Blog Torrent: Downhill Battle Interview 224
scubacuda writes "In this GrepLaw interview, Downhill
Battle's Nicholas Reville describes the success (and takedown) of SP2Torrent.com,
alternative ways to buy music, what indie musicians think about filesharing,
and real ways to counter threats to creativity and an open culture. Those excited
about the possibilities of Bittorrent
will especially appreciate Downhill Battle's Blog
Torrent, an easy-to-install program that will dramatically simplify the
creation, posting, and seeding of new torrents."
huh? (Score:5, Funny)
buy?
Keep music live (Score:3, Insightful)
Live performances are the only way to ensure that the artist gets both the money and recognition they deserve. Sadly the art of the live performance, barring a few notable exceptions, is one that's been foreign for mosts of todays 'artists'.
All I can say is that if you like a particular band or singer then
Re: Live music isn't for everyone (Score:2)
I sometimes download different copies of a song, and compare those to find out what
Re:Keep music live (Score:3, Insightful)
I enjoy REM (or any number of other bands). I have no desire to go to a concert (anymore).
I enjoy Mike Oldfields' stuff. Quite a lot of it does not transfer well into a live performance.
I'd consider going to a Rolling Stones performance, if the tickets weren't sold out in the first 30 minutes, making it impossible except for the people who camp out in line for 3 days prior.
Not all types of music and artists lend the
Re:Keep music live (Score:2)
Strawberry fields forever.
Re:Keep music live (Score:2)
What an elitist attitude. "The way music was intended?" I think that the thousands of artists who never perform their music live would disagree with your assessment that music is "intended" (whatever that means) to be live. If you put together a song with a synthesizer at home, is it not music?
Those who want to attend concerts should compensate the artist for performing the music for them. Those who would like a CD, or an MP3, or other record
Re:Keep music live (Score:2)
Not all music was intended to be live. I make some music (sucks still, so no link), but I could not play it live -- that's just the nature of the stuff I do. I'm not a musician, unless you can call a PC a musical instrument, but I am still making music that is intended to be heard prerecorded.
Think Electronica. Usually not the best live stuff (although there are numerous exceptions).
Re:MOD PARENT +5 INSIGHTFUL (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT +5 INSIGHTFUL (Score:2)
Re:People shouldnt buy music (Score:2)
Re:People shouldnt buy music (Score:3, Interesting)
The original artists get no royalty from this music. Indeed, they're dead. So anyone can take this music and perform it, and sell it. Take an orchestra playing a complex symphony, for example. If you want the music to sound like the composer intended, you need excellent musicians, and a master conductor. The conductor is very important not the least because in many pieces of music, there are written notes left by the compos
Re:People shouldnt buy music (Score:2)
Music & royalties
Bandshell rental
Conductor's fee
Musicians
I have seriously wondered about this. Are these costs reasonable or typical? I am 100% serious here.
If I ever get a really big payout from some stock (heh!), one of my fantasy wish items would be to use some portion of it (say, $50k to $100k) to pay an orchestra to perform as many Beethoven symphonies as I could afford and OWN 100% of every possible copyright to
Re:People shouldnt buy music (Score:2)
Another reason amateur music should be factored out of discussions like this is because hobby music is just that: a hobby. I don't think I have one song by a hobby band, and I certainly don't think I paid for one. If I found a hobby band that was good and also didn'
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FCC regulating the Internet soon??? (Score:2)
Re:FCC regulating the Internet soon??? (Score:2)
And with out the 4th you cant protect your 2nd...etc etc...
Just because my sig is about #2, doesnt mean the other 9 are not as important to me.. They are... And they are all under attack..
Re:FCC regulating the Internet soon??? (Score:2)
Forget p2p and torrents (Score:4, Insightful)
In a few years that Gigabytes will become Terabytes. When one person can have a copy of nearly all music in existence, they will never spend a dime on it. It's too late. Content producers are fucked. Only niche markets will survive.
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Of course.
