Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Movies Music Stats Entertainment

Music Doesn't Feature In the Pirate Bay's Top 100 Biggest Torrents 196

journovampire writes Good news for the industry's anti-piracy efforts? Or rather embarrassing for music's appeal in the big, wide world? No single music release features in the Top 100 most-torrented files. From the article: "MBW has analysed TPB’s Top 100 most-pirated files in the 48 hours since its re-emergence. And although you’ll find plenty of movies and a smattering of porn in there, you won’t see a single music release. The Top 4 most-pirated files over the weekend were all movies, led by new Jason Statham vehicle Wild Card. It was followed by three more Hollywood releases – The Interview, American Sniper and Nightcrawler."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Doesn't Feature In the Pirate Bay's Top 100 Biggest Torrents

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:26AM (#48958495)

    You can find it on YouTube or Spotify, to name but two sources. Full-length movies are harder to come by in this fashion.

    • by sudon't ( 580652 )

      Right. I've never torrented music. There are easier ways to get it, where you're going to find a much better selection.

  • More proof (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:27AM (#48958501)

    Current music sucks so bad Pirates don't even want it.

    • Some albums are so bad I rate them as "waste of bandwidth".

    • Current music sucks so bad Pirates don't even want it.

      Rather odd we're even worried about piracy anyway when likely every single one of the top 100 songs is also posted on YouTube, in full streaming HD audio and video.

      Not to mention free streaming services that usually cater to top 100 lists that you simply build personal playlists with.

      Seems the contracted and accepted delivery of content these days will soon force this piracy conversation into a non-starter.

      • Re:More proof (Score:5, Informative)

        by aitikin ( 909209 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:42AM (#48958697)

        Rather odd we're even worried about piracy anyway when likely every single one of the top 100 songs is also posted on YouTube, in full streaming HD audio and video.

        You clearly do not know what HD audio is, YouTube doesn't even qualify as decent audio. Very good explanation from an audio engineer (ironically, found on youtube) is right here [youtube.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That guy worked on some really "decent" stuff in his life: Death Magnetic (Metallica), 13 (Black Sabbath), Stadium Arcadium (Red Hot Chili Peppers). I think the loudness on those 3 albums is much worse than a low bitrate from a Youtube stream.

          • by dj245 ( 732906 )

            That guy worked on some really "decent" stuff in his life: Death Magnetic (Metallica), 13 (Black Sabbath), Stadium Arcadium (Red Hot Chili Peppers). I think the loudness on those 3 albums is much worse than a low bitrate from a Youtube stream.

            I have a friend who is an audio engineer. Sound engineers perform a service for a fee. That service often includes advice, but at the end of the day, they take their instructions from the person paying the fee. My friend has done a lot of editing that he didn't agree with, but if he put up too much of a fuss, he would be seen as "disagreeable", gain a reputation as someone difficult to work with, and he wouldn't be able to buy groceries. His views on audio change dramatically depending on who is the aud

        • Youtube sound might not be audiophile-quality, but we're talking about top 100 songs, which are 100% garbage. Means no audiophile's touching any of those songs with a 10-foot pole.
          therefore your point is moot :)

          • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:21AM (#48959081)

            Youtube sound might not be audiophile-quality, but we're talking about top 100 songs, which are 100% garbage. Means no audiophile's touching any of those songs with a 10-foot pole. therefore your point is moot :)

            Ah, but only if the point could be mute...it would make top 100 listening so much more tolerable :)

        • Rather odd we're even worried about piracy anyway when likely every single one of the top 100 songs is also posted on YouTube, in full streaming HD audio and video.

          You clearly do not know what HD audio is, YouTube doesn't even qualify as decent audio. Very good explanation from an audio engineer (ironically, found on youtube) is right here [youtube.com]

          Being a bit of an audiophile myself, yes I'm well aware of what true HD audio is.

