AfterDawn: News

Piracy figures used to increase profitability for record labels

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

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



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

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

Source:
TorrentFreak

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 19 Sep 2007 14:05

• Previous article

• IFPI shuts down six eDonkey servers

• Next article

• NBC will offer downloadable TV shows

• 16 comments

• dude845

  They are absolute morons..

  19.9.2007 16:34 #1

• Martone10

  WTF these guys are a**holes i cant believe they make a big fuss about piracy but then they turn around and use it to choose the next hit single for an artist then they will sue you for downloading songs this may be the smartest thing ive ever heard

  19.9.2007 17:26 #2

• Pop_Smith

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

  19.9.2007 17:55 #3

• webe123

  It seems as if the RIAA is taking a "if you can't beat 'em..... Join 'EM" approach Now if they can just get out of the dark ages thinking that suing people is going to help their cause.....

  19.9.2007 18:28 #4

• hughjars

  Of course they're just hypocritical, cynical, spiteful, short-sighted ba*tards being totally fake to the truth,
  sharing generates sales that would otherwise never be made.
  
  (personally I think much of this 'piracy noise' is just a con for dopey shareholders & politicians/legislators they think believe their 'otherwise we would have made trillions!' cr@p)
  
  The whole point here is - or ought to be - wrapped up in the parts sharing can't give you, the 'added value' that comes with the full retail package......but of course that implies they actually have to shift their bloated idle a$$es and be bothered about and make the effort to release an attractive value product in the 1st place.
  
  There are numerous examples in my own collection where I have d/l'ed the ripped version of something and then bought the retail version on the back of that to get full Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 audio etc etc.
  
  I know I am far from alone in this.

  20.9.2007 02:53 #5

• runar

  absofuckinglutely brilliant thinking :D

  20.9.2007 03:13 #6

• emugamer

  Originally posted by hughjars: There are numerous examples in my own collection where I have d/l'ed the ripped version of something and then bought the retail version on the back of that to get full Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 audio etc etc.
  
  I know I am far from alone in this.Same here.

  20.9.2007 08:00 #7

• SProdigy

  Originally posted by hughjars: There are numerous examples in my own collection where I have d/l'ed the ripped version of something and then bought the retail version on the back of that to get full Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 audio etc etc.
  
  I know I am far from alone in this.Indeed my friend. Indeed.
  
  I refuse to buy something that is absolute crap. Maybe monitoring P2P "buzz" on some of these artists can help them effectively put less crap. Then again, they are being hypocrites about this whole concept in the first place.

  20.9.2007 08:23 #8

• DVDdoug

  It seems quite logical to me. If a song is poplular on P2P, it's probably going to be popular in general. Since they are monitoring P2P traffic anyway, why not maximize use of the data?

  20.9.2007 10:45 #9

• MightyOne

  Sounds logical to do.
  
  If nobody wants it for FREE, then why would they want to pay for it !
  
  It would be nice if "THEY" at least stopped with the BS. If the time ever comes that "THEY" decide to tell the truth about something and come clean...nobody will believe them. They cried "wolf" too many times.

  20.9.2007 12:42 #10

• redux79

  While random people are being sued for shock value, record label’s are spying on the same p2p streams to figure out which bubble gum pop single to release next. The mpaa is going to make my head explode!!!

  20.9.2007 13:39 #11

• SuomiP

  How to block MD
  
  "MediaDefender is a kind of the criminal organization which acts by the support and money of international media companies.
  
  For your protection:
  1) Download
  
  http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3812404/Medi...or_PeerGuardian
  
  2) Unpack.
  3) Add this list to your Peer Guardian 2 program."

  21.9.2007 00:55 #12

• maitland

  I think this is great news. This is exactly what media companies should do. They will never stop piracy, but if they are able to use it to their advantage, everyone wins.
  
  
  ~Maitland

  22.9.2007 15:35 #13

• JAYMES71

  Just three words:
  
  NEW WORLD ORDER
  
  'nuff said. Asshole RIAA, MPAA and all other hypocrappers.

  22.9.2007 15:51 #14

• militantm

  does anybody actucally think "they" want any of this to stop? at this point the industry can't survive without it. they don't want you stop dui or speeding in your car, it's all profit to them, they don't care if your a freaking turnip, their gonna get their blood somehow. if they have to break a couple eggs to make an omlet so be it. it's all about their bottom line, it's all a free advertisement and profit. they don't want you to think they look at it that way but the reality is they actually do. here's a for instance, right now I'm watching Van Halen tour rehearsals on the web. do you actually think they would allow that to leak if they didn't want it to? they're trying to create a buzz, good or bad in this case, vip tix are $1000 and $500 and they don't even tell you what seat your getting. onsale to public is $125, they gotta move those seats, so they have crate a motivation to get the working class to spend that kinda money. those are the dollars they're looking for. the fat cats are few and far between, the working class make up the majority no matter what they would have you believe.

  23.9.2007 06:50 #15

• borhan9

  This is the way they should see technology as a plus not as a minus due to the fact that they can gage popularity is a plus for them at a minimum cost.

  28.9.2007 04:08 #16