casino.” Apparently, he’s unfamiliar with the old recording industry which was much more of a pure lottery, where most people never were even allowed in the door, and ended up making nothing at all.

Oh, and poor Kristin barely got to speak at all, despite actually being the one with lots of actual data to share, rather than angry, ill-informed, misguided rantings. Later in the day I got to speak to Dave Allen, who we’ve written about before, and who was a founding member of Gang of Four — a contemporary of the Dead Kennedys — and he made a key point. Whenever the conversation focuses on “but what do we do about piracy,” it becomes a complete waste of time. There are so many amazing new opportunities out there, with all sorts of fantastic ways to create, promote, connect, distribute, and monetize music. Whining about “losses” is just time spent not seizing opportunities.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
226 Comments
Milton Freewater says:

Re: Re:

“Don’t need to boycott Dead Kennedys because they suck anyway.”

How dare you. Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables is one of the decade’s greatest records.

If East Bay completely missed the irony in Kill the Poor, that only means the record is smarter than he is, which is probably why it’s made itself available for sharing.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

He needs to turn off his radio in 2013 because he doesn’t know who a punk band who haven’t released an album since 1986 are? That’s a strange assertion.

For the record, I’m only vaguely aware of them. I know the track Holiday In Cambodia and remember them being name checked in some of Stephen King’s work, but that’s about it. I never particularly cared for punk, so never bothered to check them out. Sorry if your favourite band means nothing to me. I’d check them out on YouTube to see if I like any of their other stuff, but for some reason I don’t fancy giving them the ad revenue right now…

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Pure asshole

I’m tired of self respect – (ok you lost it)
I can’t afford a car
I wanna be a prefab superstar

I wanna be a tool – (So tool you are)
Don’t need no soul – (You sold it long ago)
Wanna make big money – (But you suck.)
Playing rock and roll

I’ll make my music boring – (Achieved)
I’ll play my music slow
I ain’t no artist, I’m a business man – (A poor one)
No ideas of my own – (Just stolen from others)

I won’t offend
Or rock the boat
Just sex and drugs
And rock and roll

Drool, drool, drool, drool, drool, drool
My Payola!
Drool, drool, drool, drool, drool, drool
My Payola!

You’ll pay ten bucks to see me – (No! I wont)
On a fifteen foot high stage
Fatass bouncers kick the shit
Out of kids who try to dance

If my friends say
I’ve lost my guts
I’ll laugh and say
That’s rock and roll

This guy is a complete loser. He was back then, and he is even more so now.

Big tough Punk guy bending over for the “man” now.
Sellout

Jesse Townley (profile) says:

Re: Pure asshole

Actually, those lyrics were written by one of the DKs drummers (Bruce/Ted) and their original, iconic singer, Jello Biafra.

East Bay Ray is the original guitarist.

The band reformed without Jello Biafra in 1999 or 2000 and have been playing live with a series of replacement singers ever since. There was a nasty, extended legal fight between Jello and the other 3 key members of the DKs that involved my day job, Alternative Tentacles Records, which is owned & operated by Jello. (I don’t want to get into the details of that nightmare- there’s all kinds of info on-line and I’ve been having this conversation for the past decade, ha ha ha)

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

“pirate sites are on the payroll of multinational companies”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Just… wow.

If that doesn’t show how completely clueless this guys is, nothing would.

I’d like to have an oppurtunity to sell Ray a bridge along with some prime development swampland in Florida that it sits on for a low low price of a few million dollars – that he can make back by helping my brother-in-law, a Nigerian prince, move some money out of the country.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“And that’s 12,000 people that are now working in the salt mines of Walmart.”

So that is 12,000 people that sucked and were unable to be successful with their talent and instead expected the world to pay them forever because they recorded a song once.

So the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers, I think the second thing might be to kill all the artists.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Pretty sure if we off some of the really bad lawyers the rest might decide to be human again.

As with the “Artists”, I think we can see how the devolve. Once they stop making things, demanding to still be important, yelling at clouds, yelling at kids on the lawn we should put them on an ice flow and set them adrift.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

more like these 50 corporations…

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/01/28/over-50-major-brands-supporting-music-piracy-its-big-busine ss/

or these…

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130215usc#QEwUqV_Usqt5CPfDlYRdww

Again, and I say this with the utmost sincerity, publishing those lists while knowing nothing about the internet advertising world is a really, really big mistake. The claim that “it’s a big business” is laughable. Those ads are on those sites because those companies buy up some of the cheapest inventory imaginable for remnant advertising. Those ads don’t make so little money that Ray himself would probably be insulted. If he thinks Google pays out too little on YouTube, imagine how he’d feel when he found out that ad networks like that often pay a penny per one thousand views. And the rates keep going DOWN. With programmatic buying the “in” thing now, those companies automatically get their ads inserted into the cheapest slots available. Sometimes it’s less than a penny per 1000 views.

Display ads just don’t make that much money.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Sometimes it’s less than a penny per 1000 views.”

I get the impression you actually think you’re convincing people with this “piracy doesn’t pay” nonsense.

If it didn’t pay, there wouldn’t be so many sites doing it. Seriously, duh.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/seo/make-money-online-by-selling-pirated-content-these-sites-do/3660

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“I get the impression you actually think you’re convincing people with this “piracy doesn’t pay” nonsense.

If it didn’t pay, there wouldn’t be so many sites doing it. Seriously, duh.”

One could argue that fanfiction and fanart are forms of piracy, as people use IP of others without paying them a penny.

And if that’s the case, why are there so many fanfiction and fanart sites out there with people not making much (if anything) off of it? Seriously, duh.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You’d have some sort of a point if you could read your own damn links. The (out-of-date) article you posted has nothing to do with Google ads. They’re talking about subscription services and link sharing. Not only can’t you link to primary evidence (seriously you always complain about Mike stating his opinion – with citations for his evidence – then “refute” him with… someone else’s – often uncited – opinion!), but the “evidence” you link to doesn’t even say what you think it’s saying. Genius! Try reading past the headline next time you post whatever you think you found, it will make you look less moronic.

Well, at least we know that your paranoid rantings aren’t based on real evidence, only what you imagine you’ve read…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

You’re not very perceptive, are you?

Quote from the article –

“The specific monetization methods for each service/site differ”

This guy provides no evidence other than an anecdotal nod to someone who makes $3,000 a month off of a link sharing site.

It’s also been pointed out that people have to click-through on the ad to make any kind of money. I find it hard to imagine that if you’re going to a link-sharing site, you’re going to click an ad in lieu of a torrent link.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

CTRL+F Adsense – nothing
CTRL+F Google – nothing, apart from some comments telling people to google things.
CTRL+F ads – two mentions which cite nothing and make the type of bare assertion you’re so fond of, but don’t even specify the type of ad, let alone prove anything you were saying.

I might have missed something due to the atrocious layout of that article, but otherwise it’s not talking about the same thing you are. At best, it makes a couple of passing claims that don’t mean anything more than “some sites make money from ads”. Do you have any data, primary sources, anything other than someone claiming something you like with nothing to back it up? Hell, some of the sites it’s talking about don’t even exist any more – do you have current data, not just claims about what might have happened 2 years ago?

Please feel free to paste the relevant sentences I missed below, or the data that article was based on, but most of the article is indeed irrelevant to what you were asserting. Or, is backing up your own claims with anything beyond half-assed links to uncited opinion pieces beyond you?

Rikuo (profile) says:

“Oh, and poor Kristin barely got to speak at all,”

If that had been myself there (not that I claim to be any sort of professional in the creative world) I would have walked out if all that’s happening is the rantings of a wilfully blind man. I would have grabbed him by the shoulders, pointed him towards the wall, said “There, rant at that for a few hours”, then walked off where I could at least use my time productively.

gorehound (profile) says:

Re: What do you expect

East Bay Ray is a Sell-Out Artist.I still play in Punk Bands and still have the same views pretty much I had when I went to my first Punk Rock Show the summer of 1976.I am the lead singer/founder of Maine’s oldest punk band “Big Meat Hammer” .

