Slashdot Log In
Paul McCartney Releases Album As DRM-Free Download
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Dec 10, 2008 03:17 AM
from the getting-it dept.
from the getting-it dept.
Medieval Cow writes "Sir Paul McCartney has a side project called The Fireman and he's just released their new album, Electric Arguments, as a digital download. Why this is of interest to this community is that he released it 100% DRM-free. You can purchase just the digital files, or if you purchase a physical CD or vinyl copy, you are also given access to the digital download. Not only that, but the download is available in 320-kbps MP3, Apple Lossless, or even FLAC format. If you're interested in trying before you buy, you can listen to the entire album in a Flash player on the main page of the site. It's so nice to see a big musician who gets it. Bravo, Sir Paul!"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Paul McCartney was one of the biggest proponents of that attempt to get retroactive copyright extension of sound recordings a few years back. Maybe he's changed his attitude towards copyright since then.. or maybe he's just interested in making a buck (or a bob) any way he can.
Parent
Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Paul McCartney was one of the biggest proponents of that attempt to get retroactive copyright extension of sound recordings a few years back. Maybe he's changed his attitude towards copyright since then.. or maybe he's just interested in making a buck (or a bob) any way he can.
Yeah, I don't think he's doing it because he's suddenly anti-copyright.
This is a particularly good time in the history of the recording industry to be one of the "good guys" who drops the DRM and gets press for doing it.
Notice the huge free ad he just got on Slashdot?
And think about it -- if you're choosing between paying for a Metallica vs. paying for this one, what goes through your head?
* I hate that @#$%in' DRM...
* Metallica! Those DRM-loving pricks. @#$% 'em, I'm just getting this one off the internets.
* McCartney! He removed the DRM... Maybe I shouldn't rip him off.
It's a marketing experiment. There'll probably be more freeloaders, since the people who *wanted* to get their music for free but couldn't figure it out will have an easier time of it. But if sales are boosted enough by the good press and goodwill, the experiment will have succeeded.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, what point are we arguing here? (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, most slashdotters are not anti-copyright. The industry position on DRM is based on confusing DRM with copyright and (ironically) compensating musicians.
Acknowledging a sizable die hard "information wants to be free" contingent, I think the consensus position here is that artists should be able to make money with copyrighted but DRM free music, priced reasonably, and packaged for convenient purchase and use. True, that means the only the most efficient distributors make money, which is bad for so
Re:Fallacy. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the whole point of the issue. Digital copying has the recording industry running around like a chicken with their heads cut off.
A digital copy never degrades. Assuming no corruption (which good protocols prevent), the 5 billionth copy sounds just the same as the first. So in essence, a copy is just as good as "the real thing". They panic and insist that DRM is a "must" because otherwise, people will copy those songs wholesale.
The thing that they forget though is the same thing that drove them into the frenzy in the first place: DIGITAL COPIES DON'T degrade. If I want to pirate a song, I generally don't go to my buddy who bought a non-DRM'd copy. I'd go to a sharing site. Since a digital copy doesn't degrade, then as you said it only takes ONE copy of the song without DRM to spawn as many non-DRM'd copies as are necessary to quench the thirst of the masses.
In the end it's STUPID. Anybody who wants a free (regardless of legality) non-DRM'd copy of any song or movie knows exactly where to get it. The only people who get affected by the hassles of DRM are the people who wish to obey the law. So, ironically, they get a worse product than the pirates. Rather than the copy being "just as good" as the real thing, it's now actually BETTER.
Try to sell an inferior product at a higher price with nothing more than a law that most people see as antiquated, and it's not going to fly. Particularly when the vast majority of offenders of this law are never prosecuted, and you have a recipe for the collapse of an industry. The solution is simple. Provide a SUPERIOR product, and a REASONABLE price, and people will buy it.
Parent
Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (Score:4, Funny)
Napster Bad!!!!
Parent
Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (Score:4, Informative)
Yesterday I have seen the first TV advert on German TV which said (in german obviously) somthing like: "musicload.de: pure MP3, no digital restrictions".
