proMedia hires students to hunt down pirates

The term 'pirate hunter' probably conjures up pictures of Pirates of the Carribean, but it also happens to be the job description for employees of proMedia, a German company that takes care of the music industry's dirty work on a contract basis. If you happen to be a student, you might even be able to get a job with them.

SpiegelOnline got some insider info on proMedia via an employee known as 'Peter.' Peter says that proMedia employs a total of 35 students to search forums, blogs and cyberlockers for copyright violations. Then comes the fun stuff: they track down the file-sharers and extract exorbitant cash settlements. “If someone gets caught,” Peter says, “it's his own fault.”

proMedia has an exclusive contract with BVMI (the Bundesverband Musikindustrie, or Federal Association of Music Industry), a member of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which in turn includes labels like Sony, EMI, Universal and Warner. For each file-sharer that gets caught, Universal and Warner come out with around €1,200, or about $1,500. Sony, big softies that they are, let violators get off on €950, or around the cost of 95 CDs, give or take. The BVMI closed (which, TorrentFreak points out, includes settlements and 'the ones that got away') 13,562 cases in 2008.

Peter, a musician himself, wishes that file-sharers would see things from the perspective of people like himself. “As a musician myself, I feel degraded by them.” He says that even his own friends copy and distribute recordings of his band, and says that the Pirate Party and their agenda would deprive musicians of income.

And what about Peter? Yeah, he's been known to indulge in a little piracy himself, too. “Anyone who claims to have never downloaded something is lying.”

Via: TorrentFreak

Source: Spiegel Online

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Best Buy founder abruptly resigns

Next Story

Three sources chime in on Windows Phone 8, painting a similar picture

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I am also a musician. Unlike Peter, I appreciate ANYone listening to my music, I charge modestly for it, but if somebody doesn't want to pay that is fine. It is about the MUSIC, not the MONEY.

About 99% of the time, if I download music, it's to see if I like the album before I plunk down money on something that only has ONE good song on it. My downloading music pretty much stopped around 8 years ago when I got satellite. I have yet to NOT find something on worth listening to. Now if they would get rid of the "dj's" on classic rewind and some of the decade channels...

naap51stang said,
About 99% of the time, if I download music, it's to see if I like the album before I plunk down money on something that only has ONE good song on it. My downloading music pretty much stopped around 8 years ago when I got satellite. I have yet to NOT find something on worth listening to. Now if they would get rid of the "dj's" on classic rewind and some of the decade channels...

You think just like me but I also visit the Free music archive at http://www.freemusicarchive.org
they have a wide variety of music and some really good stuff amongst the not so good

BAD Musicians bitch that they're not getting enough money and look for a scapegoat to pin it on.

GOOD Musicians make their money quite easily and desire for as many people to hear it as possible because its their form of art.

"Peter" needs to finally come to grips that he's a BAD Musician.

"Peter" is an idiot. I am also a musician and i would love to have people downloading my work. When we release our stuff i will offer it for free download as well as paid for people who want to support us. I see this as an awesome way for musicians to promote their selves. An i agree with cyberdrone i would continue doing music even if i wasn't getting paid.

Here's a question I've been mulling over, and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on it...

If you were (or are) a musician, but there was no way to get paid for making music, would you still want to do it?

Every time I think about it... the answer is still yes. I do what I do because I love doing it. Getting paid is a nice bonus, but even if I wasn't getting paid, I'd do it anyways. I'd have to find another avenue for income, but that wouldn't stop me from doing what I love.

If money is your primary motivation for being creative, then you're a sad, horrible, waste of a perfectly good imagination.

If copyrights suddenly disappear, and everyone can share and download all the music, movies, books and games that they want for free, people won't suddenly stop making them. There will be restructuring, certainly. The people who would ultimately lose are the investors and distribution industry, which are (obviously) the ones fighting hardest to hold on to the system they've created. They act like it would be the end of creative expression.

But regardless of copyright, artists will still write, record, and perform music. Filmmakers will still author, shoot and present movies, Software developers will still make games, and authors will still write books. Most importantly of all, people will still pay money for them.

cyberdrone2000 said,
Here's a question I've been mulling over, and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on it...