Yes, it is true that less and less people Support Harder Punk Rock but I still won’t change.I was already hating Big Labels by 1975 and I did mostly listen to 60’s Garage, Obscure Hard Rock/Psych Stuff, and then along had come The Stooges,MC5 and Blue Cheer.By 75 I was so hating all Big Labels and so Hating the US Government.
Well, I still hate Big Labels and I still hate the US Government.I still am willing to freely share the music too.
http://www.bigmeathammer.com Feel Free to download and to freely use/share my weird Art.I also seed on TPB but not all day long.
Yup, Jordan Kratz may in fact be a Has-Been but he still has his dignity and still is a Punk Rockin kind of Miscontent !!!

Lowestofthekeys (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Seriously…I mean, Masnick doesn’t even consider those of us with a handicap for clicking the mouse to reveal a “censored” comment.

I punch the air for a living (it’s part of my occupation as a straight edge), and my knuckles are so arthritic, I have physical pain every time I click the flagged link. It’s excruciating, but not as mentally excruciating as his lack of compassion for my inability to click that link and reveal the typically derogatory, off-topic comment.

Anonymous Coward says:

internet display ads pay next to nothing

Yeah right, that’s why 96% of Google’s profits come from selling ads…

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

I’m not really sure why Masnick is spinning such blatant lies recently; in the past he’s been far sneaker with his intellectual dishonesty. The heat is obviously coming down on the piracy biz, so that would seem to be the reason… Nobody loves piracy more than Mike Masnick and his blind sycophants here at Techdirt.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I didn’t have a net connection back then, no…but it is easier today. Today, all I have to do to pirate is go to TPB and load up a torrent, and download all the files for a game, whereas back then, I would have had to get each file individually. Or I can simply swap a multi-terabyte hard drive with a friend. Back then, 40GB was huge.

Milton Freewater says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“You must not have been around during the Napster or Grokster days.”

I agree … 1998-2002 was the Golden Age of “piracy.” The stuff you could find on Napster was amazing. We take that kind of access for granted now.

Right now is the Golden Age of streaming.

We have never and will never see the Golden Age of “pay what the rightsholder demands when they demand it.”

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You must not have been around during the Napster or Grokster days. It’s nowhere near as easy (or cheap) as it was then.

I was around for those, and am happy to compare the two.

Then: search for single track on Napster/Grokster/Kazaa, get connected to someone on AOL dial-up, wait hours to get track
Now: search for artist+torrent+discography on Google, get torrent file, have entire catalog of their work in minutes

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Correction:

Then: search for single track on Napster/Grokster/Kazaa, get connected to someone on AOL dial-up, wait hours to get track. Find out track is shitty quality, or mislabelled so it’s not even the track you’re looking for or maybe even a virus. Try again because there’s no preview option or any legal way to obtain the track digitally because Apple haven’t dragged the labels kicking and screaming into the marketplace yet.

Now: search for artist+torrent+discography on Google, get torrent file, have entire catalog of their work in minutes, safe and secure in the knowledge that the community have already confirmed it’s real and of the desired quality, even if the labels have decided to stop iTunes/Spotify/etc. from carrying the track.

Funny story: I used to download a lot of free (legal!) music from mp3.com, and I had no qualms about sharing my music folder on Napster. One of artists I discovered was an instrumental electronic artist (deep house, I think?) named Shakera. I was puzzled when I noticed that lots of people were suddenly downloading their tracks from me. I soon discovered that it was due to a new pop artist who’d become popular in the US named Shakira and giggled silently to myself every time a download was completed, knowing that those fans who couldn’t even spell her name were in for a surprise when they tried playing what they’d downloaded…

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Really? Seems like Google is making $30b a year… yeah, that’s nuthin’…

Um. That 30 billion is Google’s revenue you know, not profits.

You need to factor in Google’s cost for bandwidth, electricity, taxes, payroll, overhead, etc. into that equation.

It’s like saying your being greedy because you made $200,000 in revenue from your album without me factoring in studio costs, engineering costs, production costs or the session musician’s pay into it.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

That’s a pretty decent attempt at trolling…

7 out of 10

Misplaced sarcasm – Check
Link to something irrelevant to what the actual article is discussing – Check
Google hatred – Check
Ad Homs against the author – Check, Check, Check, and Check
Buzzword: Sycophants – Check with a bonus point for bringing it back from last years graveyard

Needs more Big Search and a little more hate against the rest of the techdirt community. Most of us unwashed heathens don’t even know what a sycophant is… Also, more current buzzwords and throwing in 2 or 3 would be required to get a perfect score… Keep trying, though. You’ll get there, tiger!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yeah right, that’s why 96% of Google’s profits come from selling ads…

sigh

This is what I meant when I said it’s amusing to see people who have no clue what they’re talking about discuss internet advertising.

Most of Google’s ad revenue comes from AdWords which is its SEARCH advertising business, not the display business, and not AdSense, which is what appears on 3rd party sites. Search advertising pays really nicely, because when people search, the ads often show them what they’re looking for, so they’re likely to click. When people are browsing 3rd party sites, they don’t give a shit about ads and have tremendous ad blindness.

Furthermore, yes, Google does make some money from AdSense, but that’s because it’s aggregating millions of sites, most of which earn pennies per day, at best, and the vast, vast, vast majority (well over 99.9999%) have absolutely nothing to do with “piracy.” The idea that Google makes money from piracy is so misinformed it really makes you look like a completely clueless person.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

No. Google is an advertising company. 96% of their revenue is from ads. Adwords, Adsense, etc; whatever one you want to look at, Google needs eyeballs to survive, to sell its ADVERTISING. They make money when people search for illegal versions of content via site hits AND they make money off the ads on the pirate sites. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have the program. Those “pennies” add up to millions of dollars. It’s all in their SEC financial disclosure statements.

And Masnick is indeed an asshole. And a liar and a douchebag and tons of other nasty descriptives. That’s because of HIS boneheaded behavior and poor choices in life, not mine.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

No. Google is an advertising company. 96% of their revenue is from ads. Adwords, Adsense, etc; whatever one you want to look at, Google needs eyeballs to survive, to sell its ADVERTISING.

Google is not struggling for eyeballs. With or without infringement.

They make money when people search for illegal versions of content via site hits AND they make money off the ads on the pirate sites.

Bullshit. Seriously, present some proof or go the fuck away.

It’s all in their SEC financial disclosure statements.

Go ahead, quote us where it shows that they make money from piracy.

Your ignorance on this subject is flat out astounding.

And Masnick is indeed an asshole.

For what it’s worth, the fact that I know what I’m talking about, and you are completely ignorant, does not make me an asshole.

And a liar and a douchebag and tons of other nasty descriptives. That’s because of HIS boneheaded behavior and poor choices in life, not mine.

What behavior, pray tell, are you talking about? I am curious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Fuck you Masnick, you lying piece of shit. You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said because you know you can’t. You know goddamned well that the hits Google gets on their site determine what they can charge for advertising. ADS. 96% of the TENS of BILLIONS of dollars they pull in every year. You’re pretending all those MILLIONS of links to infringing material don’t net them eyeballs, and thus more ad revenue? You’re a transparent and lying slimeball.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Fuck you Masnick, you lying piece of shit.

I will note that you haven’t responded to a single point I made, but have amped up the rhetoric.

You know goddamned well that the hits Google gets on their site determine what they can charge for advertising. ADS. 96% of the TENS of BILLIONS of dollars they pull in every year.

The hits do not determine what they can charge for advertising. The clicks on the ads do. Again, the question is what is being clicked on.

And, again, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of that 96% has absolutely nothing to do with infringement. You really seem to not understand the very basics of internet advertising. Once again: those sites are making next to nothing. Google makes very, very little from those ads, because no one is clicking on them. I already explained all of this, and yet you seem to repeat your ignorance. It is odd.

You’re pretending all those MILLIONS of links to infringing material don’t net them eyeballs, and thus more ad revenue?