          That said, let me remind you that 99.999% of YouTube viewers don't, and more importantly could care less, hence the reason they don't mind listening to streaming music online via YouTube or anywhere else. If it says 720 or 1080, it's "HD" to pretty much everyone, including the audio. I was merely making the point about HD to show that the artists themselves certainly aren't looking to limit or restrict the quality of music th

          • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            That said, let me remind you that 99.999% of YouTube viewers don't, and more importantly could care less

            This is actually quite important, because YouTube itself can play the audio wrong. Depending on how it plays, you can get sample rate issues - i.e., the audio is 44.1kHz, but YouTube plays it back at 48khz. Not that much of a difference, other than music gets pitched up.

            For most people, you won't actually notice, but if you have a better ear (musician, for example) you can hear that the pitch of the note

        • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

          99% of the crap released is NOT HD AUDIO. In fact 100% of the top 100 are mastered by no talent hacks crushing the soul out of the music if it ever had one to begin with.

          Yes I am calling the Experts that mastered the top 100 songs out right now NO TALENT HACKS. if they mastered it that compressed, then they dont deserve any respect at all from anyone.

          Stand your ground and tell the executives that they are stupid and mix it right.

          • Yes I am calling the Experts that mastered the top 100 songs out right now NO TALENT HACKS. if they mastered it that compressed, then they dont deserve any respect at all from anyone.

            You do what the people paying the bills tell you to do. The people who pay the bills care about sales. If quality gets sales (it doesn't) then they'll demand quality. Otherwise they'll do what moves more product. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the competence or lack thereof of audio engineers.

            Stand your ground and tell the executives that they are stupid and mix it right.

            Big talk from someone posting semi-anonymously on the internet. Do you make a habit of being insubordinate to the people that sign your paychecks? If so then you are going to get fired a lot I'm afraid.

        • Re:More proof (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:29AM (#48959163)

          You clearly do not know what HD audio is

          My primary listening environments:
          1. Earbuds (CX 150) plugged into Moto G.
          2. Car
          3. Speakers connected by some asshole to about 70 ft of phone wire. ("Hey, 4 conductors! This will work great!")
          4. Laptop speakers.
          5. $100 Boston Acoustics computer speakers w/ sub.

          Yeah, YouTube SD is pretty terrible - but the YouTube HD (which is what the GP was talking about) is just fine for those use cases.

          • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
            That third one sounds like a bit of a fire hazard depending on the amp.
            • The amp is a wimpy little 30W/channel RMS. I'd be surprised if the 30 gauge or whatever wire in the speaker winding didn't burn up first. I'm pretty sure the phone wire is 22 gauge.

        • by Enry ( 630 )

          I'm watching this now and I've been following digital music for almost 20 years so I'm fairly certain where he's going with this. But given engineers like him gave us the loudness wars and ruined music for most of a generation (and screwed up music from past generations), his opinions on what is 'HD quality' is a bit suspect.

        • It is a shame that the audio industry went to the lowest common denominator of youtube while the movie industry made the latest greatest advances in audio in recent years. Does any of the following ring a bell? Too bad this is not from the audio experts.

          THX
          5.1
          7.1

          Movies are where the good sound is. Uncompressed, high fideliety, etc. The good sound system in the home is the home theater.

          • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

            my good sound system is connected through my laptop. Don't laugh, it's good enough for me when I can listen to an orchestral piece and hear the C8 triangle as well as the deepest rumbling C1 on a pipe organ. I said hear, not feel it vibrating through my arse. Sounds even better through my headphones (dunno what make they are, they're badged "Angle & Curve" and were a freebie with a mobile phone about 5 years ago).

        • ... YouTube doesn't even qualify as decent audio.

          Picking an arbitrary list of 10 "top of the pop" songs,
          youtube-dl reports that one is "only" 128kbps @ 44,100 Hz, and the other nine are available at 256kbps @ 44,100 Hz.

          You may not accept that as "HD", but it takes a truly warped view of the world to claim it isn't "decent".

