digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at torrentfreak.com

Amazon Doesn’t Want to Sell Music to Pirates

torrentfreak.com — A music only torrent indexer, Coda.fm stands out from other sites with its clean design and innovative features. One of these features is a link to buy the various albums on Amazon, after downloading them on BitTorrent and enjoying the sample. Surprisingly enough, Amazon objects to getting business this way and has taken action.

Who dugg this? Made popular May 1, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

59 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • AlanFang, on 04/30/2009, -12/+96This article totally misses the point. Coda.fm was posting affiliate links to music on Amazon, so they made money whenever someone bought music there. Most affiliate programs have rules against posting links on sites that link to copyrighted material illegally. That way they don't get screwed when the music industry tries to sue them for profiting from copyright infringement. Amazon is just trying to protect it's business, no need to rag on them for that.
  • TotalHalibut, on 05/01/2009, -8/+51Oh look, another sensationalist article from Torrentfreak that fails to mention the part where Coda.fm were making money from the affiliate links. There's a shocker.
  • Atario, on 05/01/2009, -2/+18But they don't get any money at all unless...*you buy the thing on Amazon*. So how are they "profiting by copyright infringement"? They're profiting by *referring sales*.
  • AlanCayce, on 05/01/2009, -4/+16I was going to click on the link, but I read the first two comments here on Digg. BS titles make me cry.

    Yes, I cry a lot.. :( Don't judge me! Wait... What site am I on?
  • enevitable, on 05/01/2009, -2/+13You're exactly correct, and you can tell that the article started off with sensationalist rhetoric to draw in, then quickly leveled out to a practical mindset.

    It is a liability for Amazon, as positive as it for the industry.
  • ParticleMan420, on 05/01/2009, -3/+13whats wrong with that? they were selling albums werent they?
  • dstz, on 05/01/2009, -3/+9Coda.fm is news to me. I like what I see, seems a nice place where to publicize my music for free like on last.fm or the61. Hope they can keep the buy link (like on the aforementioned sites) or it won't make sense to artists, even if it may please some white collar mobsters know as music industry.
  • computershack, on 05/01/2009, -5/+11I don't blame Amazon one bit. They offer a preview for each and every one of the tracks they sell so you can get an idea whether or not it is worth getting. And they also sell them completely DRM free (WHICH PISSES ON THE "I DOWNLOAD VIA TORRENT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE DRM ARGUMENT").

    So tell me why Amazon should entertain coda.fm, a site which is founded to aid illegal filesharing while taking a kickback from Amazon for legit sales?
  • A11YND, on 05/01/2009, -2/+7if you want to try before you buy use Last.fm and use the links they provide. If you want to feel smug about yourself torrent and make up a half hearted justification about why you don't actually click the amazon link.
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -1/+6According to Coda.fm, they referred "a couple of hundred" sales in a three-month span. This is minuscule to Amazon.com, which would have made itself a lawsuit target by knowingly paying commissions to an "associate" involved in media piracy.

    Note that I'm not siding with the RIAA/labels or condemning Coda.fm; I'm explaining why this decision by Amazon.com makes good business sense.
  • fretslide, on 05/01/2009, -5/+10“I can’t overstate enough the idiocy of said request: they’re actually telling us to stop helping them selling albums,” the Coda.fm said venting his frustration. Indeed, in theory this is a win-win situation for all parties involved. Amazon, the artists, labels and the Coda founder all made extra money while the users of the site could buy off their guilt.

    Writers at Torrent Freak are idiots .They don't have any idea . They don't have even a slightest clue regarding website linking policy that are followed in general . As far as coda.fm is concerned you should have read the terms of engagement before linking them . Do you even know anything about policies.

    Amazon is right in this case . They are protecting their business model and it makes sense .

    by the way the title is completely wrong .instead of " Amazon Doesn’t Want to Sell Music to Pirates" .It should be

    "Amazon Doesn’t Want to Sell Music through Pirates" but we all know everyone at torrent freak is a self proclaimed writer
  • TotalHalibut, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5Because if you didn't there wouldn't be any? Jesus, the same people that pirate games are the same people that whine when developers and publishers abandon the PC platform for a more stable revenue stream.
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -1/+5TorrentFreak did an "excellent job" omitting the key fact that Coda.fm earned commissions for those referrals.