Eyeballs do not equal revenue when it comes to Google ads. Clicks net them revenue. Who is clicking on those ads? The ads that make money for Google are relevant to their searches. There aren’t many relevant ads on searches for infringing material.

You’re a transparent and lying slimeball.

You seem very angry for someone who is being taught something.

Togashi (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Yes, Greyhound makes some money off smuggling.

Yes, Smith and Wesson makes some money off murder.

Yes, trenchcoat manufacturers make some money off shoplifting.

Yes, casinos make some money off money laundering.

Yes, rope makers make some money off kidnapping.

Seeing a pattern here? You would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that any of these manufacturers were dedicated to that purpose because of the pitiful amounts of money they make on it compared to the myriad of legitimate ones. Well, some people would argue about the guns, but the point stands.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Translation: yes, google makes some money off infringement.

Masnick is ok with that.”

Yep, just as he’s probably OK with AT&T making some money off harassment and the planning of crimes, FedEx making some money off the transport of illegal material, Ford and BP making some money off getaway driving and Smith & Wesson making some money from robbery and murder. Are you also going to attack those companies, or is your pathetic obsession only with Google and Mike?

Unless you can prove that they either directly encourage infringement or that it is a primary part of their business model, you’re making an astoundingly idiotic argument.

“Stay classy, asshole.”

That’s the mirror, look at your screen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Ask him to provide a list of pirate websites using Googles ad, because I just looked around and couldn’t find any.

Here is how I did it.

– Go to pirate site.
– Open a download page.
– Open source code, look for ad services. (adsense, adword, doubleclick, Google, google, etc)

So unless Google has hidden contracts and it is being paid directly by them which can’t be tracked, I very much want to know where this info is coming from.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No shit, and all those tens of thousands of DMCA notices are to remove links in their SEARCH engine, asshole.

Um. That has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. Really. If you want to talk intelligently about this, it might help to actually understand the basics. We’re discussing the ads that appear on the pages on these sites.

If you further would like to go on a tangent, unrelated to what we’re discussing, and argue that Google is making money on adwords because people are searching for infringing works, you’re making an argument even more ignorant than I had originally thought. If that were the case, it would be a good thing, because it would people are not clicking on the infringing links, but rather clicking on the advertisements. The “pirate sites” you complain about are not buying their own adwords.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You are a sick sociopath. You ignore the facts because you’re a paid shill for Google. You support and encourage the exploitation of artists as much as Google does.

Karma is the most powerful force on earth and you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your behavior on this blog.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You are a sick sociopath

I find it fascinating that by simply pointing out where you are clearly ignorant of some basic concepts, about which you are speaking, that somehow gives you the power to judge my psychological state over the internet. You truly are an impressive human being.

You ignore the facts because you’re a paid shill for Google. You support and encourage the exploitation of artists as much as Google does.

This is untrue on multiple levels. I am not paid by Google. I am not a shill for Google. I regularly speak out against Google when it does things I think are incorrect or wrong. Just this week, I spoke out against the rumored news of it trying to influence payment processors. There are, of course, many times when I agree with Google as well. Is it so difficult to believe that I might actually hold the opinions I state (and which I’ve stated since even before Google existed)?

Karma is the most powerful force on earth and you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your behavior on this blog.

Okay.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“You could try refuting what the guy wrote”

What he wrote was unsubstantiated personal accusations that have been refuted literally dozens of times in the past, yet he still repeats the same lies. Mike’s actually very calm and civil considering he’s being personally slandered.

“instead of just insulting him and saying he’s ignorant”

Is it insulting if he’s just stating a clearly apparent fact?

“Why are you having a difficult time doing that?”

Really? He responded to a post that opened with him being called a “sick sociopath” and you question why he’s not responding with honey and candy?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Oh look, it’s Karl, the guy notorious for not getting anything right. This should be fun…

This would only be true if the pirate sites themselves bought keywords for those search terms. They do not.

No. Adwords is not the only way Google monetizes site hits. Pure traffic is a huge component of how Google determines what to charge for advertising.There’s no way you can play dumb and pretend that isn’t the case.
So are you going to suggest Google doesn’t get millions of hits every day from people looking to infringe? Have fun in that fantasy world.

None of the “pirate site” have AdSense on them.

How many of them have DoubleClick, Karl? Hmm?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Pure traffic is a huge component of how Google determines what to charge for advertising.

Advertising what, exactly? When people search for something like “dark knight torrent,” there are no AdWords at all, and the original poster was talking about AdWords.

Moreover, Google doesn’t charge by page views, but by “impressions” – that is, clickthroughs.

How many of them have DoubleClick, Karl? Hmm?

How much money does Google make off of DoubleClick when they do? Zero.

DoubleClick is a platform, used by more than just Google. When it’s not used by Google, Google retains zero of the income generated from it. In their own words:

In addition to sites that participate in our network, millions of advertisers and publishers use our DoubleClick technology to manage their digital advertising, not just on our network but across the whole web. Advertisers and publishers ultimately decide how to use this technology and we cannot “see” where all these ads appear (nor do we have a revenue share).

They released that statement because of the utterly incompetent research of “Annenberg Innovation Lab,” a.k.a. Jonathan Talpin – one of the many, many reasons you should not listen to anything Talpin says.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Uh, what? DoubleClick isn’t freeware, Karl, lol. Google uses DoubleClick as a laundering tool; to provide a layer between itself and DoubleClick’s myriad nefarious uses, which are legion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

More fuel on the fire for the argument that Google is very evil indeed, despite their Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign.

Lowestofthekeys (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Uh, what? DoubleClick isn’t freeware, Karl, lol.”

Incredibly nonsensical. I’m not entirely sure where Karl said it was “freeware” and a “laundering tool”? They don’t make any money from it, unless you can provide proof that they’re funneling money into it.

“More fuel on the fire for the argument that Google is very evil indeed, despite their Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign.”

Your logic is astounding. A business…making money…is EVIL.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Care to explain how it is done then? With citations please, otherwise you’re just making things up.

If someone creates a filesharing site using ASP.Net and hosts it on a box running IIS/SQL/Windows Server 2012, does that mean you can go after Microsoft because the “pirate” BOUGHT that software, used it for a different purpose than you or Microsoft would like, but is within their right? Um, no.

Google ACQUIRED DoubleClick, didn’t spin-off the company. DoubleClick is a company, not a technology or product. They make products, which people buy a license to use, using it however they like.

http://www.adopsinsider.com/ad-serving/how-does-ad-serving-work/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

How it is nefarious when it doesn’t do the actual infringement?

The people who use those tools may engage in dubious relationships with some dubious partners, but how is that a problem of the tool maker?

Are knife makers responsible for the crimes people commit with those?

Do you want to start eating with chopsticks?
That is how it started in Asia, rulers didn’t trust people with knifes and so it was forbidden since it could be used as weapons is that type of paranoia that you are engaging in?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Uh, what? DoubleClick isn’t freeware, Karl, lol. Google uses DoubleClick as a laundering tool; to provide a layer between itself and DoubleClick’s myriad nefarious uses, which are legion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

More fuel on the fire for the argument that Google is very evil indeed, despite their Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Google sells a service. Once they sell that service, they don’ts know how people use that service, have no ability to control it, don’t even know how others are using it, and don’t profit from its use.

A vanishingly small amount of those third-party entities use their service to sell ads to “pirate sites” (or other illicit sites). None of which pays Google one dime.

Of that vanishingly small amount of third-party clients, a small minority of those third-party sales are to to “pirate sites;” the rest of the ads appear on perfectly legal sites.

Plus, those “pirate sites” are, themselves, only third-party providers of services to users, all of whom have DMCA contacts, and show no indications that they haven’t followed the law. In other words, they are not engaging in “piracy,” but providing the infrastructure that makes all file sharing (“piracy” or not) possible.

Still, none of the income from those sites makes its way to Google.

Yet, according to you, DoubleClick is somehow “notorious,” DoubleClick is “a laundering tool,” and everything that Google says is a “Goebbels-esque preemptive propaganda campaign.”