If you were (or are) a musician, but there was no way to get paid for making music, would you still want to do it?

Every time I think about it... the answer is still yes. I do what I do because I love doing it. Getting paid is a nice bonus, but even if I wasn't getting paid, I'd do it anyways. I'd have to find another avenue for income, but that wouldn't stop me from doing what I love.

If money is your primary motivation for being creative, then you're a sad, horrible, waste of a perfectly good imagination.

If copyrights suddenly disappear, and everyone can share and download all the music, movies, books and games that they want for free, people won't suddenly stop making them. There will be restructuring, certainly. The people who would ultimately lose are the investors and distribution industry, which are (obviously) the ones fighting hardest to hold on to the system they've created. They act like it would be the end of creative expression.

But regardless of copyright, artists will still write, record, and perform music. Filmmakers will still author, shoot and present movies, Software developers will still make games, and authors will still write books. Most importantly of all, people will still pay money for them.

You just read my mind there..

cyberdrone2000 said,
Here's a question I've been mulling over, and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on it...

If you were (or are) a musician, but there was no way to get paid for making music, would you still want to do it?

Every time I think about it... the answer is still yes. I do what I do because I love doing it. Getting paid is a nice bonus, but even if I wasn't getting paid, I'd do it anyways. I'd have to find another avenue for income, but that wouldn't stop me from doing what I love.

If money is your primary motivation for being creative, then you're a sad, horrible, waste of a perfectly good imagination.

If copyrights suddenly disappear, and everyone can share and download all the music, movies, books and games that they want for free, people won't suddenly stop making them. There will be restructuring, certainly. The people who would ultimately lose are the investors and distribution industry, which are (obviously) the ones fighting hardest to hold on to the system they've created. They act like it would be the end of creative expression.

But regardless of copyright, artists will still write, record, and perform music. Filmmakers will still author, shoot and present movies, Software developers will still make games, and authors will still write books. Most importantly of all, people will still pay money for them.

I am also a bit more old school in my thinking, as if I ever create something I just enjoy the fact that people are getting pleasure from my creation. For example I have created a few maps with the Portal 2 editor since it's release and positive comments from players mean more to me than the money would if I were able to sell my maps.

"peter" got abused by a child so now for him "ITS PAY BACK TIME!!!",
for the rest of "peters" reality he will be doing this.
what a sad useless pos.... like wow, do something better to pass the time.

funny, like these people for their life choose to do this kinda of crap, for what?.
idk idc, its just ... like idk.... some people in your reality can just be so god dam annoying...

"peter", when your old age around 80 or whatever and in that bed about to die, will you be happy with yourself?, you may have gotten just normal nice dads that has a family and goes to work but does not get paid that much, he could of gone to jail or got a big fine, then not enough to feed or mind his family.

oh "peter", "peter", so in like what 20-30 years?, when your around 80/90 or whatever, your life would have been to catch out dad's that download some movies for their family but the dad's still support the creators by still purchasing their movies by renting them from stores or whatever..


moral of the story is, "peter", just be a happy guy in your life.
don't try to make it harder for normal good people.

hope you enjoy your reality "peter"....
you may have a bad evil one but that does not mean you have to make it worse for other good people.


peter, go to hell you low life pos.

"Peter, a musician himself, wishes that file-sharers would see things from the perspective of people like himself. “As a musician myself, I feel degraded by them.” He says that even his own friends copy and distribute recordings of his band, and says that the Pirate Party and their agenda would deprive musicians of income."

You should feel flattered that somebody willing to pirate your music.

I am a musician, too.

so, they're hiring pirates to hunt pirates?

i guess that would work seeing as they know all the best places to obtain copyrighted material

Hey 'Peter' - if you don't make music I find good enough to buy, it's your fault. Also, if you let these huge corporations put you into a contract and bump up the price of your music to a ridiculous amount that I'm unwilling to pay - it's your fault.

Rebuttle, 'Peter'?

KCRic said,
Hey 'Peter' - if you don't make music I find good enough to buy, it's your fault. Also, if you let these huge corporations put you into a contract and bump up the price of your music to a ridiculous amount that I'm unwilling to pay - it's your fault.

Rebuttle, 'Peter'?

