Ugh... File Sharing...

I feel like the victim of my own success with my newest album.

The release on cassette, digital and CD formats is coming along as expected, and the record label is great to work with. A few days after worldwide digital distribution started, filesharing websites, blogs and torrents with illegal free downloads of my new album popped up everywhere.

I can handle 3-10 sites sharing MP3s of the album. I've had that before, but I found (by just searching Google for the album name) about 800+ different sites/blogs sharing my new album for free.
That's too many.

I've contacted the digital distribution company about this, to bring this to their attention and see if they'll do anything. I've also contacted my lawyer to see what my (legal) options are...

A lot of times it is only a handful of places that actually have the file, the rest usually just keep using the same link from whoever has it upped into the cloud.

For example, I saw like 20 or 30 sites that had an album for download. Each site had the same exact link for it though. So the one file that was upped to uploaded. Net was aired everywhere.

Yeah, it sucks.

What a racket...

I remember when Saint released Desperate Night digitally before the physical CD came out. The next DAY it was everywhere on blogspots for free download. I e-mailed Rich tons of links and he contacted most of them to take it down, some did, most didn't. It killed the album.

I'm still not convinced that file sharing is as big of a hit as the reports.

Obviously, there is a lot of business lost to file sharing. To deny that would be stupid. I just don't think it is the sole factor as to why albums fail and I think sometimes it is used by the artist as a scapegoat when the truth is that the artist just didn't put out a good enough release.

People seem to think that if a file was shared 250k times, that it means the artist lost 250k sales.

Wrong.

A lot of those people who downloaded the album illegally would never have bought it anyway. People who download will download almost anything if it is in their favorite genre, that's why downloaders wind up with thousands upon thousands of files.

I also think a BIG reason is that people can download an album to hear it before they buy it, but then they listen to it, and when they realize it is crap just delete the mp3 and move on. It used to be that we got suckered into buying the CD first, then were stuck with garbage. Or just as bad, bought a whole CD cause we heard a song on the radio only realize the rest of the album was horrendous.

Poor product...
Overpriced CDs...
Market oversaturation (Everyone has a CD out nowadays Lol)...

All of these things are factors, IMO

NoOneIsHere wrote:I'm still not convinced that file sharing is as big of a hit as the reports.

Obviously, there is a lot of business lost to file sharing. To deny that would be stupid. I just don't think it is the sole factor as to why albums fail and I think sometimes it is used by the artist as a scapegoat when the truth is that the artist just didn't put out a good enough release.  

People seem to think that if a file was shared 250k times, that it means the artist lost 250k sales.

Wrong.

A lot of those people who downloaded the album illegally would never have bought it anyway. People who download will download almost anything if it is in their favorite genre, that's why downloaders wind up with thousands upon thousands of files.

I also think a BIG reason is that people can download an album to hear it before they buy it, but then they listen to it, and when they realize it is crap just delete the mp3 and move on. It used to be that we got suckered into buying the CD first, then were stuck with garbage. Or just as bad, bought a whole CD cause we heard a song on the radio only realize the rest of the album was horrendous.

Poor product...
Overpriced CDs...
Market oversaturation (Everyone has a CD out nowadays Lol)...

All of these things are factors, IMO

I think you are right on all points.

NoOneIsHere wrote:
People seem to think that if a file was shared 250k times, that it means the artist lost 250k sales.

Wrong.

BINGO!  I agree with most of what you have said.

To me, the biggest weight isn't "someone is out there giving away my music illegally" - its shear volume and ratio.

If I had 50,000 sites with links to purchase the album and 900 illegal download sites were out there, I wouldn't think twice about it. In fact, I'd love that because its just free advertising.

When I just started digital distribution and now MAYBE have 10-20 sites to buy downloads from... 900 sites giving away the album illegally, for free - that's HUGE.

When someone has to wade through the illegal downloads to find where to buy it, THAT'S huge.

That's what I'm going through, and why I complained...

Thomas,

My comments were about the industry in general, btw.. a lot of artists have been going crazy about it

I wasn't saying you had or didn't have a right to complain.

As for not being able to find the music....

An artist should always have a web site and a Facebook page that points to where people can buy their music.

ThomasEversole wrote:To me, the biggest weight isn't "someone is out there giving away my music illegally" - its shear volume and ratio.

If I had 50,000 sites with links to purchase the album and 900 illegal download sites were out there, I wouldn't think twice about it. In fact, I'd love that because its just free advertising.

When I just started digital distribution and now MAYBE have 10-20 sites to buy downloads from... 900 sites giving away the album illegally, for free - that's HUGE.

When someone has to wade through the illegal downloads to find where to buy it, THAT'S huge.

That's what I'm going through, and why I complained...

I agree that it completely sucks.  I would be inclined to contact the companies that are hosting the files and lodge a complaint with them.

I had a long talk with one of my friends at work - one of the very few people around that dig underground metal.

He said that 900 people hosting free downloads is a very good thing.  

For one, junk music doesn't spread like wildfire, so they must like it.  Two, you're getting your name out there - at least 900 people have heard of the music (since they setup the download) and if 10 people find each site...  Three, downloaders wouldn't buy the music anyway, even if free links were available.  Four, free advertising.  Five, there are people out there who will "support" a band they link after they've jammed a free download.

I see his point - I see both sides actually.  ...but hearing him say this helped.

I've filled out a few "takedown" notices from different sites.  It looks like Google is going to work too - I can't search the artist/album name without Google saying:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint  that caused the removal(s) atChillingEffects.org.