Yeah, OK, then. You might want to upgrade your tinfoil hat. You can get a good price on one, if you look around on Goog… whoops, never mind.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1704424?hl=en

Well lets see:

– Kickasstorrents have none of Google ads options in its source code, in fact I didn’t find and ad server at all.

– The Pirate Bay. Nope no adsense, adword there also in the source code of the page.

So after looking into the page source code of 2 of the biggest pirate websites around and not finding any ads on it, do you care to show some actual evidence of your BS statements?

n_mailer says:

Re: Re:

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty and lying, how do you think you can get away with inaccurately quoting Mike on the thread of the post itself?

Here si Mike’s full quote:

“Let’s make this simple: internet display ads pay next to nothing — especially on sites like the one that Ray was complaining about. Those kinds of sites can only get deals with complete bottom of the barrel remnant ad providers, whose payout numbers are so small that most people would laugh”

Your VentureBeat article supports Mike. Look at where their revenue comes from.

This is why I am pro-piracy. It’s not the “free stuff” … it’s not Chris Dodd, who is only doing his job … it’s people like you. Whatever your’e for, I;’m against.

anonymouse says:

Re: Re:

This is the reason there is a problem Mike will say something then some retard will tr to blow his thoughts out of the water, I want to see you start a business and then to give 70% of your income to people who make a few sounds and sing along, and don’t do it really well. YouTube has lowered the cost of music to 0 yes 0. people can listen to virtually any music track they want whenever they want, they can download a track if they find it enjoyable to listen to on their other devices, all because of the infrastructure that YouTube and Google have created. Artists have a means to another income stream even though it is not much for anyone not being viewed a few hundred thousand time, but guess what if you create a really good YouTube Video , even one that is poor quality and poorly made you can still make a lot of money. Money you would not have made otherwise. This is a new business model and artists can refuse to play along , they can remove their content from YouTube if they want, Google will even help you set up a filter to prevent anyone uploading your music , but then you lose a revenue stream, you lose any money, even if it is only a few thousand buck a month?year. So yeah knock Mike for praising YouTube for creating a new revenue stream for people that refuse to buy music. Mock YouTube as much as you like but they are part of the future, while you sit in your basement on a computer making nothing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Do you even read the link you posted?

Quote:

We decided to conduct our own Google earnings report and discover what are the top 10 industries contributing to Google’s earnings.

1 – Finance & Insurance ? $4.0 Billion
2 – Retailers & General Merchandise ? $2.8 Billion
3 – Travel & Tourism ? $2.4 Billion
4 – Jobs & Education ? $2.2 Billion
5 – Home & Garden? $2.1 Billion
6 – Computer & Consumer Electronics ? $2.0 Billion
7 – Vehicles ? $2.0 Billion
8 – Internet & Telecommunications ? $1.7 Billion
9 – Business & Industrial ? $1.6 Billion
10 – Occasions & Gifts ? $1.2 Billion

I see people are pirating financial services, travel destinations, home and garden utensils, electronics LoL

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

pretty much, yup.

Yeah right, that’s why 96% of Google’s profits come from selling ads…

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

I’m not really sure why Masnick is spinning such blatant lies recently; in the past he’s been far sneaker with his intellectual dishonesty. The heat is obviously coming down on the piracy biz, so that would seem to be the reason… Nobody loves piracy more than Mike Masnick and his blind sycophants here at Techdirt.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

sycophant ? ? ?

that’s when the little bastards flash-mob your pump controller or AC switches and literally gum them up, then you are -wait for it-

sick of ants…

i think that’s what it is about…

seriously, those little bastards seem to like ozone, and down here in la florida, they will cover a switch like that inside and out, 100 ants deep until they clog up the contacts with their deep-fried, chitinous little ant bodies…

based on a true story…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Mike is scared of the crackdowns on piracy because without fail…well they fail, and cause colossal amounts of collateral damage, in terms of damage to the concept of a free and open internet, and to free speech in general. How many times has Techdirt covered stories of DMCA takedowns, and how many times have those takedowns had links to legal content, and yet, according to the rules, that legal content has to come down?

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Okay, so when Techdirt reported on a DMCA takedown from an agent authorized to represent HBO and in the notice were links to HBO.com…that was a complete fabrication?

On the other hand, those on the other side of the fence I have myself caught telling pure lies. I remember one copyright maximilist website, Ethical Fan, saying that Kim DotCom was involved with a site that let you watch half of a movie, then charged for the rest…even though the website was still up long after the rest of his Mega network of sites had been shut down.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Btw, YouTube/Google take 85% of the ad revenue from uploaded songs.

Citation please.

And if Mike Masnick really thought there were better business models out there, he wouldn’t be so scared silly of crackdowns on piracy, would he? Fact.

You still don’t think that maybe, just maybe, I’m concerned about collateral damage and the simple fact that cracking down on these sites DOESN’T HELP?

Nah, couldn’t be that I’m dealing in reality, could it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Consumed by whom?

Levi’s ads, Quentin Tarantino rape scene?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Kennedys

Have you noticed that the most vocal about royalties are the ones that produce nothing and try to live from past glory without having to produce absolutely nothing new and see their paychecks diminish but can’t possible assume responsability for it themselves and have to blame others because of falling revenues.

“the world’s greediest karaoke band.”
Jello Biafra

Even the ex heart and soul of that band called them greedy bastards.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to call someone else greedy when you take music without paying?”

Dunno, do you have any proof that he’s taking peoples’ music, or is that just the fantasy crutch of “everyone who disagrees with me must be a pirate!” you people depend on when you’re proven wrong again? Lying about the very people you’re talking to still doesn’t work, sorry.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to call someone else greedy when you take music without paying?”

Not really, no.

I can turn on the radio to listen to music and record it if I have the tools, therefore, I’m “taking” music without paying for it.

I can call a person greedy when they really are greedy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

No, not really, I take music from the radio for free, I take music from VEVO for free, I take music from the internet in general for free, I take music from the TV for free, I take music for free all the fucking time and I sleep like a child at night.

Is not me, who go up a stage and called everybody who paid a ticket to fucking see you play a thief.

Is not me, that has act like a punk but don’t want to live the life of a punk after the show is over, in my time people called those “posers”.

Is not me the idiot who failed to safeguard my future but saving for the lean times.

Is not me who wants to enforce an obscene concept as a monopoly onto others while singing “fuck the man” and “screw you fans”.

C’mon who do you think you are fooling?

You see, a decade ago I realized I should have some survival skills so even in the event of ending up with absolutely nothing I would be able to survive and have a comfortable life. I learned to make rope, weave, how to make tools, how to build walls, shelters and plant food, I even learned how to produce some simple medicines, so today I am not afraid of the future, because I got something better than money and that is knowledge. I don’t need to bug others to respect “my precious” because “my precious” is mine and nobody can take it away from me, but I can share my precious knowledge with everyone.

See, fools will be fools to the end and will die like fools.
Nobody respect that type of person, nobody is willing to put up with that crap anymore, the golden age of music superstars has ended its cycle this time, maybe in the future there may be new ones but for now they are not that welcome anymore and are starting to stink like a fish out of the freezer after to long.

The rebels of yesterday are the creeps of today and they didn’t even realized it yet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Here from the blog of fans.