    Regardless of whether one agrees with Coda.fm's philosophies, knowingly retaining them as an "associate" (and paying them a cut) would have made Amazon vulnerable to potential lawsuits (all for the sake of sales totaling "a couple of hundred" over a three-month span).
  • Jeremyz0r, on 05/01/2009, -0/+44chan
  • Myztry, on 05/01/2009, -3/+7It's by no means illegal to sell anything to unconvicted criminals (if you deem torrent downloaders as such), but it is illegal for a listed company to take actions against contrary to the interests of the shareholder. Refusing sales could be classed as such an illegal action.
    The IP traders could take offense, but would it be legal for them to place bias against legal customers? Surely that would cause damages to Amazon's business which can't be legally justified, and Amazon would be obligated to sue on behalf of the shareholders.
    I think more the issue is Amazon is worried about smaller companies being able to provide a better service, and slingshotting into a competitive position. Many of the sharing sites are much better at providing services for customers. They don't need agreements with the IP traders. Amazon could become just a clearing house for music sales, until they are replaced by an up and coming star.
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4You can't see why the RIAA would be interested in suing a major online retailer paying commissions to an "associate" involved in music piracy?
  • uberduger, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Wrong. If you steal movies and games, the industries will die. But music? There will always be people willing to make good music.
    It's only douches who make music solely for the money.
  • fretslide, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4They let you preview the tracks . Don't they ?

    It's not a question of implying what needs to be done . It's a question of protecting themselves and Amazon has every right to do so. More than that have you heard the term "Conflict of interest " or Have any idea what Conditions of Use , Site access and Trademark Policies means .

    You have no opinion of your won . You are clearly driven by others .

    I know I'm going to get digg down but the situation here is something else. Soon all TPB boys will be over me and I have a message for them .

    "Don't try to change the subject just stay on the topic in hand" which in this case is Amazon action to guard itself
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4No. Amazon is looking out for its shareholders by cutting off a minuscule number of sales (quoted as "a couple of hundred" over a three-month span) and eliminating the threat of a future lawsuit by entities upset that Amazon has been paying commissions to an "associate" that encourages music piracy.

    Note that I'm not siding with the RIAA or labels; I'm siding with Amazon for having good business sense.
  • rancidpony, on 05/01/2009, -4/+8We wouldn't want pirates buying music now would we? Because if they bought music, the RIAA wouldn't have anyone to go after & implement their draconian DRM & legal assaults.
  • jameskong15, on 05/01/2009, -0/+4Not that I think torrent site owners should be excluded from this money making opportunity, but meh, the affiliate linking on torrent sites is an obvious no-no for Amazon. Theoretically, they could be sued over it by media companies since they are basically teaming up with the torrent site, providing income and increasing their own sales through questionable channels. Also, they risk violating contracts between themselves and music providers leading to potential lawsuits and/or total removal of content from their site.

    Now if the torrent site was just linking to the music location to buy without being an affiliate, I can't see an issue there. No need to stop people from providing a simple link to your site, especially if it's free advertising for pay product.
  • TotalHalibut, on 05/01/2009, -2/+6I care more than most, lord I wrote my Law dissertation on the issue. Fact is, Torrentfreak is no good as a spokesperson for the cause of fair digital rights and copyright reform, because they constantly spin the truth and sometimes plain lie to make their point. This article is inaccurate and in that sense, they are no better than the RIAA.
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3I agree (though some other counties have their share of legal absurdity), and I hope that the ruling eventually is overturned. But given the ongoing dispute regarding the legal status of its "Associates" program and the RIAA's propensity to sue on tenuous grounds, Amazon's decision to forgo a tiny number of sales (in the interest of keeping its hands clean) is quite sensible.
  • shark72, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3So the guy running Coda.FM states that he's sold "a couple of hundred" tracks and albums via the affiliate link. The screen shot in the article shows that the U2 album alone has been downloaded 11,500 times. Each of the top ten albums on Coda.FM have been downloaded in excess of 10K times:

    http://coda.fm/albums/most_popular

    That's 100K downloads right there. The site's been around for several months, so it's a safe bet that at least a million albums have been downloaded.

