Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What.CD shuts down

14 replies to this topic
Street Mix
  • Street Mix

    The Infidel

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2008
  • South-Korea

#1

Posted 18 November 2016 - 07:04 AM Edited by Street Mix, 18 November 2016 - 09:39 AM.

what.jpg

The hugely popular private music torrent tracker What.CD has shut down. After a reported raid on several of its servers in France, The tracker says it has destroyed all site and user data. What.cd itself hasn't confirmed any police action but cites "recent events" as the reason for its drastic actions.
 
whatEarlier today the popular music tracker What.cd became inaccessible.
 
While the reason for the sudden outage remained a mystery for a while, a message that was just posted on the site and official Twitter account shows that the downtime is likely to be permanent.
 
What.cd appears to have shut down effective immediately, and the site’s operators say they’ve destroyed all data in the process.
 
“Due to some recent events, What.CD is shutting down. We are not likely to return any time soon in our current form. All site and user data has been destroyed. So long, and thanks for all the fish,” the announcement reads.

 

 

http://www.spin.com/...e-music-piracy/

 

R.I.P. What.CD. Another huge step back for humanity this year.


PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#2

Posted 18 November 2016 - 07:48 AM

Never even heard of it.

  • El Diablo, ten-a-penny, Affalterbach and 5 others like this

Street Mix
  • Street Mix

    The Infidel

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2008
  • South-Korea

#3

Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:29 AM

Never even heard of it.

Biggest music library on the interent. All others (including iTunes & Spotify) pale in comparison. Some rare music could be found only there. Yet, copyright f**ks have no respect for music and legacy.

  • Moonshield likes this

PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#4

Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:32 AM

 

Never even heard of it.

Biggest music library on the interent. All others (including iTunes & Spotify) pale in comparison. Some rare music could be found only there. Yet, copyright f**ks have no respect for music and legacy.

 

Maybe that's why I've never heard of it.

 

You've been using the Interent, and I've been using the Internet... :p

  • Ya Boy Punk Fan likes this

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#5

Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:41 AM

Wat dis?

 

This is a step FORWARD for artists - music pirates have killed the music industry. Everyone I know that's in a band (and I know a few people in some fairly big name bands) is struggling to make any money. This is because people stream or download illegally. Here's a thing:

 

When someone puts their heart and soul into recording music, it's not just someone in a bed room on GarageBand, at least not always. It's people that have to pay for their equipment, pay for rehearsal rooms, pay to get to gigs to play for less than it cost them to get there, pay to use a recording studio, pay to... you see where I'm going with this, right? 

 

And then a bunch of people think it's fine to take that music for free, just because they can. f*ck music pirates, f*ck music torrent trackers. If you like music, pay for it. Support artists. Or they will disappear forever and homogenised pop sh*t that's funded up the wazoo to get sh*t, safe music into your ears will be all that's left. Buy albums. Go see live music. Buy merch. Keep music alive. 

  • Spaghetti Cat, ten-a-penny, Android and 3 others like this

mr quick
  • mr quick

    i've been on the run but i've done my time

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2008
  • England
  • Kenny G Enthusiast [All Time]
    Contribution [Music]

#6

Posted 18 November 2016 - 10:04 AM

Wat dis?

 

This is a step FORWARD for artists - music pirates have killed the music industry. Everyone I know that's in a band (and I know a few people in some fairly big name bands) is struggling to make any money. This is because people stream or download illegally. Here's a thing:

 

When someone puts their heart and soul into recording music, it's not just someone in a bed room on GarageBand, at least not always. It's people that have to pay for their equipment, pay for rehearsal rooms, pay to get to gigs to play for less than it cost them to get there, pay to use a recording studio, pay to... you see where I'm going with this, right? 

 

And then a bunch of people think it's fine to take that music for free, just because they can. f*ck music pirates, f*ck music torrent trackers. If you like music, pay for it. Support artists. Or they will disappear forever and homogenised pop sh*t that's funded up the wazoo to get sh*t, safe music into your ears will be all that's left. Buy albums. Go see live music. Buy merch. Keep music alive. 