It's part of the RIAA modifications to math. I think there's a bill working it's way through congress right now. Essentially, all mathematical functions f(a1,
I think your parent poster had access to drafts of the bill.
-Laxitive
WTF ? 5 + 2 = 8 ?!? (Score:2)
--LordPixie
Re:WTF ? 5 + 2 = 8 ?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:WTF ? 5 + 2 = 8 ?!? (Score:2)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2, Insightful)
Example: I have 30gb of music. One of my good friends has 40gb music. When we link up, does that give us 70gb music each? Of course not. About 50% of the albums we have are the same, and it ends up we only pull about 3gb maximum from each other, simply because it's all that interests you that you don't already have.
Lost revenue isn't an album you download. It's an album you download inst
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:5, Funny)
However, in RIAA math that will be 16Gigs of stolen music (taking your latter figure), which is really the equivilent of 832Gigs of stolen music resulting damages of more dollars than there are fundamental particles in the universe.
But the RIAA will settle for whatever they've got in their piggy banks and a public service announcement that they were evil hackers, which is just plain wrong.
KFG
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Bon Jovi and his people had the idea with their last album that came out, you could use the unique code that came with it to get a discount on the current tour and merchandise... and something completely exclusive, but I cant remember what that was.
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the content producers. What about the content CREATORS? Your statement only applies if there is no new content coming into the system. If people don't keep paying for the same content, there's more money to go toward NEW content. More money available,
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
2+5 != 8
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Forget p2p and torrents (Score:2)
Music and movies aside... (Score:5, Interesting)
PLUG: Here's the beginnings of a Ruby BT library [rubyforge.org]. Just parses the metainfo file for now, but it's a start...
Let's not get defensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get defensive (Score:2, Interesting)
Fucking dump the RIAA and their music. Do not support iTMS, do not support music store sales of garbage CDs, and certainly do not support any radio station that plays their bullshit for money.
Support FREEDOM of music. FurthurNET [furthurnet.com] and various other sources. You might be surprised who you see on that list...
Re:Let's not get defensive (Score:2)
I don't have to legitimatize P2P and BitTorrent. The circuit court already did that.
People here preach about the horrific wonders of Firefox. I might as well preach about the terrific wonders of freedom of music.
BitTorrent is nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BitTorrent is nice. (Score:2)
The next step would be some sort of UDP beaconing system, where clients periodically "ping" a beacon saying they want updates pushed to them, and the server will periodically "beacon" with the latest available content of a given type until a TTL ex
konspire2b (Score:3, Informative)
Re:BitTorrent is nice. (Score:4, Funny)
Holy fuck.
Re:BitTorrent is nice. (Score:2)
Re:BitTorrent is nice. (Score:3, Informative)
I personally use the client Azureus (which works on Linux as well as others), with the RSSFeed [sourceforge.net] plugin. It works very well.
Re:BitTorrent is nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to do this in a decentralised manner? Tricky. You end up having to subscribe to a hub, so that when the hub gets notified of a change, it notifies you. In turn, the hub subscribes to another hub, etc, until you reach the original source of the file. Whenever the file changes, the notifications would
Example Bitorrent/RSS Feed (Score:4, Interesting)
It has saved me a lot of bandwidth, because now people are leaving their bittorrent clients open longer (due to the automated downloads leading them to passively leave their downloader open).
Here is a link: http://bigelow-springs.net/airamerica/
Re:Example Bitorrent/RSS Feed (Score:3, Interesting)
As it is, I serve up hundreds of bittorrents a day. Unfortunately, because most of the downloads are not concurent, my bittorrent seeds (hence my bandwidth) are doing most of the work. I need more people that not only download the bittorrents, but then actually leave their downloadres open. Here is a better link:
bigelow-springs.net/airamerica/ [bigelow-springs.net]
Buy music, no thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
http://bt.etree.org
Excellent legit application of p2p to distribute legal music.
I have been filling up dvds left and right once i found out i like a lot of those bands.
I wont buy music from any RIAA member, except bands that allow legal trading of their music. that is kind of a toss up. do i support the band that "gets it", and support the industry heads that dont.
well i dont even download RIAA members music anymore. but i am not buying it either, guess i must be a pirate, hurting their sales.
so they can assume all they want that i am a pirate because i am not buying their trash, my conscience is clean.
my suggestion -from a musician (Score:4, Interesting)
We should start a govt run program, much like Social Security, only one that isn't a joke. It would work like this:
You're a musician- you get paid by the Artist Living Payment Option. A nationwide program that uses taxes and donations in order to merely pay for distribution, and pay royalties to the artists. Payments from ALPO would be contingent upon number of releases, how current last release, and popularity (based on distribution systems numbers). An algorithm would use these variables to give a somehwat fair distribution of monies alloted/gathered. Distribution? Anywhere wifi can be set up. Which is everywhere, now. Keyosks are set up to have a digital display of songs list.. you pick and choose like a juke box.. create your login name and password.. and log your computer, or wifi IPOD, or whatever to the system and download the songs for free. You want a CD or dont have a computer type thingy? Pay 5 bucks for the hard copy.
Kinda like shareware.. only I think the govt funding the arts a bit more would benefit the creativity of its future citizens (think children).
anyway..
it will never happen. All we'll get as musicians is alpo. Not ALPO.
pm
Re:my suggestion -from a musician (Score:5, Funny)
Re:my suggestion -from a musician (Score:2)
Re:my suggestion -from a musician (Score:2)
The day my taxes go to Yanni is the day I start setting towns on fire.
Re:my suggestion -from a musician (Score:2)
Re:my suggestion -from a musician (Score:2)
Re:my suggestion -from a musician (Score:2)
Yeah, they have something like that in Cuba already. It's no surprise to me that people are literally jumping off that island into homemade rafts in attempt to float across shark-infested waters to Florida.
minor hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't help the cause that their google ads are 4 or 5 variations on the theme of:
Download Unlimited MP3s,
Music, CDs Movies, Games,
Software and More!
Geez...
Re:minor hypocrisy (Score:3, Informative)
Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
There have been business models, but the problem is that in order to get any exposure, you have to ta
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
That statement could adequetly go in almost any thread on slashdot.
I wish you the best with your efforts but don't expect too many reasonable discussions here.
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
The distribution companies OWES us reasonable access to reasonable amounts of copyrighted materal at reasonable rates. I found iTunes to be quite reasonable, and millions of paid-for and downloaded songs back up my position.
If a company chooses to ignore demand, in our capitalist country what right do they have to throw laws around to prevent their inevitable demise?
Re:Downhill Battle lost all credibility with me... (Score:2)
It would be one thing if they marched in front of the store with signs, or put bumber stickers on their car, or put flyers on cars in the parking lot, or handed out pamphlets, but to actively go in and physically deface property that is not theirs, regardless of their "moral high ground", is wrong.
Welcome to the MTV "Bam" generation.
Executable wrappers? (Score:5, Insightful)
"One good way to do this [avoid excluding a large portion of users] is to attach torrent files to an executable client."
Directing unsophisticated users to download custom EXEs from any random site offering big media they want would be a dangerous step backwards, encouraging a very unsafe practice that's likely to get their machines infected with various kinds of malware, sooner or later.
I'd suggest instead improving the installers of well-respected BT clients, and encouraging users to get them from well-known sites.
It loses a little in terms of instant gratification, butbut is instant gratification worth it if it also risks instant victimization?
Re:People (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. It's music, movies, books, art, science, ... . It's our entire culture that large corporations want to own and commodify.
Hey, it's only fucking music, why are we getting this worked up over it?
I don't know, why are you getting all worked up?
Re:People (Score:2)
because he doesn't like music. it's a lack of empathy. Personally, i love the stuff, and couldn't do without it.