AFAICT DRM was a topic for gamers but not the average music customer. The DRM topic has hit the mainstream Media now.
-S
Parent
It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm impressed that he lets you try the album before you buy it, and that it's in flash. Of course, nobody would ever download the file and convert it to an mpeg because that wouldn't be honest.
Meh, some obviously will. But what's the quality on that MP3? And of course the obvious realization: you can bet a lot of people in the music industry watch these experiments very carefully.
If more people just find a way to get the album without paying for it (because that's obviously easier without the DRM... though still not completely trivial for the average fan) ...then they will be forced back into DRM-based approaches.
It's a money experiment. Dunno how they'll measure exactly... I suppose they can
Metallica did the same (Score:5, Interesting)
I was very surprised at the time that nobody seemed to give a flying fuck, I thought it was a very interesting move, especially coming from Metallica... It was not even mentioned in online reviews ffs! I hardly saw any mention of that anywhere, and had to add it myself to the Wikipedia page (it was deleted instead of being expanded, natch).
Really, I've no idea why, but nobody cared. At all. (Not even fans, before you say noone cares about Metallica period)
This album sells extremely well, btw.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
.... That was odd. Ah well, looks like I accidentally double posted.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or instead of hunting for a 20+MB download...
ffmpeg -i in.flv -acodec copy out.mp3
mplayer in.flv -dumpaudio -dumpfile out.mp3
...or just listen to it in the flash player already and buy it if you like it.
I've sampled it and I find it good-ish, but not impressive. Still, I am tempted to buy it just to "make a statement"... I know. Silly me.
Already on mininova (Score:2, Informative)
In fact it's been there since the 20th November.
Not quite your average artist (Score:5, Insightful)
One point to make though is that Paul McCartney is the sort of guy who can afford to go DRM free, if this album is ripped, lobbed on bit-torrent and limewire then Macca is unlikely to be out on the streets through lost revenue. Its great that he has done it but the _fear_ of being ripped off is going to be less for one of the biggest selling artists of all time than it would be for the average band.
Kudos indeed, but this isn't just a random artist choosing DRM this is the bloke from the Beatles who co-wrote the first hit for the Rolling Stones and the Frog Chorus.
Re:Not quite your average artist (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
...if this album is ripped, lobbed on bit-torrent and limewire then Macca is unlikely to be out on the streets through lost revenue.
It's another test, in the eyes of the music industry & other artists. Naturally they're all watching to see how this goes.
And obviously everyone knows he's filthy rich, and doesn't need their money... so you won't have people buying the album (vs. snagging elsewhere for free) simply because they feel he needs the money. That could be a factor for less well-known artists.
So, yeah, let's see how the test goes. For all the people who argue that *this* is the more profitable way to release an album -- t
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point, and it's all about risk. Anyone who is wealthy can easily release music without DRM, but so do many very small unknown bands. The ones who would be surprising to see release DRM are the ones in the middle - on the verge of success or moderately popular. They may not get a lot of revenue but are somewhat comfortable. If a middle of the road band (monetarily) starts releasing DRM-free music, that would be news.
LS
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Janis Ian [wikipedia.org] claimed quite the opposite in an article [baen.com] from all the way back in 2002: It's the "biggest selling artists", if anyone, who are to be concerned about sharing - the "average" band/artist hardly receives money from their label but gets a lot more exposure (and thus income) from shared music.
Then again, that is more-or-less also the argument behind the existence of the Baen Free Library [baen.com] in the first place, where this article is hosted. Go check it out if you like SF.
Re:Not quite your average artist (Score:5, Informative)
The song in question is I Wanna Be Your Man, written by Lennon and McCartney. The Rolling Stones released it as a single in 1963, before the Beatles did. It was their second single, reaching number 12 on the UK charts. The Stones' first single reached number 21, so I Wanna Be Your Man could be considered their first "hit" if you think of "hit" as meaning "top 20". The song was also the B side of the first single the Stones released in the USA.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_discography#Singles [wikipedia.org] for more music trivia.
Parent
Re:Not quite your average artist (Score:4, Insightful)
You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.
Stallman is that you? Are you serious?
