Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Media Music The Internet

Band Leaks Own Album, Blames Pirates 243

Posted by Soulskill
from the building-your-own-soapbox dept.
A Cow writes "When the hard rock band Buckcherry found out their latest single had leaked on BitTorrent, they didn't try to cover it up or take the file down. No, instead, they issued a press release. After a bit of research, TorrentFreak found out the track wasn't leaked by pirates, but by Josh Klemme, the manager of the band. In an attempt to cover their tracks, the press release was pulled, but it's still available through Reuters and Google's cache."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Band Leaks Own Album, Blames Pirates

Comments Filter:
  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:51PM (#24443701) Homepage
    Sounds like a marketting strategy to me!
    • by twotailakitsune (1229480) on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:56PM (#24443733)
      They get free marketing; while p2p get one more black mark. The RIAA must paid them for this.
      • by PJ The Womble (963477) on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:06PM (#24444269)
        Surely the band's manager is their agent, legally speaking?

        If that's the case, then if the band are the copyright holders of their own work (a fairly safe assumption) and their agent is making it available in the public domain, I'd have thought it legal to download.

        No black mark there. I'll be looking out for it on BitTorrent, as they've granted me the right to peruse the download link, I presume.
        • by morgan_greywolf (835522) * on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:29PM (#24444405) Homepage Journal

          agent is making it available in the public domain, I'd have thought it legal to download.

          That word “public domain” doesn't mean what you think it means. Public domain refers to stuff that is not under copyright. Just because the Linux kernel is available for free from kernel.org (and countless other places), doesn't mean it is in the “public domain.” It doesn't even necessarily mean that you have the right to download it, either.

          • by clone53421 (1310749) on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:53PM (#24444545) Journal

            Hmm, I don't know for sure, but wouldn't uploading one's own copyrighted music imply the conveyance of legal right to have that music? It's not violation of copyright, because you can't violate your own copyright, and the recipient technically is getting the song from the author, so I don't see how it could be considered illegal.

            Now, for the downloader to then seed the torrent might be considered illegal, since they aren't licensed to distribute it, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that the file was only intended to be distributed to the people who actually downloaded it from the original owner: the whole purpose of a torrent is to distribute something to lots of people without using as much of the original source's bandwidth.

            • by cheater512 (783349) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Saturday August 02, 2008 @12:05AM (#24444617) Homepage

              I think by releasing it via bittorrent gives you a implied licence to both download it and distribute it to others.

              From a Judge's perspective it can only mean that since they were releasing it to everyone via a medium which requires re-distribution.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by interiot (50685)

                Bzzzt, nope. At least in the U.S., the law says that the copyright owner is the only one who has permission to make copies of their work. So yes, you are allowed to download copies (since the copyright owner is the one who's facilitating that), but no, you're not allowed to redistribute it.

                You don't use the term "license" unless there's an actual legal blurb that modifies standard copyright. If there's no such blurb, it's legally covered under standard copyright. Whatever the judge thinks, that doesn'

                • by clone53421 (1310749) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @12:40AM (#24444857) Journal

                  That's interesting, but I would argue that by distributing it on bittorrent they were distributing their work under something other than standard copyright. It's not even "at a technical level": it's the whole point of the protocol. Once you put something on bittorrent, it's available to the whole world, and you don't even have to continue hosting it as long as somebody's downloaded it and cares enough to keep it going.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by interiot (50685)

                    The "whole world" part doesn't matter. When news organizations put photographs up on their website, for free, anybody in the world is allowed to view them, but they're not allowed to redistribute them.

                    Technically, once the tracker is taken down, no additional people can start downloading unless it's a DHT. It's true that existing users can finish their download. *shrug* I think this is an area of law that courts haven't considered yet, but I'd bet they'd take it to be analogous to non-P2P distribution

                    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                      by cheater512 (783349)

                      But with Bittorrent, you *have to* redistribute.
                      With HTTP its not required.

                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by clone53421 (1310749)

                      I'm amazed nobody else has made this comment...

                      When news organizations put photographs up on their website, for free, anybody in the world is allowed to view them, but they're not allowed to redistribute them.