          More to the point, the difference in quality between what you get from Youtube and the Pirate Bay is almost nil.
          I.e. it may well be crap, but it isn't youtube's fault that it's crap.

      • Re:More proof (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bobjr94 ( 1120555 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:59AM (#48958857) Homepage
        Pretty much. Our kids just listen to songs off youtube all the time on their phones, don't really care if they actually have the song stored on their device or just stream it. Kids now a days have a hard time telling the difference between local and cloud storage and playing or streaming. But youtube does not have HD audio, even their HD sized video streams still have a very low audio bandwidth, about the same audio bitrate as a typical itunes song. And the small mobile sized video streams have pretty low audio quality. But then again most people don't care. What was the joke a few years ago; $250,000 recording session, $100,000 mixing, $70,000 mastering session to a 99 cent song played though $4.99 earbuds grabbed at the market next to the gum and candy.
    • Pfft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Beerdood ( 1451859 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:33AM (#48959203)
      "+ 3 Insightful"

      Really? Has your lawn been horribly trampled by kids lately? There's so much good stuff out there I don't even know where to begin. We're in a golden era of music choice and availability. Not only do we have a plethora of different types and combinations of sounds and rhythms that are available for the mixing (mostly due to electronic music and computers), but this generation has the ability to find any music from anywhere now - thanks to the internet you can find all kinds of obscure stuff from another corner of the world. You have millions of artists to choose from anywhere now - maybe it's your perception bias making you think it's off (because when you walked into a CD / record store 20-30 years ago, they tend to carry only the best material, and you don't have to wade through crap).

      Maybe you meant to say "I don't like the top 40 stuff they constantly repeat on the radio or at sporting events or at the bars". Newsflash: every generation thinks their parents' music was lame, but my generation's music was the greatest ever, but my kids listen to complete shit. Talk to a 30-something and they'll think Pearl Jam or Nirvana were the greatest. Talk to a 60-something and they'll think Zeppelin and Queen were the greatest. Talk to a teenager now and they'll think Katy Perry or Taylor Swift are the best evar! Maybe this has to do more with the music you listed to as a teenager shaping your musical tastes (and associating good times with that music).
      • by sudon't ( 580652 )

        A sixty-something is probably gonna go with the Beatles and the Stones. But you're right, for most people, the music they were into as teenagers is what they listen to for the rest of their lives. That's because most people aren't really interested in music per se, but rather obtain a group identity by adopting whatever their peers were listening to. Later, it becomes nostalgia.

        But the truth is, most commercial music is schlock, and always has been. There have been exceptions, of course, (hmm...the Beatles

      • Talk to a teenager now and they'll think Katy Perry or Taylor Swift are the best evar!

        Pleasantly, I think this may be the generation to break that pattern. Oh, there's a lot of what you say, but I also know a lot of teenagers who listen to a wide variety of music. I think the difference is what you pointed out at the beginning of your post: We live in a golden age of music availability. Not only is basically everything recorded in the last 80 years or so easily available, but its trivial for kids today to carry huge amounts of music around with them, all the time.

        My teenage kids, for examp

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:28AM (#48958511)

    "Good news!" said Sony Music

    "Oh shit" said Sony Motion Pictures.

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      "Another billion down the tubes this quarter" -- Sony creditors.
  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:28AM (#48958519) Homepage

    plenty of movies

    its to be expected. Sitting through 20 minutes of mandatory trailer before my bluray starts actually playing the movie i paid for is nothing short of a war crime.

    smattering of porn

    ew.

    but in all actuality the lack of music is likely due to spotify, soundcloud, and pandora not to mention bandcamp and the rise of unsigned, independent artists using a 'pay if you want' model. stream rips from Youtube are also popular. If you're expecting to see the top 40's in the pirate bay you're mistaken as to their purpose. Top 40 music is played 3 times a day 21 times a week for 5 months because you're being conditioned to like it. Katy perry and other artists write lyrics at the 3rd grade level not because theyre illiterate, but because their producers and writers are targeting the widest potential demographic for the song.