Quote:

In conclusion, please don?t support these aging relics, when you have the opportunity to be challenged and see two bands that are still forging their image rather than just being a parody of their former selves.

http://www.collapseboard.com/brisbane/they-really-did-die-fuck-the-dead-kennedys/

It doesn’t look good does it?
LoL

Here is another gem:

Quote:

lazysupper said
November 6, 2012 at 4:26 pm

no. you shouldn?t need to decipher whether something is sarcasm or not. they are actually whining and moaning about music-sharing and BLAMING THEIR FANS who BOUGHT TICKETS to see them play live. Utterly fucking disgusting. If Jello were dead today he?d be rolling over in his grave.

https://magicmuscle.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/new-dead-kennedys-song-mp3-get-off-the-web/

The fuckers actually remade a song and in a live show acused fans of being thieving a-holes LoL

Those are the guys that want fans to pay them?
If I was a fan I would say “fuck you” and rip them off every chance I got.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

MP3 Get Off The Web which is really just MTV Get Off The Air with lyrics changed to be about people downloading mp3s and how much they suck for doing it. And although I don?t believe that telling your fans at a concert that they are the problem with the music industry is a smart idea, the part that I really don?t like is that the new guy is changing Jello?s lyrics. This was the only song they did this on, I think, but if you wanna do that then just fucking write a new song, don?t butcher the classics if you?re not the guy who wrote it. It would piss me off to no end if Dio had changed lyrics to Ozzy era Black Sabbath songs live and this was much the same to me.

http://dcheavymetal.com/2010/10/18/a-post-about-the-dead-kennedys/

Yep, piracy is killing them not the fact that they release one new song in 24 years and it sucks, not that they called every fan they have a thief on live stage.

Yep is piracy, for sure.

LoL

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re:

just fucking beautiful, man…
great point, that pretty much blows their bullshit clean out of the water…

(IF they were making arguments based on -you know- ‘logic’, rational thinking, and reasonable inferences…)

that post deserves repeating EVERY TIME a copy maximalist bitches about how many zillion dollars pirates are making…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

G Thompson (profile) says:

Mike, Mike Mike.. You have it all wrong

Of course the Artists are highly qualified to talk about Internet Advertising, you even state the reason why yourself!

“internet display ads pay next to nothing”

And why you ask they are qualified? Well isn’t that payment of next to nothing EXACTLY what the recording Industry has been paying artists for decades? hmmmm?

PaulT (profile) says:

“So, if they had done the same percentage as say iTunes”

Dear God, another moron who can’t work out the difference between a product you pay to “own” and radio-style per-listen streaming where they’re paid every time you listen. Why are these idiots unable to work out that YouTube, Spotify, etc. are completely different to iTunes/CDs – and may even be complimentary!?! (People can discover music through those methods, then buy the CD, or people may listen to a stream/watch a video of a song they’ve already bought – free f*cking money!)

I give up. It’s impossible to argue with people who can’t even recognise the basic facts of their own industry. Were radio stations also stealing their revenue when people listened to their songs there instead of buying the cassette?

Ninja (profile) says:

Ah, the trolling is strong in these comments. There are articles that manage to be more informative and enlightening in their comments than the articles themselves. Really. The angry troll here has given us a good display of how reason and logic is completely thrown out of the window for some religious copyright fundamentalism. Numbers are thrown as if they were sacred and given to these morons by God Himself. There’s no argumentation, the only thing these people see is their point of view and when opposed they’ll get ballistic and start throwing all sorts of insults, fallacies and insanities.

http://cdn.ekendraonline.com/img/conventional-logiv-vs-religious-logic.jpg

The Real Michael says:

A message to greedy has-been musicians trying to live off their past accomplishments

This isn’t the 20th Century. The free ride is over. Get over yourself. The world doesn’t owe you anything. Want money? Go out and earn it. Hard pill to swallow, I know, but that’s reality. Get used to it because reality isn’t going to change to accommodate your financial status.

Anonymous Coward says:

“Karma is the most powerful force on earth and you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your behavior on this blog.”

LOL, this describes him and Joe exactly word for word. One day, David and Joe are going to get what’s coming to them. Because of the terrible things they write on this site every single day. Yes that’s right, things remain on the internet for the rest of your lives, everything you’ve written here, every insult, every terrible threat, and slanderous posts you’ve made will come back to haunt you Joe, and you too Hurricane Head. We remember, we keep backups, we keep records, and we will Judge you one day. Karma is a bitch Joe.

Anonymous Coward says:

AdSense - how it works

For those who listen to Lowery and don’t read for themselves:
http://bloggingyourpassion.com/how-much-does-google-adsense-pay/

Adsense pays on a pay-per-click (PPC) basis, so publishers get paid based on how many clicks they get to their ads. The pay for each click can be as low as pennies and as high as $10 (in very rare cases). From the variety of blogs I have had I would say expecting to be paid 15-50 cents per click is a decent average.

Sites ONLY get paid ones they reach the threshold:
http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1322042&topic=1316579&ctx=topic

And again, no clicky, no money!

So no, Lowery doesn’t know better! He knows worse.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 AdSense - how it works

So Google gets paid when you click on an ad on a non-Google site?

You sure about that? Can you post a link?

Or is it Google gets paid when an owner of a website SUBSCRIBES to Google’s ad service and once the threshold has been paid to Google, the SITE OWNER gets the cash? Sorta like once you pay your CRM user license Microsoft allows you to deploy Internet Facing CRM instances, legally anyhow?

So if your CRM instance is behind a site that hosts or links to sites/users that host infringing content, by your right Microsoft is liable and makes billions by users who pay to access that site?

Care to show a breakdown of that $40 Billion rather that guess where it comes from?

Lowestofthekeys says:

Re: Re: Re:2 AdSense - how it works

So you’re saying they’re evil because they make money as an advertising company?

The tens of billions you “imagineered” include revenues from legitimate advertising, asshat.

Besides, they’ve made it pretty clear they have problem with people advertising on a site with pirate bay links:

http://www.kitguru.net/channel/jon-martindale/google-adsense-banned-author-for-pirate-bay-link/

Lowestofthekeys (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 AdSense - how it works

So you’re saying Google is evil because they make revenue off of advertising?

You do know the tens of billions you “imagineered” come from legitimate advertising, and if advertising on pirate sites is so lucrative, why is Google shutting down adsense accounts for people who have pirate bay links on their webpages.For example, Cory Jackson had his adsense account banned for linking to his own book on pirate bay.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 AdSense - how it works

Try this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GOOG+Income+Statement&annual

Or this:

Three Months Ended
June 30, Six Months Ended
June 30,
2008 2009 2008 2009
Advertising revenues:

Google web sites

$ 3,530,145 $ 3,652,628 $ 6,930,550 $ 7,345,451
Google Network web sites

1,655,280 1,683,500 3,341,421 3,321,542

Total advertising revenues

5,185,425 5,336,128 10,271,971 10,666,993
Licensing and other revenues

181,787 186,769 281,284 364,894

Revenues

$ 5,367,212 $ 5,522,897 $ 10,553,255 $ 11,031,887

From 2009:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312509150129/dex992.htm

So you see they get money from THEIR OWN SITES, in addition to licensing technology like Microsoft or any other technology company.

So because they made $40 billion, it MUST be from advertising on “pirate” sites they don’t own but might collect a small revenue from for licensing the ad software usage, assuming those sites are even using Google’s technology – which someone showed above that they ARE NOT.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: AdSense - how it works

Yes of course, nobody clicks on ads (especially pirates! Right Mike?), so all those tens of billions of dollars are being made by magic.

Incredible. At this point it’s clear that you’re not just misinformed, but even after this has been explained to you a dozen times above, you’re still not getting it.

Google makes most of its ad money on SEARCH ads, not on ads on third party sites. People click on lots of search ads, but that’s got nothing to do with ads on other sites. This was in the post and discussed throughout the comments, and you still keep pretending they’re the same thing.

Do you really not understand this or are you so unable to admit that you’re wrong that you’re now just repeating blatant lies?

Incredible.

John G says:

This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

I feel as though the writer of this article is missing Ray’s point. Ray may be misinformed about how websites generate income and to what volume, but he is correct that the internet’s increase directly correlates to the decline in music sales.

Further, the writer of this article basis his argument around youtube, but skips the fundamental issue of how ISP’s affect music sales. The author automatically assumes that Youtube is incremental to music sales, and not harmful. He does not address that issue and just skips over it.

The reason he skips over it is because no one knows if youtube and other ISP’s hurt sales, but the figures suggest that they do. He skips over them either because he is ignorant of the issues involved or is deceptive. Based on his writing style and understanding of the situation, it could be either.