So because you don't like a TV inside a Best Buy store, you can go in and steal it?

andrewbares said,

So because you don't like a TV inside a Best Buy store, you can go in and steal it?


download music isn't the same as going in and robbing a store

andrewbares said,

So because you don't like a TV inside a Best Buy store, you can go in and steal it?

Best buy only make a small amount of profit on that TV. A record label makes 70-80% of the profit on an album sale even though they put no talent into it's actual production

andrewbares said,

So because you don't like a TV inside a Best Buy store, you can go in and steal it?

Man, I'm really going to enjoy using this TV I don't like. Thanks for the idea Andrew!

/s

Idiot....

timster said,

download music isn't the same as going in and robbing a store

Theft isn't limited to loss of physical property. If you pirate software, you aren't depriving the owner of their copy. If you photocopy an entire magazine in a store and leave, the owner is not losing a copy. So obviously the principle that theft is limited to physical loss of property is flawed.

It seems simple to me. The pirate has no right to the content without a consentual transaction/agreement from the rightful owner/distributor.

Googintosh said,

Theft isn't limited to loss of physical property. If you pirate software, you aren't depriving the owner of their copy. If you photocopy an entire magazine in a store and leave, the owner is not losing a copy. So obviously the principle that theft is limited to physical loss of property is flawed.

It seems simple to me. The pirate has no right to the content without a consentual transaction/agreement from the rightful owner/distributor.

You fail to see that by preventing people to copy something, you are laying claim to their physical property. A music file is a configuration of bits on a storage medium. Telling that person that they cannot use their own physical property (without violating anyone else's physical property) because someone lays claim to a configuration surely violates one's physical property rights. While many call digital pirates thieves, the one's supporting IP laws are the ones who are really stealing by laying claim to someone's physical property.

People like Peter should consider selling their works independently. I'd be a lot happier paying the artist the £1-2 they get directly and listening to their music than paying for the industry fat cats to get rich off other people's talents. The studios and their greed are why piracy is so rampant in the music industry, the artists for the most part are innocent.

Javik said,
People like Peter should consider selling their works independently. I'd be a lot happier paying the artist the £1-2 they get directly and listening to their music than paying for the industry fat cats to get rich off other people's talents. The studios and their greed are why piracy is so rampant in the music industry, the artists for the most part are innocent.

For the artists, piracy is free publicity. The money IS there even if people are not paying for your songs... Radio works don't it? I really hope artists don't think that by stomping out piracy their chequebooks will get fatter...

Its like saying Facebook and Twitter are killing Cinema because people post, "just watched <movieX> it was TERRIBLE!" and thus sales decline as people will opt to see <movieY> instead...

Im not saying piracy don't hurt the industry, but if 18% of the population make up 95% of the worlds piracy, its likley 15% of those folks won't say, 'damn you got me, guess I gotta go buy CDs' - if ANYTHING they will likely boycott the artist/recording studio and voice as much bad PR as they can.

Edited by srbeen, Jun 7 2012, 7:19pm :

giantpotato said,
With radio, ad revenue goes to the artists, with piracy, ad revenue goes to the pockets of the pirate bay, and other piracy sites.

The pirate sites and record labels are essentially doing the same thing... making a living off the talents of others, the only difference is that one is considered legal, the other isn't. In moral terms I don't think the record labels and pirate sites are as far apart as some people want to make out.

In moral terms? In moral terms the relationship between the record label and artist is consentual. Where is the consent to distribute their wares with pirates?

Googintosh said,
In moral terms? In moral terms the relationship between the record label and artist is consentual. Where is the consent to distribute their wares with pirates?

In moral terms, the artists are slaves to the record companies.

giantpotato said,
With radio, ad revenue goes to the artists, with piracy, ad revenue goes to the pockets of the pirate bay, and other piracy sites.

Based on what? your word?

Ad revenue goes to the STATION, not the artist... Why would my local tire reseller pay Britney Spears?
The station uses this revenue to pay DJ's/hosts, and pays pre-determined licensing fees to the STUDIO, not artist, to air the songs.

Studios have it fairly rough too, as in Canada at least they have strict guidelines to % local content, % Canadian content, % news, etc..