                      When a band releases a CD, there's a © on the package. The terms are explicit. When the news feed puts a picture on their page, it has a © notice at the bottom, which is a legal notice that you can download the image but you can't distribute it yourself, as you stated. By putting the file on bittorrent, though, they implicitly allowed any normal bittorrent use, i.e. downloading the file and providing it for others to download. No copyright terms were

                    • by interiot (50685) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @01:30AM (#24445143) Homepage
                      Actually, the main HTTP RFC (RFC2616) covers caching proxy servers. By putting standard-copyright content on a webserver, you're almost guaranteeing that a third-party caching proxy is going to redistribute your content, but the law (so far) has glossed over this detail. Even if courts do eventually address that issue, they're unlikely to conclude that this technicality somehow means that copyright owners intend their works to be redistributed in any additional ways.
                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by Dan541 (1032000)

                      I think it might be an issue if you publish a .torrent file yourself, but using the original .torrent would be ok because it is published with the understanding that all downloaders will also contribute the distribution.

                    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                      by LarsG (31008)

                      Bull.

                      There is a specific exception for "caching only" both in US and EU law. See 512(b) of the DMCA [copyright.gov] and Article 13 of Directive 2000/31/EC [europa.eu]

        • by shark72 (702619) on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:50PM (#24444533)

          BuckCherry likely own the rights to the words and music (assuming they wrote same), but if their recording contract is like 99% of them, the record label has the rights to the recordings.

          Putting it in general terms... if you're a band with a typical contract, you can perform your songs live, print the lyrics, re-record them (once your exclusive recording deal is up), but you CANNOT distribute the recordings without the record label's permission.

          "No black mark there. I'll be looking out for it on BitTorrent, as they've granted me the right to peruse the download link, I presume."

          If you want to pirate it, just pirate it. Your rationalization, while unintentionally fallacious, is fallacious all the same.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by clone53421 (1310749)

            Putting it in general terms... if you're a band with a typical contract, you can perform your songs live, print the lyrics, re-record them (once your exclusive recording deal is up), but you CANNOT distribute the recordings without the record label's permission.

            If you want to pirate it, just pirate it. Your rationalization, while unintentionally fallacious, is fallacious all the same.

            Torrents are designed to distribute digital media to as many people as possible while minimizing the bandwidth used by the original host. To accomplish this, the peers (downloaders) must also serve as seeds (distributors). By the very definition of the bittorrent network when he put up the torrent he implied unlimited permission both to download it and to distribute it further.

          • by geekoid (135745)

            No, he makes a good point. Due to the nature of bittorrent, I don't think it's as cut an dry as you think. Clearly it would be cut and dry if they put it on an FTP server.

            Distribution form multiple spurce is exactly how it works, so if you put it on the system, then that must be what you want. There would be no other reason to do so.

        • by something_wicked_thi (918168) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @07:28AM (#24446471)

          Wow, you people have done a lot of digging here. Let me try to pull you all out of the little hole you've made for yourselves.

          First, a nitpick: It's not a safe assumption that the band holds the copyright to their own work. It's pretty common for bands to turn over the rights to their work to the record company. You'd need to know the details of the band's deal with its studio to know who owns the copyright. If they don't own the rights to their work, then they cannot distribute it any more than any other P2P user.

          Second, other people have corrected you on the "public domain" thing, but there seems to be some confusion about whether this means that the band has granted you an implicit right to make a copy. This is a very interesting idea coming from Slashdotters because it also relates to the RIAA lawsuits. Let me explain.

          The RIAA claims that people who share things on bittorrent are "making available" a copyrighted work and that is a violation of copyright. This theory is currently contested. However, that is precisely what this band is doing. For the sake of argument, assume the band does own the rights to its work. In that case, by the RIAA's own argument, the band intended the distribution which is their right as the copyright holder. Thus, you could argue that anyone is legally allowed to download the songs.*

          Alternatively, if we discard the "making available" theory, then it is the downloader who made the copy, not the supplier because the downloader initiated the transaction. In this scenario, the case could be made that the downloader has illegally made a copy because he had no right to do that. The only argument you'd have is that the supplier gave you an implicit right to do that by publishing it. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if that would hold up in court, but I suspect it would. But with comparisons to leaving your door unlocked coming up, who knows what would happen?

          Anyway, the interesting thing here is that, by the RIAA's argument, you're probably* doing nothing wrong by downloading from this band. However, if the opponents of the RIAA have their way, then this theory ends up on shaky legal ground.

          My own opinion on the matter (which may not be how the judges end up ruling) is that "making available" is bunk, and that anyone who downloads something from bittorrent can reasonably expect that the data is allowed to be distributed by bittorrent. What this means is that the person seeding the file has full responsibility for verifying that the file is legally redistributable, and that the RIAA must prove actual damages and show actual distribution rather than simply showing that the files are available for download.