Instead of genuinely assessing the situation, I think this author just wanted to be a smarmy dick. He succeeded.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

I must disagree, you’ve missed the author’s point.

1) The medium for distribution of music has changed. It has become more flexible and consumers have voiced what they want. They want singles. Singles cost less than albums. Albums are still bought if they are any good. Thus revenue is down so artists shares are down because instead of selling 12 songs you’re selling 1 or 2 or 3.

2) Brick and mortar stores that sold music exclusively have been killed by the discounted label pricing offered to department stores, like BestBuy, WalMart, etc.. and chain music stores who can purchase in bulk. Even chain music stores who were not big enough to battle label price demands had to augment sales with other items to get people in the door – that is, movies and posters.

3) Videogames are no longer just for nerds or restricted to complicated computers which require more hardware than the average consumer can afford or think to buy. Videogames have taken off and consumed huge amounts of entertainment dollars.

4) Home theatre systems take the old VCR/TV (maybe your stereo) option and blow it out of the water – people choose this because a) kids disrupt theatre goers, b) theatre costs are quite high, c) more selection at your rental store (online or brick and mortar), d) DVD prices have dropped so people replace old worn out VHS with DVD or blue-ray and enjoy at home, e) you can’t stop the movie for a bathroom break, etc…

5) What are these “older” artists doing to attract people’s attention beyond ranting? What have they written lately that people will want to buy? Bob Dylan did very well, but he also has nice packages for people to buy, increasing his revenue beyond just the content copy.

6) The Internet leveled the playing field, no more are people stuck begging a record producer/A&R person to listen to them and if they like them, being told to sound like someone else. There is competition and THAT is what upsets older artists like East Bay Ray/Lowery and the labels more than anything. How dare someone else who’s not a “professional” write music? How dare someone do this as a hobby? How dare someone not go through “proper channels” to get heard like it used to be? How will we filter all of this, oh the horror, the horror?

7) And most of all, some artists refuse to understand what has happened and what it really means. They want to focus on art, not how one generates revenue online or how the Internet actually works or how things used to be before copyrights were abused. That’s SUPPOSED to be their management and labels’ area of expertise. Clearly it is not!

Fucking Todd Rundgren was far more intelligent and had greater forethought for the Internet than anyone else and he’s a musician from the 70’s. 3 fucking years before Napster he pitched the idea to the labels. Don’t believe me? Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqXbkKwCHj8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-a6ogGFV-8

The only person being an ignoramus is East Bay Ray, monopolizing the entire panel and acting like Lowery. Rather than looking at the past and complaining, they should have been looking forward like Todd is!

Lowestofthekeys (profile) says:

Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

“1) The medium for distribution of music has changed. It has become more flexible and consumers have voiced what they want. They want singles. Singles cost less than albums. Albums are still bought if they are any good. Thus revenue is down so artists shares are down because instead of selling 12 songs you’re selling 1 or 2 or 3.”

Don’t forget Spotify, which has become the second largest provider of revenues to the record labels (right below Itunes).

Spotify provides a better try-before-you-buy service allowing the consumer to not have to bother wasitng his money.

“4) Home theatre systems take the old VCR/TV (maybe your stereo) option and blow it out of the water – people choose this because a) kids disrupt theatre goers, b) theatre costs are quite high, c) more selection at your rental store (online or brick and mortar), d) DVD prices have dropped so people replace old worn out VHS with DVD or blue-ray and enjoy at home, e) you can’t stop the movie for a bathroom break, etc…”

Another good point.

There’s also been talk of Hollywood going direct to Video-on-Demand with new movies. I’d prefer to pay 30 bucks for a movie if I could watch it with two or three friends, avoid the hassles of the theatre and provide my own food.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

Agreed with Video-On-Demand. Though I don’t know about $30, but yeah, released SAME TIME as theatres, even on the same schedule like the theatre.

It’s like TheatreAtHome and no windowed releases, but you pay per use + service fee (REASONABLE – charge $50 + $20/movie and you won’t sell shit!).

I have a kid, I’d like to be able to watch movies without his crying disturbing others. I also want closed captioning so I can read through his cries.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

“youtube and other ISP’s”

Erm, before you try making comments criticising others’ understanding of a subject, try to learn some things yourself – such as the definition of ISP. YouTube is in no way shape or form an internet service provider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider

“I think this author just wanted to be a smarmy dick.”

I think this site would do well if people opposing what’s being said actually took their own advice. You’ve said nothing, made several uncited claims and vague accusation, got the definition of some basic terms completely wrong and finished off with name calling. Not the most convincing counterpoint.

John G says:

Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

Yes, I used ISP correctly. You are using a non-inclusive definition. Please research more about copyright and the DMCA before you accuse someone of misusing terms when you do not understand their full range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

Next time, please do more research before commenting, which will allow you make an informed statement.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

By your logic because the labels ripped off artists for years, they are thieves!

Hmm non-exclusive definition is quite nice isn’t it?

Funny how you like to a liability article when you claim Internet Service Provider is the same as youtube. By it’s very definition, an ISP provides Internet Service, more correctly access to the internet.

By your implication, any website is an ISP.

John G says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

It seems that you have not taken my suggestion and have not read the wiki article that describes what an ISP is, with regard to copyright. Under the DMCA, youtube is an ISP. Please go read about this more before commenting, because you are using the terms incorrectly. Worse, when the terms are used correctly, you are claiming that they are used incorrectly. You do not know what you are talking about.

Here’s a short primer for you, as you obviously don’t want to actually read the legislation and better inform yourself:

“Parties governed by 512 takedowns are “Online Content Providers.” A subsection of OCPs are “Internet Service Providers.” The DMCA is somewhat ambiguous when defining these terms, so it is difficult to accurately characterize an ISP. But, roughly speaking, it suffices to say websites such as Youtube, Facebook, and OKCupid, where users put up their own content without any interference or checking from the website operators, are ISPs. “”

I’m not going to address this again as you are uninformed and just want to argue, instead of actually understanding the issue.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

Why your own quote you explain why I am not wrong.

“The DMCA is somewhat abmiguous” because the DMCA was drafted by the Music Industry in efforts to label anyone involving the Internet a provider. Just because Congress doesn’t understand the terms doesn’t make them so.

This is the typical conflation of terms that causes all the problems. Your law is wrong, using the wrong terminology. Dumb tubes provide no content.

ISP’s are no more content providers than USB or SATA cables.

They do NOT host content, but merely provide a conduit to connect to devices that CAN hold content (USB Keys, HDD’s, DVD’s, or someone’s web server or cluster of web servers which technically connect to HDD’s via mass storage bays – also clustered).

Do you think Congress could understand that nuance? No. They fucked that up and any idiot judge who can think logically would dismiss that, assuming they can wrap their head around the obvious intentional misuse of terms.

You are uninformed about the real words and their true meanings, not legal implications.

By your legal implication pushed by the DMCA, fucking SATA cables are liable!

Youtube is an OCP, not an ISP! Youtube requires TWO ISP’s to operate, one to provide the connection of Youtube’s serves to the web, the other for individual users to access the web. Again, the ISP is the same as a SATA cable, with the exception the SATA cable doesn’t listen when RIAA says “You allow piracy by not blocking content that flows through your tubes and therefor are liable.”

Totally different!

ISP’s do not kill businesses. If you think so then you might as well give up. They are no more responsible than SATA cables, Web Browsers (after all without them no YouTube), Operating Systems, or hardware used by end-users or gateway routers.

ISP’s are argued this, but they don’t have the same cash to defend it and unfortunately the law is controlled by who has the cash, not what is accurate.

Thanks to your laws, a corporation is a legal entity even though it is technically a puppet controlled by real human beings who know this and do anything without much fear of recourse. So don’t hand me “the law of liability” says YouTube is a fucking ISP when the first thing you failed to understand is YouTube is an OCP, not an ISP. Following the wikipedia links should have solved that for you.