 

But the music industry is a horrible capitalist exploit of a once great art form now reduced to formulaic moneygrabs. How can you defend this?

  • cj2000, PhillBellic and Darth Absentis like this

Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#7

Posted 18 November 2016 - 10:18 AM Edited by Fuzzknuckles, 18 November 2016 - 10:22 AM.

 

Wat dis?

 

This is a step FORWARD for artists - music pirates have killed the music industry. Everyone I know that's in a band (and I know a few people in some fairly big name bands) is struggling to make any money. This is because people stream or download illegally. Here's a thing:

 

When someone puts their heart and soul into recording music, it's not just someone in a bed room on GarageBand, at least not always. It's people that have to pay for their equipment, pay for rehearsal rooms, pay to get to gigs to play for less than it cost them to get there, pay to use a recording studio, pay to... you see where I'm going with this, right? 

 

And then a bunch of people think it's fine to take that music for free, just because they can. f*ck music pirates, f*ck music torrent trackers. If you like music, pay for it. Support artists. Or they will disappear forever and homogenised pop sh*t that's funded up the wazoo to get sh*t, safe music into your ears will be all that's left. Buy albums. Go see live music. Buy merch. Keep music alive. 

 

But the music industry is a horrible capitalist exploit of a once great art form now reduced to formulaic moneygrabs. How can you defend this?

 

How can you defend stealing from someone?

 

And I'm not sure you read my post with your eyes properly. I'm saying that people need to support artists both by buying music and seeing live acts, and buying merch. Otherwise the cynically guided pop sh*t that is thrown up by the horrible exploitative labels will be the only music around. It's already going this way. I grew up in the 80s/90s and music was so much more varied because people still bought music. Now, they don't, so the sh*t that labels choose to put money behind is becoming less and less interesting. 

 

You can fund artists directly by buying from sites like Bandcamp, ensuring that a much larger share goes to them than it would if you bought from a music store. Or the fraction of a pence they get each time you stream through Apple Music or Spotify. 

  • ten-a-penny, Payne Killer and jrl51592 like this

mr quick
  • mr quick

    i've been on the run but i've done my time

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2008
  • England
  • Kenny G Enthusiast [All Time]
    Contribution [Music]

#8

Posted 18 November 2016 - 11:12 AM

 

 

Wat dis?

 

This is a step FORWARD for artists - music pirates have killed the music industry. Everyone I know that's in a band (and I know a few people in some fairly big name bands) is struggling to make any money. This is because people stream or download illegally. Here's a thing:

 

When someone puts their heart and soul into recording music, it's not just someone in a bed room on GarageBand, at least not always. It's people that have to pay for their equipment, pay for rehearsal rooms, pay to get to gigs to play for less than it cost them to get there, pay to use a recording studio, pay to... you see where I'm going with this, right? 

 

And then a bunch of people think it's fine to take that music for free, just because they can. f*ck music pirates, f*ck music torrent trackers. If you like music, pay for it. Support artists. Or they will disappear forever and homogenised pop sh*t that's funded up the wazoo to get sh*t, safe music into your ears will be all that's left. Buy albums. Go see live music. Buy merch. Keep music alive. 

 

But the music industry is a horrible capitalist exploit of a once great art form now reduced to formulaic moneygrabs. How can you defend this?

 

How can you defend stealing from someone?

 

And I'm not sure you read my post with your eyes properly. I'm saying that people need to support artists both by buying music and seeing live acts, and buying merch. Otherwise the cynically guided pop sh*t that is thrown up by the horrible exploitative labels will be the only music around. It's already going this way. I grew up in the 80s/90s and music was so much more varied because people still bought music. Now, they don't, so the sh*t that labels choose to put money behind is becoming less and less interesting. 

 

You can fund artists directly by buying from sites like Bandcamp, ensuring that a much larger share goes to them than it would if you bought from a music store. Or the fraction of a pence they get each time you stream through Apple Music or Spotify. 