          * This is a little shaky because "making available" is a fuzzy term that the RIAA claims is equivalent to distribution. You could argue that making available does not give an implicit right to create a copy.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by stephanruby (542433)

            Clever legal arguments aside, does it really matter in the bigger scheme of things? Countless numbers of songs and software are released in this way by their own copyright owners. And yet, only a tiny fraction of those copyright owners are caught doing it (or will admit to doing it).

            By releasing their materials in this way, they're effectively putting their "intellectual property" in legal limbo. They probably won't enforce their rights to this one particular track they just released (but I can assure you t

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's not piracy, that's *Marketing*

      There really isn't a single difference aside from those who recognize it as such...

    • by aplusjimages (939458) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:34PM (#24444075) Journal
      True that. I've never heard of BuckCherry, but I'll be damned if we aren't talking about them on Slashdot. That's a manager earning his fifteen percent.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sdo1 (213835)

        I've never heard of BuckCherry...

        You haven't missed much.

        -S

      • by StarkRG (888216)

        These days it's probably more like 20% - 25% or more.

      • by OAB_X (818333)

        If you go platinum and no-one has heard of you, until now.

        You sucked, your manager is awesome.

      • by vagabond_gr (762469) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @06:47AM (#24446357)

        Next week's news: the involvement of the band's manager to the leakage wasn't revealed by TorrentFreak but by the band's marketing director.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:08PM (#24444275)

      You mean mARRRketing.

    • by leamanc (961376)
      Too bad this comment will go down in the annals of Slashdot modded as "Funny." It was 20% Insightful and 20% Interesting, but should have been 100% Insightful. I agree that it is a new marketing strategy, and one that we are likely to see more of in the future: fake "leaked album" controversy to drum interest in a band that most people couldn't give a bowel movement about.
    • Oh yes... and if any doubt remains, read that cached link. There's exactly one short paragraph about the torrent... and this press release is nine paragraphs total, plus links to their website and myspace profile, a tour schedule, and contact info.

      Seriously... I took one look at it and thought "damn, that's a heck of a lot of advertising."

  • Uh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    When the hard rock band "BuckCherry"

    I don't know about you, but I don't want them bucking my cherry. *puts on chastity belt*

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Several years ago, a friend of mine was reading a musical artist with "awards" for the year. "Worst name of the year" award went to "Cherry Popping Daddies." My friend asks me "What's so bad about that name?" And then I had to explain to him what the name could imply... he agreed it was, in fact, a bad name.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by palegray.net (1195047)
        Hey man, as a member of the Zoot Suit wearing community, I think you need to calm down with all that jive talk about the band's name. Why don't you just throw back a bottle of beer and relax?
      • by Nimey (114278)

        That reminds me of a troll on k5 whose nick was "bloody vagina uncle".

  • by gooman (709147) on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:55PM (#24443727) Journal

    Example found in the chapter: What NOT to do.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      If it is what not to do, Why do I now know their name?

      (Please don't play that it is bad publicity. Nothing could embarrass them more than their bandname).

      • by interactive_civilian (205158) <mamoru AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday August 02, 2008 @01:28AM (#24445133) Homepage Journal

        If it is what not to do, Why do I now know their name?

        Will you download the album? I deliberately will not, even though I know the name now. Why? Because they are trying to game the system for free publicity while also trying to make P2Pers look bad by blaming them for the leak. I find this kind of underhanded attempt at publicity dishonest and obnoxious and will therefore not even bother to check out their music.

        If they had just put there music out on BitTorrent with a press release announcing they had done so, I would have thought that was cool and would have downloaded their album to support the idea and to check out their music.

        But with this kind of tactic, they have completely lost me as a potential listener.

        • I unfortunately already did download the album before I heard about this. (Maybe it's just because of my recent relationships but I love that one song)... But they didn't even have to do it the honest way like you describe for it to be a respectable gimmick, IMHO; I would have loved to see them release it on bittorrent, pretend they didn't, but issued a press release thanking the pirates for getting their music out there and encouraging people to download it to see if they like it and then come to a show

  • Stands to reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loomis (141922) * on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:56PM (#24443735)

    It stands to reason that such a talentless and disposable band would stoop to such dishonesty. Show the band how you support such underhanded tactics by making sure that you never buy any of their albums (not that you would anyhow).

  • I didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit!

    I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

    • by momerath2003 (606823) * on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:51PM (#24444185) Journal

      You forgot that email is for old South Koreans.

      • by houghi (78078)

        1) Make jokes about the standard jokes on /.
        2) Point out the ones that are forgotten
        3) ???
        4) Profit!

    • by TheNucleon (865817) on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:04PM (#24444253)

      I didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit! Mod Parent Up!! There, fixed that for ya :-)

      I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Eudial (590661)

      I didn't RTFA, but I for one welcome our new, naked Natalie Portman and grits overlords, to which CmdrTaco replied, "you must be new here." He's a Twitter sock-puppet, but so am I, you insensitive clod! In Soviet Russia, the only way to be sure is for orbit to nuke you with a beowulf cluster (yes, it runs Linux!). ??? Profit!

      I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

      You need to work in the frequently referenced pasty-white-parents'-basement-dwelling-virgin stereotype there somewhere.

    • I am trying to condense Slashdot down to a fine extract. Anyone else want to see if they can perfect it?

      . No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. [slashdot.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by chord.wav (599850)

      I'd like to add:
      OMG Ponnies!
      and:
      [Insert favourite flying chair Ballmer joke]

    • Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)

      by MiKM (752717)
      I won't believe a word of what you said until Netcraft confirms it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bky1701 (979071)
      You, sir, must turn in your geek card. You missed the goatse first post!
  • by Carbon016 (1129067) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:06PM (#24443841)

    Buckcherry has released an official statement regarding the song's unscheduled arrival, declaring, "Honestly, we hate it when this s*** happens, because we want our FANS to have any new songs first."

    So basically, either none of their fans use the internet, their definition of "first" is different than mine, or they inhabit some sort of crazy universe with non-linear time.

    I think they were "Too Drunk...." when they wrote this press release.

    • too drunk to write original music! every time I hear them at when out at the bar I go request the dead kennedys. it seems the regular dj at my regular bar has an aversion to much superior original versions of songs.
    • I think (Score:5, Funny)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:52PM (#24444197)

      They are basically using a silly sort of reverse logic. They want to leak the song, because they know it'll generate more interest. However they are worried if they do, that people will choose to download it and then not buy it. So they then come up with the idea that "Hey, we'll pretend like we didn't leak it and hate on those that did. That'll shame the fans in to buying it!" After that the discussion was probably something along the lines of "Fuck yeah I am a philosophy logic ninja MASTER! Pass the bong man."

    • by bky1701 (979071) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:59PM (#24444231) Homepage
      You insensitive clod! I live in linear-non is time where universe a!
  • Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)

    by deathtopaulw (1032050)
    The only news in this article is that it has become news, and therefore publicity.
    The leaking of albums has always been a marketing tactic used by the record companies.
  • Oh, the irony... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bakuun (976228) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:08PM (#24443859)
    The irony is that by actually having been found out like this, the publicity and attention they got increased dramatically. Would it have been posted on slashdot if they hadn't been the ones uploading in the first place?

    1. Leak single to torrent site
    2. Complain about it in press release
    3. Get a little attention
    4. Make sure that people find out that you actually did #1.
    5. Get lots of attention
    6. ???
    7. Profit!

  • Up Until... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Authoritative Douche (1255948) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:15PM (#24443895)
    ...I heard about this, Buck Cherry were one of my favorite bands. I would kill to have Josh Todd's voice. Alas, they are one more thing for me to boycott. Fuck.
    • Re:Up Until... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slack_prad (942084) * on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:36PM (#24444087) Journal

      Don't you usually like or dislike a music band for their .. I don't know .. music?

      • Re:Up Until... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Friday August 01, 2008 @11:10PM (#24444287)

        Yes and no.

        Yes, I usually like bands for their music. I also usually like game studios for their games.

        When I feel tricked and cheated by them, whether or not I like their product becomes secondary. I don't want to do business with a company or people who try to cheat me.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by PJ The Womble (963477)
        There used to be a band in the late 70s/early 80s, here in the UK, called the 4 Skins (there were 4 of them, and they were skinheads, in case y'all were wondering).

        They played some damned good punk rocking stuff. Then people labelled them as fascists (accusing them of being aligned with the British Movement, a UK Nazi organisation), and it wasn't cool to like them any more - even though they were still playing the same music. After that, the band published a statement saying that they weren't fascists at
      • by Kingrames (858416)

        Not really. I consider the music separate from the band completely. after all, anyone can play the songs.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Not really. I consider the music separate from the band completely. after all, anyone can play the songs.

          you must be listening to some really shit music then.

  • Wikipedia edits (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:28PM (#24444005)

    From the article: "It turns out that the uploader, a New York resident, had only uploaded one torrent, the BuckCherry track. When we entered the IP-address into the Wiki-scanner, we found out that the person in question had edited the BuckCherry wikipedia entry, and added the name of the band manager to another page."

    Well, a certain person, who has coincidentally both edited the BuckCherry page, and added a name to a radio station page, has also added a couple of questionable contributions [wikipedia.org].

