Tunecore spends a considerable amount of time talking about artist empowerment and getting musicians paid. But they also advertise heavily on sites that offer the same content for free. Last month, it was 4shared.com; this time, it's Hulkshare. Here's what we spotted Monday evening.
David M. Tuesday, February 12, 2013
This is incredibly misleading to your readers. You write that TuneCore "advertises on HulkShare" like it's some direct partnership they have with the site. Yes, their advertisements appear on HulkShare - but they actually just advertise on Google. The ads probably appeared on HulkShare because Google's retargeting cookies knew that you recently visited TuneCore.com and they are trying to show you the most relevant ads.
Also, what's wrong with HulkShare?
Jorge B. Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but doesn't AdChoices put advertisements on websites according to what websites you have visited and/or search?
I only ask because I was literally looking for office furniture and immediately, AdChoices showed up advertisements on office furniture (crappy furniture too I may add).
The previous comment by David M., may have some merit in it that TuneCore is not directly advertising on this website, only that they are showing up via this screenshot because TuneCore may be a frequently visited website on whatever computer is viewing it... no?
DMN - Dim-witted Music News? Tuesday, February 12, 2013
This article is linkbait by a site that runs on it.
Does DMN even know how AdWords work? OF COURSE THEY DO.
It would be idiotic to assume Tunecore has a direct relationship with Hulkshare (or that they've even heard of it).
But DMN is not idiotic-they are fully aware that this isn't intentional on the part of Tunecore but they, like any "news" organization, post whatever will get the most clicks.
Juicy story? Hardly. Break something that is actually meaningful...
backATya Wednesday, February 13, 2013
--"Does DMN even know how AdWords work? OF COURSE THEY DO."--
Well, maybe... just MAYBE he's pointing out that THIS type of behavior needs to change (ie, the way ad networks work)
Oh, and BTW... it's very curious that Coca-Cola NEVER appears on these types of sites. Maybe they're magic voo-doo?
Or maybe they give a shit about their public face.
Earnest Scribbler Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Anyone claiming not to get the point of stories like these, or downplaying what they reveal is either disingenuous, malicious or just stupid.
Stories like this are important because they drive home the pervasiveness of the problem: the ecosystem that facilitates infringement, pimped by Google in complete disregard of its consequences. It doesn't matter whether Tunecore intended its ad to appear where it did. Google and Hulkshare profited by its display.
Google shows its true colors by refusing to take pervasive measures to constrain this kind of economic assault. They're like a children's toy maker whose products maim babies - having been warned about what's happening, they turn a blind eye and keep selling the toys.
They won't mend their ways, so they must be BROUGHT DOWN. I say a class action is called for.
Visitor Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Your comment started out well.
The most recent ongoing debate here and elsewhere is generally how advertising revenue is being distributed to sites that have business models that are openly or tacitly based on infringing the copyrights of others and how this advertising revenue should be curtailed and/or redirected and who has the responsibility and ability to end, redirect or curtail this revenue stream.
Should it be the search giants Google, Yahoo etc.? their advertisng subsidiaries who use their algorithms? or the people who pay these on-line advertisng services? or the original content creators who are responsible for policing their work (a part of the job as creator that is often overlooked if ever discussed at all)?
Yes, there is a long chain of automated systems that place ads on sites that a person visits on the web. Yes, Google could dedicate time and money to developing and implementing a system to reduce the ad revenue flow and infringing links. It would be difficult to create a search algorithm or algorithm/human hybrid to significantly reduce links to infringing content. Difficult but not impossible as some commenters will suggest. In any event, should this be Google's responsibility? Should Google make any effort to limit it's revenue when it is already obeying the law as written?
But back to your comment, declaring that Google "must be BROUGHT DOWN" does not help in any way. It only detracts from the valid point you made in your first sentence
Free Idea Tuesday, February 12, 2013
@paul and the David Lowery collective
How about writing an article on the costs of the USC Annenberg study. How much funding went into it, how many resources were available, what resources were used, how many individuals were apart of the study, how many hours it took/is taking, etc.
And then justify why Tunecore is responsible for taking up these costs (and if it's even possible).
AnAmusedGeek Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I gotta love the double standards...
So, tunecore should be let off the hook when companies like levi's should be crucified ? That makes zero sense...
Also, you CAN blacklist sites from your google campaign and stop your ads from appearing on them. The fact that tunecore didn't know/didn't care enough to do so is no more defense then it is for Levi's.
I think the message here should be consistent:
If you advertise, monitor where your ads show up. If you feel certain venues are inappropriate, blacklist them. Ignorance is not a defense.
Thief v. Thief Wednesday, February 13, 2013
A little off topic but I love this