Re:People (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that none of them had any right to do so. There is no such thing as "creating" anything from scratch, all of the jerks who believe in copyrights build upon the works of others. Scientists needs thousads of workers in the field who went before them to get to the point where they can formulate their theory. Musicians rip everything off from the ones who came before and thrive on small variations on those themes. Ditto for movies. Etc etc. I dont know when people will get it through their thick skulls that in order to "create" something, one draws upon of millennia of progress of human race and efforts of countless generations who went before. Those who claim they "own" their ideas are just selfish jerks, akin to bandits who go out and take over some land and then claim it to be "owned" by them. It wasnt theirs in the first place, they just happened to wander onto it and then proceeded to shoot anyone who came near.
Re:People (Score:2)
Think again.
Typical slashdot "teenagers claiming to understand law"... however, if you're someone looking to bring the F/OSS community into disrepute, feel free to cite this thread - it's sitting there, begging for you to take it.
Re:People (Score:2)
Unlike you, dumbass AC, I contribute to many GPLed projects and do not give a fuck if people use my work. Actually more useful it is for them the better, I feel like I achieved something. Not everyone who creates things has selfish, thieving attitude. So much for your pet theory, idiot.
Re:People (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I contribute under an alias and the only thing I care for is that someone does not mess things up and claim it was me. If they take credit, well, that just relfects badly on them not me, and I dont really care. I
Re:People (Score:2)
I am afraid it is you who misundersttood. GPL (athough it is technically a license - item related to copyrights) is a way to fight the system from within. It has to be that way because as long as copyrights exsist, releasing anything without a "license" is an invitation for people who do use copyrights t
Re:People (Score:2)
Well, that's not inconsistent with his statements. He said that he uses it to prevent problems with copyright monkeys. He is using their system against them.
If you were really against copyrigh
Re:People (Score:2)
Err.. that was supposed to read: "will exist long after they are gone"
Re:People (Score:2)
That authority is unnecessary if copyrights do not exist. If taking credit was all that was at stake, a different law would exist, dealing with attributions (not that it would be wise , people would claim 2 pixels in your picture were not attributed etc). Copyright is specifically designed to prevent others from selling your work and at the same time allowing you
Re:People (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? Why do you think they want to shut down p2p networks? They're not stupid; they know downloads help their sales.
They shut them down precisely to keep musicians from releasing our own music for all to share. That is what really scares them: not "piracy" but the fact that people like me are able to get exposure for our music without going through their tollbooth.
We don't need music middle-men anymore. We don't need A&R execs telling us what's good enough for us to hear anymore. We don't need million-dollar studios to produce studio-quality audio anymore. The music industry is an industry that no longer has a purpose. Let the artists create and try to sell their stuff and get famous. I don't need someone between me and the musician anymore.
Re:People (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, primates sang long before we spoke, and "music for the masses" was precisely what music was for most of human history.
In fact, the idea that music has monetary value is a very recent aberration from the normal way humans have treated music for millenia.
You know how Mozart got famous in Vienna? He visted the Vatican, heard Allegri's Miserere Mei once (it's about 20 minutes long), and wrote out from memory all of the music to it when he got back so the Vienna choir could sing it. He also changed a few things he didn't like about it.
That's how music used to be: people sang, people played, people listened. When they heard something they liked, they took it; when they heard something they thought they could improve, they improved it. This whole notion that an artist, or worse yet, a publisher, "owns" music is a novelty and, hopefully, won't last too long.
Under the modern copyright system, Mozart could not have written half of his symphonies and almost none of his chamber music or operas. Ditto Haydn, and much more so Beethoven. And Bach... well, Bach pretty much wouldn't have a portfolio left except maybe a few keyboard pieces. Composers "pirated" each other rampantly, and the result was some of the greatest art mankind ever saw.
Hmmm... how many great composers have we had since music publishers started inventing this idea that they "own" music? Can anybody think of one? John Tesh? Andrew Lloyd Webber? That's the tone-deaf crap we're left with when we all buy in to the lie that it's "just music" and that copying other musicians is "theft".
