7 Reasons Why Artists Should Skip a BitTorrent ‘Media Partnership’

Lately, BitTorrent, Inc. has made a concerted effort to appear “legit”, courting both artists and their managers.  It’s even managed to become a “tech partner” of the UK Music Managers Forum.  But is partnering with BitTorrent – and its uTorrent client – really a good idea for artists?

wantsomecandy

Here are seven reasons that should make them think twice:

1. Artists that decide to use BitTorrent need to make sure they own 100% of the material.

If they use outside songwriters, producers – or the funding of a record label – they need the permission of those people to do it.

 “How Artists Who Support “Piracy” Can Avoid Looking Like Hypocrites

2. It’s unlikely that uTorrent users will happily reveal their email addresses.

BitTorrent Inc has launched “BitTorrent Bundles”. This involves users being able to download a torrent with a few freebies – but what makes it “advantageous” for artists, according to BitTorrent, is that if they hand over their email addresses they get access to more stuff.

Getting people to give up their email addresses is never easy, but we suspect people who use BitTorrent are even less likely to want to do so, as anonymity is one of the perks they value.  But even if they, by any luck, agreed to give it up, email bombing has proved to be a pretty inefficient way of promoting a band that people aren’t already fans of.

3. BitTorrent Bundles’ “paywall” is not much of a wall at all.

According to TorrentFreak, the premium torrents appear to be just regular torrent files. There’s no DRM or other technical restrictions involved that could prevent users from “sharing” the premium content as they wish, across the internet.  Even the company itself says it simply “expects people to do the right thing”.

However, it’s worth pondering why people who want to “do the right thing” would be using a “service” where over 99% of the content is thought to be infringing.

4. BitTorrent is an inefficient tool for disseminating “content”.

BitTorrent’s clients, such as uTorrent is not as efficient as most legal ways of downloading, hence why even experienced BitTorrent users don’t bother with uTorrent unless they want to use it for infringement. Its clunkiness is perhaps also why major licensed music download sites, such as iTunes and Amazon don’t rely on it.

5. BitTorrent is inefficient as a discovery tool.

P2P file-sharing systems are inefficient means of disseminating any form of content that has not already been made extremely popular by other means.  A Limewire developer put it this way, when speaking about BitTorrent and LimeWire: “Here’s modern P2P’s dirty little secret: It’s actually horrible at rare stuff.”

That’s why the popular content on BitTorrent is mainly top 40 stuff.

6. How useful has partnering with BitTorrent really been for acts such as Counting Crows?

All musicians have heard the slogan “it’s promotional” more times than they can count, from people wanting to take advantage of them – and BitTorrent is no exception.  But apart from the attention the acts using it get from numerous tech sites announcing it as an “innovative” way to promote artists, there’s little proof that it has lead to success they would otherwise not have seen.  There are even rumours that users are “tricked” into clicking the software that includes music by acts such as Pretty Lights and Counting Crows in order for it to count as a “download” for those artists.

7. Do you really want to try to exploit the mass piracy of other artists’ works for your own perceived gain?

BitTorrent is used almost exclusively for piracy – matter of fact, only 0.3% of files on it could be confirmed to be legal.  Artists who choose to adopt BitTorrent as their “media partner” would, in effect, be trying to exploit for their own gain the mass piracy of the works of other creators.  It’s a moral dilemma some artists may find difficult.

It can be argued that having your music on services such as Pandora and Spotify is much more useful as a discovery tool. While torrents rely on users to search for the music they want, Pandora’s famous algorithm will suggest acts that are similar to those you already like – and Spotify is constantly evolving its discovery tools, including playlists by “trusted filters”.

And all the music those services feature is licensed – an attractive perk for fans that want to, er, “do the right thing”.

Image by Craig McInnis, licensed under Creative Commons 2.0.  

12 Responses

  1. FarePlay
    FarePlay

    Argh, me thinks BitTorrent sees rough seas ahead for their pirate partners and are doing what any “legitimate” business would do, diversify.
    The fact they were given, er, paid for visibiltity at SF Music Tech, speaks volumes on both sides of the debate.
    Once the tide goes out on the “safe harbor” things will start to get rocky for those guys.
    BitTorrent’s time has come to ADAPT.

    Reply
    • visitor 77
      visitor 77

      #4 an inefficient tool for desseminating content. File transfer statistics beg to differ. This is the most ludicrous item on the list. One other comment regarding #6. When I downloaded the Pretty Lights official offering on Bit Torrent during a software upgrade I had to click a box that I wanted the music as an additional offering — I was not “tricked” in any way.

      Reply
      • Faza (TCM)
        Faza (TCM)

        Fair point: #4 should probably have used the term “convenient”.
        How efficient BitTorrent is as a distribution medium would probably depend on your definition of efficiency. It does help you shift some of the bandwidth cost onto the reseeders, so I guess that’s a bonus (I assume that any artist wishing to distribute their work in this way would be seeding 24/7 in any case, ‘coz otherwise is defeats the purpose of the exercise). BitTorrent can also help diffuse bottlenecks that might occur if an in-demand release suddenly generates a lot of traffic.
        In terms of convenience, however, it’s pretty bad.
        As for #6 – it’s your anecdata against other anecdata. I can certainly imagine that the checkbox you mentioned suddenly changing from opt-in to opt-out – look at what happens with Adobe or Java updates these days. BitTorrent is in some ways accountable to the artists it “promotes”, so they could easily institute such a change to inflate downloads a bit. I mean: the user still has a choice, right? Even if we know that most users simply click through all install wizards as quickly as possible. It’s a bit of a hack, but I believe it works (having been caught a couple of times myself with the bundleware from Sun or Adobe).

        Reply
  2. come on people
    come on people

    Why would an artist need BitTorrent when you can do all this stuff on your own server and keep the data to yourself?
    I mean, even with a shared hosting plan, there are so many things you can do.
    Why is everyone so fucking lazy these days?

    Reply
    • yogabbagabba

      It’s not about laziness at all, it’s about BitTorrent having a lot more traffic than most filmmaker’s websites.

      Reply
  3. Visitor
    Visitor

    BitTorrent’s clients, such as uTorrent is not as efficient as most legal ways of downloading, hence why even experienced BitTorrent users don’t bother with uTorrent unless they want to use it for infringemen.
    This is utter bullshit.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *