Wired Releases Creative Commons Sampling CD

An anonymous reader writes "In this month's issue of Wired Magazine, there is an included CD featuring songs from The Beastie Boys, David Byrne, among others. The unique thing about the CD is that all of the tracks are released under Creative Commons Licences, making them legal to share."

so ?

[sbjordal]

It means Wired is only one lawsuit away from RIAA...like they know what type of license it is, They know one thing: $$$

Re:Where?

[Baricom]

No - in my excitement, I did not RTFA. Sorry about that.

However, "this month" is not November, IMHO (and I think the Gregorian calendar agrees with me).

This makes sense...

[footage]

Music, photos and film/video footage gain value the more they're heard or seen; they can't be diluted or depleted like physical property. Ultimately artists who approve sharing and sampling of their work will sell more music. Free downloading has worked well for us, a historical film archive, and led to more business. See http://www.archive.org/movies/prelinger.php.

Amazing

[Pan T. Hose]

The evolution of The Beastie Boys' consciousness is truly amazing, almost unbelievable. Their last album silently installed DRM code [slashdot.org] and now it is released under a Creative Commons Licence for everyone to share! Isn't it wonderful that there are people who really can listen to our community and adapt to the information era instead of trying to halt the progress like the RIAA? This CD will be a perfect Christmas gift for anyone who doesn't realize that not every rights are "reserved" and that copying and sharing is not inherently illegal. Anyone got a torrent link?

Great, just like Linux distributions

[sulli]

More choice = more confusion! Now "Creative Commons Licensed" means nothing, because it can mean lots of different things.

Rubbish

[Chuck Chunder]

It's a simple acknowledgement that one size does not fit all.

In fact, by assembling a variety of licence options under one roof and explaining the options in a consistant and coherant way (and with comics [creativecommons.org]), they go a long way to helping people really understand the issues.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few.

[spiralscratch]

Do these songs have samples? If that's the case, I would think it safe to assume that the owners of the original works being sampled have extended usage rights only to these artists. Beastie Boys, et al would most likely not have a legal right to extend sampling rights. And since it would be difficult to impossible to say, 'you can sample this and this part of the song, but not this part," they have to deny sampling of the entire work

Re:No commercial sampling for a few.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I mean, I'm not trolling here, but for fuck's sake, are some people never content? If they give you a free car, will you complain that gas is not free and they have not given you the schematics for the injection system so you can improve it?

Honestly...

Re:How can the Beasty Boys

[pedestrian crossing]

Yeah, I've got mixed feelings on the B-Boys. I have been a longtime fan, spent a -shitload- of money on their CD's, and the DRM on their last one was a huge slap in the face. So my B-Boy CD collection is complete, except for their latest. Unless something changes drastically, I won't be buying any more of their stuff.

For a band with "'tude", who are built their little empire on "rhymin' and stealin'", releasing a DRM'd CD, then telling their fans, "it's not us, dude, get over it" was the height of hypocrisy.

Yeah, I'm a little bitter.

It's going to take more than a little publicity stunt like this to make up for what they did, releasing one track under a non-commercial-only sampling license is a pretty weak apology.

Perhaps *they* have licensing problems?

[Fallen Andy]

i.e just like John Carmack and the Doom source (the music in that game's case), they

can't give you sampling rights because they licensed them themselves...

Sorry, but the commercial world, she's a bitch.

Entertainment industry shake-up

[Media Girl]

AMPAS (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) [oscars.org], aka "The Academy," has been watching and fretting over these kinds of developments in the music industry (--All the more so since this upending of the music biz is happening right after the studios (and/or their owners) spent a couple decades devouring just about every music company they could find and stomach.) There is a whole thicket of contractual and union entanglements with movies -- for example, actors in the Screen Actors Guild and directors and production managers in the Directors Guild of America see a large part of their income from movies (and commercials) in residuals paid out per airing on tv, video sales, etc. How Creative Commons licensing would work affect the Hollywood economy, I don't know.

From the corporate perspective, the Hollywood studios are starting off from a stronger position than the music industry, though. CDs were always easy to copy analog, but most DVD players will MacroVision scramble (possibly multiplied with other copy proteciton systems) a program so that the everyday consumer cannot copy it. Yes, there are hacks for these protections and codecs for pulling off the Mpeg-2 video into a DVD+/-R-friendly format. But it's not as easy as making a tape off an album was.