Artists don't have a right to make money from their art, it just happened to work well.
WTF? So Michaelangelo should have done the Sistine Chapel for free? Da Vinci shouldn't have taken that commission for the Mona Lisa? Mozart should never have taken that court job or done those popular operas?
The multi-millionaires rock stars didn't exist before the invention of disc records and probably won't exist after that.
Go and have a look at some of the musicians, opera singers, composers and the like (who didn't drink it all away) from previous centuries and realise what a piece of muppetry you are saying.
I don't have the right to listen freely to their music, it just happens to work well.
I've never felt like condemning copyright violation as outright theft before but your mentality really does seem to be in that category of "F-U, F-everyone" and "I'm alright Jack" asshole that just deserves to be up before the judge. I don't have a right to my neighbours car... and you know what I won't be taking it for a joy ride no matter how well it would work for me.
Oh hang on, you are clearly actually an RIAA plant because no-one could be that big a sociopath.... could they?
Parent
Re:Not quite your average artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the very real risk of being whooshed, I'll bite.
You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.
Stallman is that you? Are you serious?
Artists don't have a right to make money from their art, it just happened to work well.
WTF? So Michaelangelo should have done the Sistine Chapel for free? Da Vinci shouldn't have taken that commission for the Mona Lisa? Mozart should never have taken that court job or done those popular operas?
Being fair to the GP post, I think you are perhaps reading a little more into it than is there... It's fair enough to say that artists don't have a right to make money from their art. They don't have this right now, and never have had it. The fact is, if the art is good, people will pay for it. If not, they won't. Copyright is neither here nor there. Indeed I'm not sure that any of the examples you cite enjoyed any significant copyright protection on their work.
The multi-millionaires rock stars didn't exist before the invention of disc records and probably won't exist after that. Go and have a look at some of the musicians, opera singers, composers and the like (who didn't drink it all away) from previous centuries and realise what a piece of muppetry you are saying.
Quite.
Parent
just for fun (Score:5, Funny)
Let's count the number of posts that occur before the first complaint about "no ogg vorbis".
Re:just for fun (Score:5, Funny)
That would be 4.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you RTFS it has FLAC.
Re:just for fun (Score:5, Informative)
Weird, complaining 320 kbits is too much then asking for a lossless download..?
Regardless, right there in the fucking summary it says they're offering FLAC as well as MP3 and Apple Lossless.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Next Abbey Road (Score:2)
Or not. Because he doesn't own the rights -Mike probably does. Or because even since 1969 it still is a cash cow.
No news here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No news here (Score:5, Interesting)
He released Saul Williams' album, which he produced, under a "pay what you think is fair" scheme.
His conceptual album 'Ghost' was released 100% digitally & DRM free with the first (out of 4) CD freely distributed.
His last album "The Slip" is freely available for full download [nin.com] as a gift to the fan.
Most of his track material is released under the Creative Common scheme for the fans to remix, and he built a comunity site to support these. For all I know, he created the sourceforge of Music.
Nine Inch Nails is definetely a major band/artist too, and the first one of such importance to explore new way of distributing music.
Parent
Free (as in beer) music (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone know good sources of legal free downloadable music? There's a lot of it out there, but sometimes hard to find. Here's what I've stumbled upon recently.
Finally! (Score:2, Funny)
A McCartney album that's actually worth the money!
FCC versus McCartney? (Score:2)
Perhaps FCC Commissioner Taylor Tate [slashdot.org] will make it her personal project to ban his DRM-free album as unfair competition?
Liquid Sound Design (Score:2, Informative)
This is good news, even if it's another major artist, rather than the whole record industry!
The producer that is the other half of the project - Martin Glover a.k.a. Youth is well known in music production circles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Glover [wikipedia.org]
His side projects Dragonfly Records and Liquid Sound Design lean towards the more psychedelic aspects of trance and dub. The liquid dub styles promoted through Liquid Sound Design in particular are releases that are well worth a listen and feature some re
Great, if only (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does he really get it ... (Score:2)
I vaguely remember that he was one to the people consistently pushing for extensions to copyright length here in the UK.