    • its to be expected. Sitting through 20 minutes of mandatory trailer before my bluray starts actually playing the movie i paid for is nothing short of a war crime.

      That's in addition to the increasingly intrusive product placement scattered in every single frame of a blockbuster movie these days. It got so bad in the last shitty James Bond movie I watched that I spend the first twenty minutes just counting all the Sony and Ericsson logos. By the point where they started showing products that didn't even actually exist yet, I decided to send Bond back to England and my disc back to Netflix. Now I avoid blockbusters like the plague.

    • plenty of movies

      its to be expected. Sitting through 20 minutes of mandatory trailer before my bluray starts actually playing the movie i paid for is nothing short of a war crime.

      Yup. I rip mine to mkv before watching. With a quick conversion it is also available on my AppleTV so I don't need to dig for the disk to watch it; plus all my disks and iTunes content is available in one spot and across multiple devices.

    • its to be expected. Sitting through 20 minutes of mandatory trailer before my bluray starts actually playing the movie i paid for is nothing short of a war crime.

      It's gotten to the point where I buy the blu-ray, then download the movie off TPB and toss it on my media server. I initially ripped the blu-ray myself, but after the LotR series (where each movie is on two discs) I decided it wasn't worth wasting my time doing that when someone else already had.

  • by SirAnodos ( 463311 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:36AM (#48958609)

    Could it be the music industry has adapted enough that the average joe doesn't feel the need to pirate music as much as other media?
    Yes, the adaptation certainly isn't ideal, but most of my friends now pay $9 a month (or so) and stream all their music and stream most new music. They are letting their personal music libraries slowly bit rot away as they increasingly rely on the cloud and streaming services.
    Plus most digital albums can be bought without DRM these days.
    But movies are a different story. You have to wait before you can even watch a movie in your own home, and movie media is always DRMed.

    • As much as I dislike the whole subscription thing, for music it works out if they can offer almost all the music available (apart from small local bands, and even then, why not) for $10 a month. That's less than the cost of buying a single album every month. To buy 100 albums at $15, which would constitute a decent music library, it would cost $1500 (very easy math here, consult your grade 2 teacher if you can't follow). To spend the same amount on subscription fees at $10 a month, it would take $12.5 ye
    • Pretty much nailed it there. Music is easily available through enough other sources that I don't need to pirate it to listen to the song i want. I can stream it on youtube or grooveshark and not pay anything, or just buy it for much less (easier to justify forking out a dollar for a song you can play an infinite number of number, instead of a movie you'll likely watch once), and there's no waiting period for a song once it's been released. If I want to see a movie that's out, it's easier to pirate it tha
    • by Xelios ( 822510 )
      I stopped downloading music and picked up a sub to Spotify instead simply because it's more convenient. I share the same music library on my home PC, work PC and smartphone without having to fiddle with anything. When I'm in the car I plug the smartphone into the deck and listen to the playlists that I've downloaded. Even my AV receiver at home can stream from Spotify. It all just works and I'm always stumbling across new music that I end up liking a lot.

      I've even set up a few collaborative playlists wit
    • by praxis ( 19962 )

      Streaming would be useful if it had some breadth. If I wanted to listen to what's popular, I have four good local radio stations to choose from. Most of my music listening happens from records purchased at the shop, radio and live concerts.

    • by PRMan ( 959735 )

      And ten years ago, I argued on TechDirt that people would pay $10 a month for an unlimited streaming service with everything and piracy would drop off the face of the earth. And an industry shill jumped on and told me I was full of crap, they wouldn't make any money that way and pirates would still pirate everything.

  • Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @10:51AM (#48958779) Homepage Journal

    Does music cost $20 a song and come with a 5 minute unskippable warning against piracy, and 10 minutes of unskippable trailers for other songs? But for some products if you want quality you have to pirate it. I know some people who will buy a movie to be legit/support the industry, and then pirate it because it is less trouble than the CD.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Not yet.... Sony is working on it.

    • Does music cost $20 a song and come with a 5 minute unskippable warning against piracy, and 10 minutes of unskippable trailers for other songs?

      People complained about previews on dvd's so with most blu-rays it's much easier to skip them Just hit the Top/Menu button your remote. I just did it right now on the Fury Blu-ray, hit the square button and it went right to the disc menu.

  • Why would people bother to pirate music anymore? You can use Spotify for free, and get it ad-free and even with downloads allowed for a few dollars a month. There's no point.

    Some might argue that this is a serious problem-- that the music industry is in a shambles and it's not clear this is all sustainable. Others might argue that this is evidence of where the problem was all along-- that piracy is the result of high prices and poor service, and when people are provided a cheap and convenient product, t

    • Re:Why pirate? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @12:14PM (#48959641) Homepage

      Some might argue that this is a serious problem-- that the music industry is in a shambles and it's not clear this is all sustainable. Others might argue that this is evidence of where the problem was all along-- that piracy is the result of high prices and poor service, and when people are provided a cheap and convenient product, they're often willing to pay for it in some way. Either way, I don't see much of a reason to pirate music anymore unless it's somehow unavailable through legal channels.

      The music industry has oddly enough somewhat come full circle with Spotify becoming the new middleman. Here in Norway after a dip in revenue from 2009 when it was 15% digital it's now slightly higher (601 vs 592 million NOK) in 2014 with 86% digital, of which 11% is downloads and 75% streaming. During the same period the piracy rate among people under 30 dropped from 70% to 4% of the population.

      Why do I say it's become full circle? Because once again either you accept the terms of Spotify or nobody going to hear about you. And because many people just use it as background noise for popular music creating superstars is still big business, the "long tail" doesn't get anything extra for writing music people care about so a lot of marginal artists are complaining that where they could make money selling CDs to a small but loyal following before Spotify pays them peanuts.

      I guess Spotify lowered the bar on getting your music published, since they don't run out of shelf space or air time. But I don't think it has increased the number of artists who are able to play professionally, though I'm not sure that matters. It's a bit like comparing YouTube with cable TV, maybe a whole lot of well... something beats a couple hundred channels of "professional" TV. But when I've heard friends say "Either you're on Spotify or you don't exist" somebody's holding too much power.

  • There is a LOT that is not (yet) on the recently opened TPB website. For science I looked at Pr0n(*) and found much less content then what it was before.

    So I guess they restarted with a non-complete database or even a complete new one.

    When they were looking at what is now on TPB, it could be logical that a lot of things are not there yet. Also possible that now TV shows have a lot in the top 100. Many shows often have many different torrents (with identical content) so 20 popular tv shows and a few movies c

  • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:08AM (#48958935) Journal

    Or how about the following three factors:

    1. I can buy the tracks I want for a sensible price with no DRM, so I can listen to it how and when I want.
    2. Lots of streaming services if I don't want to buy.
    3. An almost fanatical devotion to the pope.

    Basically street years of getting brutalized by pirates, the music industry wised up and started selling people what they wanted to buy rather than treating people like criminals to be milked for as much cash as possible.

    Oh that and YouTube.

    • Bingo.

      Listen up MPAA, here's the key: Make it easy for customers to give you money and receive the product they want in the time frame they want it.

      • Listen up MPAA, here's the key: Make it easy for customers to give you money and receive the product they want in the time frame they want it.

        Their current strategy is:

        Hey you paid money. Fuck you!

        Have obnoxious unskippable trailers and ads and stupid menus, and a BR player that needs to be connected to the internet and let us shout at you not to be an evil pirate, even though you paid us money you scum.

        Or there's TPB, which does none of that.