But it can't last. With digital television and broader-band internet (e.g., WiMax) coming, something is going to have to give. Mandating chips into players and burners only can go so far. It cannot last forever against the democratic marketplace of Open Source and Creative Commons economics.

But it will take time, and pain. For music, it's proving to be not as painful as it might have been for the musicians, though the tassled-loafer boys living in Bel Air might be feeling the pinch. But with movies, a lot more people are involved in each project. And what this spells for the big movie, I don't know. (If the blockbusters go, no real loss, some would say.)

We are in a time of upheaval, and one of the biggest sectors of our economy -- entertainment -- is going to be pretty much unrecognizable to our soon-to-be-outdated perspective in just a few years.

Re:looks good but,

[Zoolander]

Well, before the phonograph, musicians had to *gasp* PERFORM to make money. Then came a sort of golden age, where you could theoretically make a few records, then sit on your ass and watch the money roll in.
Now it seems like that golden age is coming to an end, forcing artists who can't perform live out of business. A good development, IMHO.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Buy it off a shop?
>
> Duh!

Very funny. And what if I live in the Czech Republic? Duh?

Re:How can the Beasty Boys

[jschottm]

release songs under the CC, when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

According to their statement, all of the albums released by their label outside of .us and .uk (IIRC) have the copy protection on it. I'm not saying that the copy protection was a good thing, but it's not as if the group sat down and decided to use it, it was forced on them.

Plus, they're listing theirs under the 'Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and noncommercial sampling' which is fine and good for them; I'd be curious to know how many songs they've 'bitten' over the years that never got attributed.

I don't know for sure, but it may be that songs on the album use samples whose license forbids resampling.

Just a guess.

Re:Amazing

[Secrity]

Another perfect Christmas gift would be a copy of the magazine; which includes the CD and an excellent article explaining the licensing. That issue also includes a companion article regarding Open Source in Brazil.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few.

[commodoresloat]

He's not complaining but he is pointing to a significant (and to me surprising) note of hypocrisy coming from people who should know better. Perhaps they have pressure from other sources (record companies, lawyers) that prevented them from allowing sampling but it does seem really strange that of all people the Beasties and Chuck D would prevent it. Chuck D defended Napster back in the twentieth century, has released music under way less restrictive terms, and built his career on sampling (as did the Beasties).

Simple

[cdmz1]

The RECORD COMPANY is the one who created the DRM for the Beastie Boys album. If memory serves correct, the B-boys release of "to the 5 boroughs" in the UK and in Canada have DRM on them, not the release in the US. I beleive that is because their record label DRMs ALL albums in those markets.

Do you *REALLY* think that the Beastie Boys have the power to tell their record label what to do? Those tricky T&C of contracts tend make the band release the album in accordance with what the label wants. Hence why there was DRM on their album.

And, yes Paul's Boutique is an amazing work - the best mix tape ever made!

Re:No commercial sampling for a few.

[Andy_R]

The way I'm reading this is that people are complaining about the story's inaccurate reporting.

It's a good thing that these songs are being released will less restrictions than normal, it's a bad thing that slashdot is giving the impression that the songs are totally unrestricted. 2 different issues!

Re:Good idea

[Shinglor]

You can already get 30 second previews from iTunes, Amazon and hundreds of music sites. What does that have to do with Creative Commons?

Irony

[choochus]

I find it rather ironic that with the "legal to share!" hyperbole you have to buy a friggin magazine to get it!?

Where are the download links on the site, Wired!? sheesh

I know, I know "It's a business, they need to make money", yadda yadda - but one of the biggest points of opening intellectual property in music is that the Internet makes so much more sense as a distribution medium, rather than shipping CDs.

OK.. I'm done bitching :o)

Re:No commercial sampling for a few.

[Carthag]

It's probably because their songs contain samples from other songs that their license does not allow them to let other people sample.

Re:so ?

[ragingmime]

No, they're not. Wired has permission from the artists and the record labels to be distributing their songs: even if some people in the RIAA think this might be a bad precedent, they can't do anything about it, because they simply have no legal case. This goes beyond a question of fair use vs. copyright infringement: it's been done with permission and it's legal, end of story.

like they know what type of license it is, They know one thing: $$$

The RIAA might be greedy, but they're not morons, and I'm sure they know copyright law like the backs of their hands. They know that they have no case and that a judge would probably throw out any attempt at a lawsuit.

By the way, what would be in it for them? I'm not sure if these labels are RIAA members, but if so, the RIAA would be acting against the decisions of their own members. If not, the RIAA has no business intervening.