 

 

I agree that you should support artists you like(esp unsigned /indie) etc. but you explicitly said "music industry". 
Additionally, it's not at the fault of the people that the sound of popular music changed; the industry leaders "perfected" the literal formulas for making easy-to-sell music with a minimal amount of effort, thus maximizing profits. It's been like that since like the 50s but in recent years they've made no effort to fund other music as well. 

You can't pin this on pirates. I sincerely doubt that say, jazz rock enthusiasts, most of which generally are audiophiles/prefer vinyl, are the biggest pirates around. The only audio of my favorite band that I've ever downloaded off the web is bootlegs of studio rehearsals etc. The rest I have on physical formats as well as stream on Spotify. 


Fuzzknuckles
  • Fuzzknuckles

    Chronic Ape

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004
  • None

#9

Posted 18 November 2016 - 11:54 AM

 

I agree that you should support artists you like(esp unsigned /indie) etc. but you explicitly said "music industry". 
Additionally, it's not at the fault of the people that the sound of popular music changed; the industry leaders "perfected" the literal formulas for making easy-to-sell music with a minimal amount of effort, thus maximizing profits. It's been like that since like the 50s but in recent years they've made no effort to fund other music as well. 

You can't pin this on pirates. I sincerely doubt that say, jazz rock enthusiasts, most of which generally are audiophiles/prefer vinyl, are the biggest pirates around. The only audio of my favorite band that I've ever downloaded off the web is bootlegs of studio rehearsals etc. The rest I have on physical formats as well as stream on Spotify. 

 

But as you basically say yourself, you are not indicative of the major audience that consumes music. The largest audience for modern music consumes their music in ways that do not pay the artist anything - streaming or pirating. 

 

As a result of that, labels make less money too, meaning they aren't as able to fund niche genres or even alternatives, resulting in a global music scene that's consistently pushing sh*t pop, bad rap, weak metal and dull country. In the 90s, labels were throwing money at the alternative scene because they had the money to do so. Now, there's no money for anything other than stuff guaranteed to make money. If more people were spending money on alternative music instead of stealing it from the internet, labels might be more inclined to support it more themselves. 

 

Streaming and pirating are equally to blame, I feel, but the topic here is about pirating, so that's why I focused on that initially. 


X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#10

Posted 18 November 2016 - 04:34 PM

There's an upside to it, though.  At least on streaming services like Youtube, Spotify, etc.; free music provides listeners an opportunity to explore new artists, genres and subgenres.  In the past, we only had access to what the record companies thought we wanted to hear, but now any 'Joe Blow' can go on YouTube, start making music, and share it with millions of people at the click of a button.  Just from observation, I've seen a lot of EDM artists get their start sharing tracks on music genre channels for free, and radio stations would pick them up, giving the artists free exposure. 

 

As far as profits are concerned, the industry was controlled by a small number of record companies reaping all of the profits, but now there's dozens of smaller channels and record companies sharing it.  In other words, there's more competition, and therefore less profit to go around, and in my opinion, disruptive technologies such as these should be encouraged.  Further, we need to stop relying on media conglomerates to disseminate new artists and genres for us.

 

If I'm not mistaken, what.cd is a private tracker, right?  Only those with access and knowledge of torrenting can make use of it.  You can't stop pirates, so making it easier and more convenient to purchase digital media is one of the only ways around it.  That's what services like as iTunes and Netflix did for the industry, and I'm pretty sure the majority of people who still consume media continue to pay for it using similar services.

  • Eutyphro and Argonaut like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#11

Posted 18 November 2016 - 07:17 PM

it seems that we're already conflating the struggling/undiscovered local artist with the major-label world-tour platinum-selling band. the phrase "music industry" is already being thrown around very loosely. we need to define our terms here or this discussion is going to get nowhere fast...

  • mr quick, Android and Vik like this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#12

Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:13 PM

 

 

I agree that you should support artists you like(esp unsigned /indie) etc. but you explicitly said "music industry". 
Additionally, it's not at the fault of the people that the sound of popular music changed; the industry leaders "perfected" the literal formulas for making easy-to-sell music with a minimal amount of effort, thus maximizing profits. It's been like that since like the 50s but in recent years they've made no effort to fund other music as well. 