    And out of those million, "a couple of hundred" have opted to buy from Amazon. That's a conversion rate (from piracy to sale) of a few thousandths of a percent.

    Both Coda.FM and TorrentFreak are spinning this like Coda.FM is helping pirates buy music -- "The fact that already hundreds of albums were sold through Coda.fm shows that ‘pirates’ are willing to pay for music." When your conversion rate is two thousandths of a percent, you're not really helping. This simply shows what most people already know: you don't pirate an album to "try before you buy." You pirate it so you can get it for free.

    While I'm ranting about Coda.FM: the site is run by a teenager in Texas. There's lots of precedent that puts tracker operators in the US on the losing side. Unfortunately, he's parroting an urban myth that's propigated by the TorrentFreak/digg/PirateBay echo chamber. From the site's footer:

    "The torrent (metadata) files that we host do not contain data that might be copyrighted in any way. No copyrighted and/or illegal material is hosted by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind Coda.fm responsible for the material that is being spread using this service."

    If the poor guy had taken the time to google "contributory copyright infringement" or "vicarious copyright infringement", or had taken the time to learn how the media companies used US law to take down Napster, Aimster, and Grokster, then perhaps he might not be betting his future on such a shortsighted misunderstanding of the law.

    I'm ambivalent about piracy -- hey, if you'd rather not spend your money on movies or music, then great -- but people should at least take the time to understand the law, rather than repeat what TorrentFreak tells them. And in the case of Coda.FM, we have a teenager who's taking a huge risk with his future.
  • inactive, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3don't know about everyone else, but im over this piracy thing, F*ck the RIAA, there its done. They are idiots, people that compare downloading to robbing a bank.....idiots. People that rationalize downloading with borrowing or they do it because the content sucks......idiots, government.......idiots......Kanye.......idiot. Myself.....idiot for letting it get to me, but i forgive me if i say that i sometimes wish Digg was deeper than "legalize marijuana this" (and yes, i like the *****, use it all the time but gimme a break) or "pirating this" or "top 10 things that".

    sigh.....*facepalm* (read: prepared to be dugg down and have my grammar endlessly corrected and checked by the peanut brigade)



    *****.
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -0/+31. The use of a hydroponics book to aid in the growth of marijuana does not create foreseeable legal standing on the part of an aggrieved party with a tendency to file lawsuits against everyone and their grandmothers (i.e. the RIAA).

    2. You obviously aren't familiar with the recent New York court ruling that participants in Amazon's "Associates" program *are* agents of the company.

    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/01/12/amazon ...
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/court-to- ...
    http://technologyexpert.blogspot.com/2009/01/amazo ...
    I strongly disagree with this decision, but it exists.
  • CCmachined, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3davo's right. stop digging down the truth.
  • Myztry, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3If that's the case they should get rid of all people selling other legally dubious titles (such as hydroponics books - commonly used to aid growing marijuana).
    But companies aren't liable for their customers or partners status or actions. They are not employees or agents of the company. They are under their own entity. Paying commision does not effect that.
    You can sell a book on tax laws to a person under investigation for tax evasion. As long the book is legal, it is of no concern what they chose to do with it.
    In short, Amazon has failed to protect the interests of both the shareholder and the customer.
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -1/+4No. Amazon determined that it was not in its shareholders' interests to pay commissions to an "associate" involved in media piracy (thereby setting itself up for lawsuits) for the sake of a very small number of sales ("a couple of hundred" in a three-month span, according to Coda.fm).
  • MightyUpsetter, on 05/01/2009, -3/+5Arne't you clever! If everyone thought like you then there wouldn;t be any music for you to steal. PRICK
  • donnytomas, on 05/01/2009, -2/+4Amazon is being negligent to its shareholders by preventing sales revenue.
  • maffiou, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3Try before you buy ? How many time to you buy a game to figure out you've been ripped off by biased reviews and misleading demos ?
  • dstz, on 05/01/2009, -2/+4What about the musicians making money? nobody cares? or do you only care for those few at the top of the music industry's food chain, and their take on what is the best way to promote / license / sell music? (which is maybe the best way for those few people.)
  • Fhwqhgads, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2I don't usually feed your kind but: http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9599/piracyjq1.pn ...
  • mabsark, on 05/01/2009, -4/+6"So tell me why Amazon should entertain coda.fm, a site which is founded to aid illegal filesharing while taking a kickback from Amazon for legit sales?"