  • Any publicity... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by everynerd (1252610) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:32PM (#24444065)
    The great thing about public relations mishaps like this is that even if they're viewed negatively, the band is still getting media attention and in turn creating buzz about an upcoming album. You can sit and bash the band for their music and their mistake, but the fact that we're talking about it means they're doing something right.
    • So, logically, the solution would be to distort the name of the band so that their name-brand does not increase as a result of the media buzz, right? Shame on you for pulling this stunt, BookBerry!

  • by InspectorxGadget (1230170) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:42PM (#24444133)
    BuckCherry is flaccid rock, at most.
  • License To Download (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tony1343 (910042)

    Since the band put the album on bittorent, sounds to me like they implicitly gave everyone a copyright license to download it. No reason to buy it now; it's free. If they didn't grant a license, I'm going to record myself screaming into a microphone, burn cds of it, then hand it out a Walmart and then sue people for copyright infringement for taking it. Sounds like almost as good of an idea as the Underpants Gnomes scheme.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by nawcom (941663)

      sounds to me like they implicitly gave everyone a copyright license to download it.

      What the hell?

      You need to learn what a copyright is. Just because something is free doesn't mean no one has rights over it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright [wikipedia.org]

      In fact copyrights are used to determine "who is not given rights" over the certain material, and that is decided by the exclusive owner. While p2p doesn't "intellectually" copy something, it does physically copy it. This comes down to stuff the RIAA argued over; whether loading an mp3 into memory is essentially copyright infringement.

      So I assume

      • Yeah, but since the whole point of torrents is to distribute to as many people as possible while minimizing the bandwidth used by the original uploader (i.e. the peers are supposed to share with others), I'd say it was definitely implying the right to distribute.

  • Press release (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    NEW YORK, NY, Jul 22 (MARKET WIRE) --
    Eleven Seven Music/Atlantic recording group Buckcherry has announced
    early details of its hugely anticipated fourth album, "BLACK BUTTERFLY."
    The album -- which follows 2006's RIAA platinum-certified blockbuster,
    "15" -- arrives in stores at all digital retailers on September 16th.

    "Too Drunk...," a featured track from "BLACK BUTTERFLY," recently appeared
    online at a number of BitTorrent sites. Buckcherry has released an
    official statement regarding the song's unschedu

    • Special Notice to All GNAA Members:

      You have new orders. I want a pro-GNAA version of this press release on my desk at 0600 hours.

      Actually, make that two male prostitutes and a pro-GNAA version of this press release.

      Actually, you can skip the press release if you want to.

      - timecop

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:58PM (#24444225)

    No matter how it ends up.

    The "direct" damage, by having the tracks downloaded, is easy to keep under control. Having a torrent means jack if nobody seeds. Just because there's a .torrent file doesn't mean the file is available on BT. It only means someone created a hash.

    But, well, to recoin an old phrase, imagine it's torrent and nobody leeches. What does that mean, essentially? That nobody wants the crap! It's available. For free. To be taken. And NOBODY bothers to do just that! It ain't even worth the bandwidth necessary to DL it.

    If there's any lesson in this, it's don't do that! The first thing a (reputable) record mag would have done when this info came out, provided it was genuine, was to check with BT. And see that nobody uploads/downloads the tracks. And then write about a band that nobody wants. Not even for free, delivered right to your computer.

  • by 6350' (936630) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @12:05AM (#24444619)
    This band seems to be following the script of the semi-movie-semi-mockumentary Hong Kong film "The Heavenly Kings," in which the band decides to upload their main song to P2P networks, then complain of the leak in a press release as a method of getting coverage, hype, and attention.

    Never was quite clear just how much of the film is real, and how much is fictional (the actors in the movie did in fact start a cheezy boy band, as depicted in the film, and seemed to, on one hand, draw inspiration for the film from their experiences, at the very least).

    Anyhoo, the second I read the blrb, I instantly realized these guys have probably watched the film in question.

    http://www.lovehkfilm.com/reviews_2/heavenly_kings.htm [lovehkfilm.com]
  • I will probably steal the song rather than pay for it. I like it... but they deserve to lose over that little piece of bullshit.
  • by BattleApple (956701) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @01:09AM (#24445025)

    "Honestly, we hate it when this s*** happens, because we want our FAN to have any new songs first."

  • They got publicity by

    1) Releasing the track on BitTorrent
    2) Whining about pirates releasing the track on BitTorrent
    3) Getting caught lying about #2.

    If intentional, worthy of Machiavelli.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.

Working...