You can't pin this on pirates. I sincerely doubt that say, jazz rock enthusiasts, most of which generally are audiophiles/prefer vinyl, are the biggest pirates around. The only audio of my favorite band that I've ever downloaded off the web is bootlegs of studio rehearsals etc. The rest I have on physical formats as well as stream on Spotify. 

 

But as you basically say yourself, you are not indicative of the major audience that consumes music. The largest audience for modern music consumes their music in ways that do not pay the artist anything - streaming or pirating. 

 

As a result of that, labels make less money too, meaning they aren't as able to fund niche genres or even alternatives, resulting in a global music scene that's consistently pushing sh*t pop, bad rap, weak metal and dull country. In the 90s, labels were throwing money at the alternative scene because they had the money to do so. Now, there's no money for anything other than stuff guaranteed to make money. If more people were spending money on alternative music instead of stealing it from the internet, labels might be more inclined to support it more themselves. 

 

Streaming and pirating are equally to blame, I feel, but the topic here is about pirating, so that's why I focused on that initially. 

 

I barely know anyone that pirates anything in real life dude.  I mean when we're talking about online sure, everyone and their mother torrents stuff, but half of the people I talk to in real life will be like "What the hell is a torrent?" As far as streaming goes, since popular services like Pandora or Spotify do offer dividends to the artist I don't think that's a valid point.  Finally, more people I know will still just fork up the cash for the CD on iTunes or something like that.  The whole idea of nobody buying music and everybody downloading it is just a commonality among the echo chamber of people who like to go online and post on message boards...  You know, nerds.  Sorry to break it to you but we're all nerds here, and if we took this conversation onto like a university campus or somewhere with a similar age group just more varied personalities, I doubt you would find many people who even knew how to torrent music. Or maybe I just live in a technologically daft area, but anyway I think you know what I mean.

 

The real big problem is streaming stuff on YouTube because there's so many uploaders that they can't really control which video is going to be uploaded by the band or which will have ad revenue going back to the band, etc.  On the other hand, if you watch mainly Vevo playlists, then that's not exactly short-changing them either. No different than listening to radio broadcast at that point.

 

The first CD I haven't been able to download in a decade is X-Ambassadors VHS 2.0 and I still am not going to go buy it.

 

Anyway, not big news, what was just what came of oink I'm sure some other tracker will fill what's place. With the competition to get stuff seeded I'm sure there are people with virtually everything on there still on some seed box somewhere.

  • mr quick likes this

mr quick
  • mr quick

    i've been on the run but i've done my time

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2008
  • England
  • Kenny G Enthusiast [All Time]
    Contribution [Music]

#13

Posted 18 November 2016 - 10:12 PM

 

 

I agree that you should support artists you like(esp unsigned /indie) etc. but you explicitly said "music industry". 
Additionally, it's not at the fault of the people that the sound of popular music changed; the industry leaders "perfected" the literal formulas for making easy-to-sell music with a minimal amount of effort, thus maximizing profits. It's been like that since like the 50s but in recent years they've made no effort to fund other music as well. 

You can't pin this on pirates. I sincerely doubt that say, jazz rock enthusiasts, most of which generally are audiophiles/prefer vinyl, are the biggest pirates around. The only audio of my favorite band that I've ever downloaded off the web is bootlegs of studio rehearsals etc. The rest I have on physical formats as well as stream on Spotify. 

 

But as you basically say yourself, you are not indicative of the major audience that consumes music. The largest audience for modern music consumes their music in ways that do not pay the artist anything - streaming or pirating. 

 

As a result of that, labels make less money too, meaning they aren't as able to fund niche genres or even alternatives, resulting in a global music scene that's consistently pushing sh*t pop, bad rap, weak metal and dull country. In the 90s, labels were throwing money at the alternative scene because they had the money to do so. Now, there's no money for anything other than stuff guaranteed to make money. If more people were spending money on alternative music instead of stealing it from the internet, labels might be more inclined to support it more themselves. 

 

Streaming and pirating are equally to blame, I feel, but the topic here is about pirating, so that's why I focused on that initially. 