Rikuo says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

By this guy’s logic, if a law said “The owner of a donkey is liable for damages under vehicular damages laws because the law says a donkey is a mechanical vehicle”, he’d be all over it. Laws are supposed to fit reality, they cannot magically alter reality to fit themselves.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but that link doesn’t redefine ISP in any way from what I can see, and the first mention of the term links to the same article I linked you to. it’s possible that you’re referring to the mention of OSP – but that’s a completely different acronym that means something completely different to the one you repeatedly use.

Please quote the sections you think redefine the meaning of ISP – a meaning that was around for many years before the DMCA and related crap reared their ugly heads. The actual definition of ISP is a company that provides access to the internet through dial-up, DSL, cable, 3G or other technology – so, Verizon, Time Warner cable, Vodafone, etc. YouTube is in NO way an ISP under this correct definition, unless you have something that redefines the term. The article you linked to does no such thing, from what I can see.

Oh, and stop acting like an arrogant ass while stating things that are clearly wrong. Either explain where you’re getting your unique definition of the term from, or admit you’re mistaken. I can accept an apology if you meant OSP when you were tying ISP, but trying to act like such a smug asshole while telling me I don’t know my own industry terminology does not make me wish to consider your other “points” – many of which are as clearly wrong to me as the use of ISP.

“Nex t time, please do more research before commenting, which will allow you make an informed statement.”

My research consists of over 20 years in IT both as a hobbyist and a professional, which allows me to know the definition of basic technical terms that have been around since well before I got online in 1996. What are your qualifications for be trying to redefine the English language on the fly?

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

Further, the writer of this article basis his argument around youtube, but skips the fundamental issue of how ISP’s affect music sales. The author automatically assumes that Youtube is incremental to music sales, and not harmful. He does not address that issue and just skips over it.

Define harmful please.

If you are only looking at sales of recorded music, then you might have a point. The problem with that is when you remove the top 5% money earners and composers from the equation most musicians only rely on copyright (ie: recorded music) for 25% or less of their overall income.

Youtube and the internet have created tons of new opportunities for musicians without having to rely on the old “lottery winner” system of the labels where only 1% of musicians made any profit at all.

So please explain who is getting “harmed” in your view. Are you only referring to established musicians with label contracts or are you referring to all musicians across the board?

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

replying to original poster-
oh, fuck off and die, already:

1. i buy CLOSE TO ZERO music anymore, why ? ? ?
NOT because i pirate (I DON’T), but because of these reasons:

A. while there is a LOT of good music by indies, the ‘mainstream’ music pushed by Big Media generally sucks…
(if i hear that shitty ‘you’re a firework…’ crap-song one more time, i’m going postal… and -for dog’s sake- could someone FORCE katy perry to use auto-tune, geezus her voice sounds crappy…)

B. sorry, i’m STILL pissed off that when stupid freaking (CHEAPER) CDs came out, Big Music ASSURED US the prices would drop from their over-priced level… they never did…

C. DRM-laden media, ‘licenses’, and all the other bullshit games Big Media plays DO NOT serve ME THE CUSTOMER; in fact, THE OPPOSITE: they inconvenience me, the LEGITIMATE buyer, NOT THE PIRATES… the pirates have a BETTER PRODUCT…
(why is it copy-maximalists NEVER address that conundrum ? ? ?)

D. while at work i listen to slacker radio, when i’m at home, i listen to all my old CD’s i’ve ripped… once in a blue moon, i’ll buy a $5 CD in a bargain bin, usually a ‘best of…’ compilation… otherwise, they can keep their shit…

E. any other music i get these days, is either from archive.org (THE BEST website on the planet), or from individual artists…

in short, i will NEVER buy Big Medias shitty products again because they suck, they are too expensive, and they are crippled…

has NOTHING to do with napster, pirating, or anything but the shitty products and attitudes of Big Media…

it will be a happy day for the WORLD when Big Media shrivels up and dies…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: This author really just wanted to show how smart he is

sorry, i’m STILL pissed off that when stupid freaking (CHEAPER) CDs came out, Big Music ASSURED US the prices would drop from their over-priced level… they never did…

If you take inflation into account they did, and it doesn’t make sense not to over such a long time period. Now whether they dropped as much as promised or as fast as promised is another question.

joeybombstyle (profile) says:

I think Mike’s point here was how misinformed Ray was about the panel he was to be sitting on and how some of the business models work for new tech. My understanding was that this was to be an opportunity to discuss how artists could make money using new tech not a chance to complain about an issue that has been debated to death. Many artists have come to embrace the new opportunities that are accessible to them with the information age and not just tried to find ways to fit old square pegs into new round holes. It’s a totally new mind set and the interesting part is that many of the folks that are bitter are unknowingly in effect arguing in favor of system that they once held in contempt. There were so many ways that artists particularly musicians never saw a dime from what they made in the past. Most musicians never knew that they were never making any money off those neat like get 12 tapes for a penny models from Columbia House and BMG back in the day.
The point being there are many folks out there that want to discuss these new business models not as an alternative to piracy but strictly as a new way to do business. These are some of the ridiculous statements that are being made by folks who don’t decide to find a way to focus their energies into a productive manner and rather come up with knee jerk reactions such as Bruce Dickenson and Gene Simons stating that bands giving their music away for free is causing them to lose money because then all the listeners are only going to listen to free music. Well maybe that’s true but so what. To bad that’s a personal decision on the listeners end. No where does it say that you are obligated to make money for classifying yourself as a musician. You do have the right to be expected to be paid for you music if that is what you want and that is the model that you follow and you do have legal recourse to stop “piracy” of your music as you always have. Actually you have more ability to do so now because it’s not me handing my buddy a dubbed tape anymore. It’s there it’s in the “authorities” face that it is being provided outside of your requested format, but although Google and Youtube are required to protect your interests they are not required to give you a profitable platform. So if you have a problem with someone posting a DK album on Youtube by all means take action to have it removed, but Youtube does not have any moral obligation to cater to you and keep that material there and find a way to pay you.

Martin says:

I saw East Bay Ray at a panel at a similar conference in Berkeley which was hosted by the California Lawyers for the Arts. The EXACT same thing happened at that conference as well. Ray went on a very long rant about pirate websites and the handout of the Russian website you mention in this article was the one he had at the conference in Berkeley as well. He kept cutting people off and went on these long tangents which made the event somewhat worthless to watch beacuse he didn’t let other people speak as much. At one point, he made a reference to Hitler and the Nuremburg trials, but I don’t remember the context in which he made that statement. He clearly is passionate about music and the music business, but his lack of civility at panel discussions is shocking. I sure hope that other conferences do not invite him to speak at panels if he continues to act this way. Granted, if he can act in a more civilized matter and is able to articulate his points better (after completing the appropriate research, of course), then I would be willing to sit down and listen to what he has to say.

apauld (profile) says:

Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

Their ‘US’ store consists of 17 t-shirts, 3 patches, 1 sticker and 1 hoodie. The ‘UK’ store sells 8 different t-shirts. No music for sale at all, not CDs, records or downloads. And look at amazon if you want more nuttiness. MP3 albums of “Give me Convenience” and “Mutiny on the Bay” are price higher than the new CDs. And the new price for the “Frankenchrist” CD is $36. These are things that the band and their label could easily correct if they really wanted to do so; but I’m guessing they won’t.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

Their ‘US’ store consists of 17 t-shirts, 3 patches, 1 sticker and 1 hoodie. The ‘UK’ store sells 8 different t-shirts. No music for sale at all, not CDs, records or downloads. And look at amazon if you want more nuttiness. MP3 albums of “Give me Convenience” and “Mutiny on the Bay” are price higher than the new CDs. And the new price for the “Frankenchrist” CD is $36. These are things that the band and their label could easily correct if they really wanted to do so; but I’m guessing they won’t.

I don’t know for sure, but I do wonder if that has to do with the lawsuit that Jesse Townley mentioned above. Basically Ray and the other bandmates sued the main guy behind the DKs, Jello Biafra, over a variety of things, including ownership of the music and (bizarrely) what they claimed was his failure to promote their back catalog enough.