Why should a musician, much less a publisher, have a "right" to make money selling a license to hear their music? I say, kill all copy restrictions on music. Let those who are in it for the quick buck get forced out when it's not profitable anymore and leave making music to those of us who do it because we love it. People will keep making great music: they did for thousands of years before they started charging money for it. They'll keep doing it.
Re:People (Score:2)
I agree with your point, by the way. Just because the Vatican kept some of it's music under tight control doesn't mean that practice was widespread.
Re:People (Score:3, Interesting)
You're giving the impression that much of western music was created "for the masses". Honestly, from the renaissance period forward most composers and musicians did work for pay. Bach would not have produced the body of work he did if he was not under the employ of the Catholic Church. The only major composer I can think of who produced a body of work without it being a source of income is an American, Charles Ives. (He was an insurance salesman, and none of his music was publi
Re:People (Score:2)
Gee... a little ticked that people aren't buying your CD's? I don't know what to tell you; I only cleared $2k on cd sales in the past year but made a lot on gigs.
Relax. It's not our music. We make it; we don't own it. Realizing that helps a lot.
Re:People (Score:2)
OTOH, if the passion to make music exists despite the lack of money, then stop whinging about the money.
Re:People (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:People (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzt, wrongo. Who made you quit your job and join the band? Why is it a belief of any retard out there that art is money making proprosition? Ever considred that a band is just a bunch of people who got together for the purpose of making a "killing" on something that is a scam in the first place? Mozart created art. Your idiot band creates derrivative noise at best. And yet it is you and your half-wit pals who dream millions, 50 foot yachts an
Re:People (Score:2)
Herein lies your problem. I am sorry but you have been sold an unlikely if not impossible dream. I would like to make a living being a sex god, surrounded by wanting vixens, but chances of that are.. well ...lets say "remote". The fact is that art (music in this case) is a form of expression and while some artists might get lucky and make some money, most wont. You could try to start a shop and see if there is enough hobbyists out there to make it worthwile but counting
Re:People (Score:2)
OK, to pull this back on topic, can you really say with a straight face that people copying MP3's of music you've recorded is somehow keeping you from getting enough money to keep playing music?
Re:People (Score:2)
Sure, if you can do it and it pays, do it. None of us advocates of abolishment of copyrights have anything against it. I have no problem with you getting paid by concert goers for your effort. What I have a problem with is you trying to own information. As in putting legal restrictions on vibrations of air and strings of numbers because they happen to be a representation of your "music". If people like what they see and
Re:People (Score:2)
Whoever moderated these comments flamebait are facist pigs!
you want to know the economics of touring read these articles [tygerstudios.com]by a band that I think was/would be quite popular amoung the /. crowd. Then use your brain and do a little math and think of your favorite obscure band (think TMBG in 1988, remember these guys went years playing to venue where 20 people showed up)
Re:People (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:People (Score:2)
Sigh... Totally irellevant. This is a great example of people not being able to distinguish cause from effect. It is not copyright that drives progress...it is free exchange of information. Progress accelerated because unlike in previous times, vast amounts of information became easilly available through libaries and scientific yournals
Re:People (Score:2)
Err.. those were not the one in the driving seat of the revolution. Besides even an illiterate mehcanically inclined person can come up with some improvements on a machine he operates. So mere contact with science is also an accelerant. Imagine what would happen if he could not learn from the workings of a machine, reverse "engineer" it so to speak... oh wait.
Re:People (Score:2)
I didnt just use a correlation. I used a cause-effect link. It should be obvious that enabling wide spread education and flow of information would increase number of people able to create while restricting the same flow would reduce the pool of creators. It is called logic. Merely putting together two things that happened at the same
Re:People (Score:2)
And this a very mechanism for slowing down progress. If one has to cough up money to see your "idea", he cannot base his new idea on your old one unless he has enough dough, can he? If everybody does it, noone can afford to learn beyond a few small affordable cases. Unrestricted flow of information is conductive to more people being able to learn and thus contribute. Your
Re:People (Score:2)
See the big picture (Score:2)
Dont loose sight of the goals.. And if we lose this fight, the next one becomes even harder.