Note how here in the UK copyright is now Life + 70 years ...
In my opinion, his choice for DRM free formats is a natural followup to the same considerations that lead Recording Companies to go ahead and support the new Amazon music store which sells DRM free music in MP3 format: they were scared shitless that Apple was becoming the Microsoft of the Digital Music Distribution world and thus
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1.6 billion reasons why.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Paul McCartney has an estimated worth of $1.6 Billion so it's not as if he's going to be affected by people pirating it so is far better placed than up and coming groups to be able to afford to take the hit.
$1.6 Billion in the bank allows you to be able to afford to have altruistic ideas.
However, the vast majority of musicians aren't in such a position so need the sales.
Flac rocks (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Flac rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
He has money, so what? (Score:2, Interesting)
easy for the ultrawellknown authors... (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, when you are a completely unknown new band, then you must be courageous. I for one will be happy when there'll be a post here listing the last ten courageous little groups trying http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] .
And in case you were among the happy few knowing Magnatune, let's mention a foreign, minuscule one for classics mainly: Zig-Zag [zigzag-territoires.com]
A perfect shopping experience (Score:5, Informative)
Just purchased the MP3 version. It is, as claimed, mpga 320K, DRM-free. In addition to the tracks, you get cover artwork and liner notes as jpgs.
The range of purchase options is very interesting. $8.99 for MP3 files and artwork, $12.99 for a CD, $29.99 for a direct metal mastered double vinyl record, and $79.99 for a DVD containing 24bit 96Khz tracks, and a second DVD containing multi-track session files for a selection of the album tracks.
The purchasing experience was flawless: create an account, give a credit card (with optional choice of saving the number or not; I chose not), get a zipfile of the downloads. Not a wasted keystroke or mouse click.
This really is the way I want to purchase my music. Two big thumbs up from the consumer angle. Lots of choices, low prices, immediate downloads, supports the artists.
The perfect shopping experience.
Am I missing something? (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I missing something? I've bought dozens of DRM free albums over the years. Nothing on Amazon MP3 or 7Digital.com has DRM as far as I'm aware, so how is this news? At first I thought the album was also FREE (price wise), but it's not - you have to pay for it, so I don't get why this is a story??
DRM has been good for us (Score:4, Interesting)
We're the good guys, right? DRM is evil (true that), and we offer alternatives. But the fact is that before DRM came along, piracy of music on the internet was rampant. People (good and bad) didn't give it much thought since it was just so easy to copy. We now say "give it to us without DRM, and we'd gladly pay a reasonable price." But for most people, this is a lie. If it weren't for DRM, they would have no concept of the value of the thing they're copying. They would not have "paid a reasonable price" because they would just have downloaded it for free. Only when they were threatened by having that taken away did they think about opening their wallets.
The RIAA and DRM have been an important corrective event in our society. Because of them, we have become more aware that the producers of this content have a right to protect their investment. Whether you're an artist publishing a song or a coder licensing under GPL, respecting copyright is important for our economy, our access to artistic works, and our freedom.
We still have an uphill battle against the RIAA and their efforts to lock down every little bit of content and take away our right to listen to the content we paid for on any device we wish, let friends listen, etc. When the dust settles, a happy compromise will be reached where sharing with a friend (who will probably turn around and buy the whole album as a result) is reasonable fair use, while the same is not true for posting the copyrighted work on a P2P sharing network, completely taking away the livelihood of the artist who created the work.
My favorite band is They Might Be Giants. Not all of their stuff is fantastic, though, so I have sought ways to listen before buying. But in the end, I have legally bought and paid for every one of their albums. Maybe that's mostly because I'm a fanatic, but I also see it as a statement of respect to people whom I want to produce more of the same kind of brilliant stuff.
Re:FLAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on man. Feel free to buy the FLAC and convert it to your preferred format. It's lossless compression, you can't ask for more.
Parent
Re:FLAC (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know parent is fishing for lols, but how long before steam (valve) get their arse into gear and start offering music?
Could easily build into the steam overlay to control a media player, combine each games soundtrack into your playlist, allowing you to listen to whatever while you play :)