        • Have obnoxious unskippable trailers and ads

          In most cases the Blu-ray trailers/ads are EASIER to skip than those on DVD Perhaps you aren't hitting the right button. Usually hitting Menu (on a PS4 it is the [square button])will bypass everything and take you to the disc menu.

          and a BR player that needs to be connected to the internet

          For BD-Live and updates, yes.

  • I wonder what % is non-US downloaders who want to keep up on their favorite shows that have not yet reached their location? I have friends who have US/UK iTunes accounts to buy their favorite shows before they are released where they live. Does that hurt their viewership in locations where the show is reached later? Maybe, since some percentage will not watch it again but I'd bet quite a few do as well.
  • Seriously, I downloaded every bit of music I could ever want years ago and now I buy songs one at a time (mostly) through iTunes because it's easy and cheap. Music piracy in its mass-orgy like form was based on one thing. Decades of being fucked by record labels and an opportunity to fuck them right back. It was about artists or people being too cheap to buy music. It was about people who had spent money on music for years and years with no real way of backing them up. I bought music over and over again as
  • by adric22 ( 413850 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:34AM (#48959221) Homepage

    Now that I can actually own my own music downloaded legally from iTunes and play it on all of my devices, I have no reason to pirate it. But I still pirate movies and will continue until the DRM issue is resolved.

  • by Lab Rat Jason ( 2495638 ) on Monday February 02, 2015 @11:37AM (#48959247)

    This seems like a pretty bad manipulation of statistics to get the story you want... Considering the breadth of the music industry, it means there is more choice, so it stands to reason that different people with different tastes will torrent different stuff. The Movie industry on the other hand releases less than 100 blockbuster films per year... so it stands to reason that with less options to torrent, certain titles will rise to the top more quickly. This is of course based on the presumption that newer titles are more frequently torrented than older titles... but that also is a reasonable assumption given that new titles are widely advertised.

    Anyways... I'm not defending RIAA or MPAA... I think they both suck and should be shut down, but I just feel like the premise of the article is suspect.

  • by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@cor[ ]l.edu ['nel' in gap]> on Monday February 02, 2015 @12:51PM (#48960097) Homepage

    "With 1828 ‘seeders’ and just 76 ‘leechers’, True is a fair distance behind the 100th most popular torrent overall: PC game Far Cry 4, which has 1604 ‘seeders’ plus 1260 ‘leechers’."

    Keep in mind that:
    1) Once a "leecher" finishes downloading, they become a "seeder"
    2) Nearly all clients will stop being a "seeder" once a predetermined share ratio is reached

    Considering a typical music album is FAR smaller than a game (probably 100-200MB at most, depending on bitrate for encoding, vs. multiple gigabytes for a game - FC4 is over 10GB I'd guess, I can't view TPB to check from my current location), "leechers" become "seeders" far faster, and "seeders" disconnect from the torrent due to hitting the share ratio cap of the client (kTorrent defaults to 1.30 for example) far faster.

  • I think it more speaks to the diversity of content and genres. There is A LOT of music being produced all the time, the amount of new tv or movies that comes out is minuscule in comparison

  • Actual music doesn't feature in most of the RIAA's top 100 releases either.
  • It is more convenient to open youtube and what some clip. Music companies, adapt to this new world or get lost.
  • For $9 a month on google music, spotify, or several other services, I can listen to pretty much any song I want, new releases are instantly available, and I can download songs for offline listening. I pay $18 a month for Hulu Plus and Netflix, and access HBO go through my in-laws cable account. This still only gets me about half of the content I want to watch, and new content is available to torrent days, weeks or sometimes months before it is available to stream. Plus none of this content is available o
  • 1 compressed movie is about the same space as 200 compressed songs.
    If it takes you about 20 seconds to download a song, then it takes you about 1 hour to download a movie.

    Movies could be an order of magnitude less "popular" than music and still appear an order of magnitude more "often".

  • What about Kickass Torrents?

The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected. -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972

Working...