    Because it earns them profit, perhaps?
  • TWiThead, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2It isn't the referrals themselves at issue. The argument would be that by paying commissions to these individuals, Amazon becomes a party to their piracy. This could be bolstered by a recent New York court decision that participants in Amazon's "Associates" program are agents of the company.

    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/01/12/amazon ...
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/court-to- ...
    http://technologyexpert.blogspot.com/2009/01/amazo ...
    And yes, it is nonsense. But the RIAA routinely sues over nonsense. That's a headache that Amazon doesn't need.
  • ParticleMan420, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2the artists get their share from albums sold. amazon doesnt want to sell those albums, so the artists are losing out, the labels are losing out, and the pirates are still getting music
  • mabsark, on 05/01/2009, -1/+3It's perfectly legal to sell stuff to criminals, so how could selling stuff to people who have been referred by "criminals" be illegal?

    I could have been convicted for the copyright infringement of every known piece of copyrighted music, and it would still be perfectly legal for Amazon to sell me music.

    It's the same type of ***** as political correctness. It's just nonsense.
  • willhirsch, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2This is why no other response by Amazon would make sense. Amazon have a lot of money to lose so the law comes way over any ethical principles. Keeping Coda.fm as an affiliate encourages illegal torrent downloading which also drives sales back at Amazon. That's making money from encouraging an illegal activity and yes it's against the law.

    Neither Amazon nor Coda.fm own the rights to the music changing hands here. The record companies and the record companies only can spot the potential for profit here and rethink their licensing to make the most "ethical" use of music also a legal one.
  • donnytomas, on 05/04/2009, -0/+2They are not increasing sales revenue from me....ARRRRR.

    You sheep go ahead and bow to the lawyers...you obviously like it up the behind. Bah, bah, Mutton Men. Normal people laugh at you and your pompous self-righteousness. Law school makes your lover scum.
  • donkevin, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2reddit
  • davotoula, on 05/01/2009, -2/+4“I can’t overstate enough the idiocy of said request: they’re actually telling us to stop helping them selling albums,”

    No, Amazon just wants to be clear from financially aiding alleged "pirates"
  • Myztry, on 05/01/2009, -0/+2Well that's dodgey - as agents are generally empowered to act on behalf on an entity (such as Amazon), not merely collect a referal fee.
    But when even software can act as agent to create "click next" EULA's between two parties AFTER a sales agreement has already taken place, I suppose anything is possible.
    Law is becoming a ***** up piece of work. Particulary in America if I may note.
  • willhirsch, on 05/01/2009, -0/+1Let's hear a bit "awwwww" for the poor little shareholders.

    Think of all the sales revenue they're missing out from Amazon also not engaging in extortion, drug trafficking and tax fraud. What a shame they also pay their staff at least minimum wage, and pay their commission to the record industry for their MP3 download service.

    The law is the law, and I dare say Amazon's lawyers have a little bit more of a clue how they can legally increase sales revenue than you do.
  • skwingar, on 05/01/2009, -1/+2Since when were pirates gay?
  • rashawty, on 05/01/2009, -1/+2What a horribly constructed post. Just wow.
  • ProfessorRiffs, on 05/01/2009, -1/+2This is gonna hurt the artists first and foremost. And isn't that what the big deal is about in the first place? People need to realize that today is not 15 years ago FFS.......
  • kimballj, on 05/01/2009, -3/+3You pay for those? Why?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.