The website is of the new DKs (without Biafra). But, yeah, even with the legal stuff, seems silly.

apauld (profile) says:

Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

I was a rabid DK fanback in the early 80s and followed that case closely. As I recall, the other guys won conclusively; so much so that they stripped the entire catalog from Alternative Tentacles (Biafra’s label) and then licensed it out to another label (or labels), and I would think it would behoove them and the new label to have something worked out for mutual benefit. I also went back to their site a short while ago and realized that you can only stream 5 of their songs on the entire site, doesn’t seem like their trying to get even a few new fans. Unfortunately for them many of us that were fans back in the day, it just isn’t Dead Kennedys without Jello’s abrasive vocals; and thus prefer the idea of seeing his new stuff, even his spoken word shows.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

uh yeah… because it’s so hard to go to itunes to buy the bands music. you know, like the #1 music store in the world… [facepalm]

also mike, tell us why you are defending the exploitation of musicians for corporate profiteering? why not just admit this is a bad illegal practice and that there should be something done about these businesses profiting from the artists labor illegally…

really, it can’t be that hard to understand. even google get’s it (sorta).

if there’s no money in ad sponsored piracy, that’s really funny, because you know… google is tracking 200,000 domains that don’t pay artists.

I get that artist exploitation is your bag, and no one should ever question any internet company for taking advantage of artists, but let’s get real.

and finally, saying that YouTube created revenue streams that didn’t exist could also be said of Compact Discs, Itunes, and anything else. the problem is, youtube didn’t create those revenue streams for artists until they got busted ripping artists off – funny, where have I had that bit before… oh yeah, record labels.

new boss same (or worse) than the old boss, again…

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

As always, spouting things that are not true.

Shouldn’t you be over at your trichordist site there CastleLowery, taking screenshots of The Pirate Bay ads and blaming Google (whom we’ve already proven is NOT running ads on those sites)?

New rant same as the old rant from you!

Maybe, just maybe, if you were not so damn bitter that people trade your work rather than pay for it, and maybe they would if you gave them a reason to buy, and maybe if you didn’t attack potential customers, you wouldn’t be in the situation you are in.

You know what though? I bet if people stopped filesharing your work, completely, and likely sales would drop as a result, you’d still bitch and moan rather than do something about it.

It is your choice! Adapt or vanish in the quicksand of your own making.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

“uh yeah… because it’s so hard to go to itunes to buy the bands music. you know, like the #1 music store in the world… [facepalm]

also mike, tell us why you are defending the exploitation of musicians for corporate profiteering?”

Oh dear, another AC too stupid to understand the basic fact that people streaming through YouTube and people buying music are not the same market. Plus, that the former may well be people who have already bought the album and are actually giving additional money the band wouldn’t otherwise have.

Why don’t you stop spouting complete bullshit and listen to the arguments actually being made rather than lying and name calling?

“ripping artists off….record labels.”

Yes, there’s many documented cases of record labels ripping artists off. A shame you never realise that in your rabid defence of them against their own customers.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

also mike, tell us why you are defending the exploitation of musicians for corporate profiteering?

He will, as soon as you tell us when you stopped beating your wife.

if there’s no money in ad sponsored piracy, that’s really funny, because you know… google is tracking 200,000 domains that don’t pay artists.

Google is tracking far more than 200,000 domains that don’t pay artists. For example, State Farm probably doesn’t pay a dime in royalties to ASCAP. How dare they!!!

…Unless you mean they’re somehow “tracking” 200,000 “pirate sites.” In which case, I call bullshit.

saying that YouTube created revenue streams that didn’t exist could also be said of Compact Discs, Itunes, and anything else.

Not really, because YouTube’s ContentID is a completely different revenue stream than the ones you mentioned, which rely on selling copies of the music.

But even if you disagree, then so what? Are you also saying that the Compact Disc, iTunes, and “anything else” forced 12,000 musicians out of work, like East Bay Ray did? …Wait, you probably are.

the problem is, youtube didn’t create those revenue streams for artists until they got busted ripping artists off

YouTube never “got busted ripping artists off.” To be sure, ContentID eased tensions between Google and rightsholders, and that’s partially why they spent millions and millions of dollars developing it, even though no law says they had to. (Not a dime of those development costs was paid for by rightsholders, the fucking freetards.) But saying they only did it because they “got busted” is pure hogwash.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

You are probably the dumbest pirate that posts here, and that’s saying a lot.

1. Google ITSELF listed over 200,000 domains that use ads to profit from infringing works.

2. YouTube DID get busted for ripping off artists; they were sued by Viacom in an open and shut case that was screwed up by a questionable judge and is currently in the appeals process.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Has anyone else looked at the Dead Kennedys website?

“You are (a) pirate”

Citation needed

“1. Google ITSELF…”

Citation needed

“2. YouTube DID get busted… is currently in the appeals process.”

A lie exposed by your very next sentence – a.k.a. “Waaah! Reality doesn’t fit my assumptions again!”

So, 3 claims, none of them supported by reality, one only making sense if you assume that the judge “screwed up” by delivering a verdict other than the one you wanted (in a case where Viacom were accusing YouTube of pirating things they gave specific permission to be distributed, no less).

You’re constantly pathetic, glad to see things aren’t changing.

This isn't a name says:

“Rennie pushed back on some of Ray’s claims, and Ray just went on something of a rampage, comparing internet sites to companies that exploited child labor in the past.”

Funny that Ray would make that comparison when he was more than happy to line his own pockets with money made from sweatshop labor when Levi’s wanted to use ‘Holiday in Cambodia’ in an ad.

East Bay Raytarded says:

Is it just me or does PaulT sound strikingly similar to EBR

I know this thread has been dead for a while but I decided to revisit it after hearing that the Dead Kennedys will be playing Rockfest in Montebello this year. Couldn’t remember if these ridiculous ramblings by a washed out piece of shit former punk were real or just a bad dream.

Fuck its real. Well not much I can say that hasn’t already been said so here’s just a couple of my thoughts on the matter.

I started listening to the Dead Kennedys as a young impressionable punk in about 1990. I loved the band instantly and though I’ve never seen them play live I did go out and buy all their albums (some of which I own on Vinyl, Cassette and CD). It was a time before the internet so I had to buy albums I wanted to listen to. In fact I had an insane collection of music (especially of the punk type) and though I’m still quite proud of it I have no idea where any of it is hiding now. I’ve moved to many times and I can only assume its in a bunch of unmarked boxes which are collecting dust in my parents basement (about 1800km from me right now). So ya I’ll play songs on youtube and I’ve even been known to download a few albums of “pirating sites”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no saint. I have downloaded some stuff I don’t own but most of that un-owned material is from bands I didn’t know about before. The internet has served as a great social medium for new bands and for rediscovering old bands you might have missed hearing about as a kid.

Now that I got most of that long story out of me I’ll just skip to the bottom line. I only listen to bands I respect and I respect bands who will play the shit they love and sign about what they believe in. If I like what they’re saying and the music hits home with me then I’m happy. Now I’ll support these bands anyway I can (within my means). If that means going to a show, buying merch, or giving the band a place to sleep and have a few beers then I’ll do it but lets face it nobody got into punk to make money haha. Hey bonus if you can carve out a living for yourself or even make a pretty penny at that but I wasn’t so lucky (and I never expected to be) but I had a shit ton of fun and made a lot of good friends along the way.

So in the end sorry East Bay Ray and the dead kennedys I just don’t respect you anymore. You sold out who you were to try and scrape a few more $$ from shit you wrote over 30 years ago (which has its place in nostalgia but has lost a lot of its relevance in our current day and age). So I beg of you, do us all favour and fuck off. I don’t care where really just leave the scene so we can remember who you were and not what you became. Thanks.

P.S. Here’s some free advice. If you want to stimulate sales and interest in your band again then write new shit. If its good (or regurgitated shit) people will more then likely buy it. Haha to be honest though considering your actions in the last couple decades this might be a forgotten talent so just go with the status quo and release a few more live albums nobody cares about you fucking lazy fucks lol.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...