 

 

I'm not denying a decline in overall revenue(although it's on the uprise again, we'll see if we get more funding for other music), but there is little, if any blame to be put on file sharing, as these research papers indicate:
 

http://www.unc.edu/~...g_March2004.pdf

"Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Our estimates are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the decline in music sales during our study period."(2007 revision, hence a slight difference in wording from the pdf linked)

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC79605.pdf
"Our results suggest that Internet users do not view illegal downloading as a substitute for legal digital music.

Although positive and significant, our estimated elasticities are essentially zero: a 10% increase in clicks on illegal

downloading websites leads to a 0.2% increase in clicks on legal purchase websites. Online music streaming services are

found to have a somewhat larger (but still small) effect on the purchases of digital sound recordings, suggesting

complementarities between these two modes of music consumption. According to our results, a 10% increase in clicks on

legal streaming websites leads to up to a 0.7% increase in clicks on legal digital purchase websites. We find important cross

country differences in these effects. "(Abstract, page 39)

 

^I would call that a positive effect, no? 

 

http://www.ivir.nl/p...translation.pdf

"One clear conclusion that can be drawn from the deliberations in Chapter 5 is

that every file downloaded does not result in one less CD, DVD or game sold.

The degree of substitution is difficult to determine and controversial, yet we can

state with certainty that there is no one-on-one correlation between file sharing

and sales.
[...]The next step is to determine the extent of substitution. Based on the number of

downloads given above, a substitution ratio of 20%, as used by Rob and Waldfogel,

would seem unrealistically high as this would imply that 300-400 million fewer tracks

are sold as a result of file sharing, which is equivalent to one-and-a-half to twice the

downturn in sales reported for the Dutch music industry since 1999. Taking Peitz and

Waelbroek’s (2004) estimate as an upper limit, namely that a 20% decline in total sales

may be attributed to file sharing, which is still relatively high, this would result in lost

revenues of at most €100 million in the Netherlands. This in turn is equivalent to a

substitution ratio of at most 5-7%, or one track less sold for every 15 to 20

downloads."(Chapter 6)

^It's worth noting that this one is exclusive to holland, hence the higher substitution rate.

  • El Diablo, blaze, Carbonox and 4 others like this

PhillBellic
  • PhillBellic

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2012
  • Australia
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#14

Posted 19 November 2016 - 05:52 AM

It's not a Piracy Problem, rather an Access Problem.

 

If Studios, whether from the Film, TV, or Recording Industries had reasonably Priced and Accessible Downloads with minimal DRM direct from their Websites, I think the 'Pirate' Market would not be as large as it is today.

 

If the Industry(/ies) make it next to impossible to Access Legal Download Channels, then the Market will find other Avenues.

  • Darth Absentis likes this

Argonaut
  • Argonaut

    what did he mean by this

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#15

Posted 19 November 2016 - 01:39 PM Edited by Argonaut, 19 November 2016 - 01:49 PM.

It's not a Piracy Problem, rather an Access Problem.

 

If Studios, whether from the Film, TV, or Recording Industries had reasonably Priced and Accessible Downloads with minimal DRM direct from their Websites, I think the 'Pirate' Market would not be as large as it is today.

 

If the Industry(/ies) make it next to impossible to Access Legal Download Channels, then the Market will find other Avenues.

 

I'd add to this in saying that big studios / industries probably haven't caught up to the change in how we listen to music+ expectations. If we take the example of Youtube, you'll find alot of channels such as MrSuicideSheep, Proximity, MonsterCat etc pumping out content daily from a variety of small artists that can often have their tracks stolen by smaller, copycat channels which have sprung up to take advantage of this growing trend. Why would any listener bother going through mainstream markets such as Itunes and Spotify when accounts like these have much less red tape to deal with to produce new content? Upload some graphics with the music on it, put a disclaimer in the description leaving it up to the artist to contact them to have their track taken down and boom, you're done.

 

The expectations of this for all music producers is the real challenge- getting rid of private trackers or even some of these big channels can be hopeless in the grand scheme of things, as there will always be someone else ready to take their place. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users