Outspoken Group Releases Album as Free Download 457
SirNuke writes "Harvey Danger, a Seattle based rock band, has released their newest album Little by little for free mp3 download. They are doing this partially as an Internet publicity experiment, and partially as a stand against the Music Industry's attack on filesharing. From their website, 'In preparing to self-release our new album, we thought long and hard about how best to use the internet. Given our unusual history, and a long-held sense that the practice now being demonized by the music biz as "illegal" file sharing can be a friend to the independent musician, we have decided to embrace the indisputable fact of music in the 21st century, put our money where our mouth is, and make our record, Little By Little..., available for download via Bittorrent, and at our website. We're not streaming, or offering 30-second song samples, or annoying you with digital rights management software; we're putting up the whole record, for free, forever. Full stop. Please help yourself; if you like it, please share with friends.' I suggest you check it out."
Ah yes (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:jeff cliff (Score:4, Insightful)
Great publicity stunt... (Score:4, Insightful)
might buy it (Score:1, Insightful)
"as an Internet publicity experiment" (Score:1, Insightful)
never heard of them.
Seriously though, afaik they aren't any famous band, so it's not really taking a stand against anyone then, it's just a random band wanting some publicity.
Re:jeff cliff (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, anyone who releases something in ogg vorbis format is an idiot anyway.
And just as many ppl here will say that this group is stupid for releasing their music this way. Quite honestly, they are betting that they will make more money by cutting out the middle man, getting their name out, and then selling CDs, probably higher quality downloads, and concerts. I am guessing that they are right.
Now, why did I bring all that up? because, mp3, aac and most of the other formats are encumbered with all sorts of patent issues. That is, these folks are releasing to mp3 BECAUSE ipod supports it, and they are doing .ogg in the hopes that more companies will start supporting .ogg. In addition, I am guessing that they realized it sounds better than .mp3. If enough groups come out with support for .ogg, then ipod competitors will come out with support for it. And in light of the war that is now started between Apple and the music industry, I am betting that Ipod will shortly support it.
bravo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MUSIC INDUSTRY BREAKDOWN: Where the money goes (Score:4, Insightful)
How about comparing apples to apples?
-a
Re:Great publicity stunt... (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately in this case, "priceless" literally means they wont make a dime!
He should be glad they did... (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, from my understanding of the system this is why only albums that sell very well make the artist any money at all and those that do make money go on to create their own production companies to get out from under this system.
I think the Internet is the ideal way for small artists to make money. The catch is they have to use their own money to produce and market their record, but with a record contract they're doing that anyway. The old way of doing things is rapidly being replaced by the Internet reality and artists that embrace it will make money, I am sure of it.
Re:He should be glad they did... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly-- Small artists make a large amount of their money from selling merch. CDs yes, but also shirts and stickers, patches, buttons and whatnot. Then there's live shows, where even non-MTV bands can make $3000-$4000 a night.
Market your band successfully and you can survive without having to sell records. That's just icing on the cake.
Re:Great marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what the group wants you to say is more along the lines of this:
"I'm currently listening to it, and I'll be damned...it's pretty good. I think I might have to go to one of their shows."
Re:Ah yes (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, like The Grateful Dead and Phish. Those poor, penniless bastards. What were they thinking? Must've been high.
Re:Decent band (Score:2, Insightful)
Tastes differ, I guess, but I'm liking this stuff a lot. In fact, I just ordered the physical album. Reminds me of a mix of XTC, Death Cab For Cutie, old R.E.M. and several other sources. Very nice.
That's great but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the clever part: if the artist is getting 90% of the profits then the *new* price of the track/album need only be around a 10th of the old price (11.11%) for them to get the same profit per sale, but all of a sudden our (typically fairly static) music budget can buy us almost an order of magnitude (9x) more music, which means more artists get a share in a big pot rather than a small handful getting a share in a small pot.
Everybody wins, except of course the dirty thieving 'legacy' recording industry; the same ones that said the VCR would destroy them yet who are now making billions each an every year from home video!
What Chuck D of Public Enemy says about P2P, so on (Score:4, Insightful)
"Technology giveth and it taketh away, and the industry knows this," Chuck D said. "The horseshoe makers probably got upset at the train manufacturers because (the new industry) took away their transport dominance, just as the train manufacturers probably got mad at the airline industry."
"I think this expands artistry and it's about adjustment," he said.
"As an artist representing an 80-year period of black musicianship, I never felt that my copyrights were protected anyway," Chuck D said. "I've been spending most of my career ducking lawyers, accountants and business executives who have basically been more blasphemous than file sharers and P2P. I trust the consumer more than I trust the people who have been at the helm of these companies.
"The record industry is hypocritical and the domination has to be shared. P2P to me means 'power to the people,'" Chuck D said. "And let's get this to a balance, and that's what we're talking about."
Re:Same Here! (Score:4, Insightful)
They should then use one of the many P2P distribution network protocols available at the moment. That is why they are there!
RIAA Home Mortgages (Score:5, Insightful)
and while the artist retains the copyright on the sheet music the record contract most likely stipulates that the recording is a work for hire, which means the record company retains the copyright to the recorded work."
-----
RIAAHMC: So, Joe Suka, just sign here and you can have the money and get started building your new home today.
Joe: Uh.
RIAAHMC: Is there a problem?
Joe: Um, I am not sure, I am a little confused.
RIAAHMC: What is to be confused about, this is our standard contract. Everyone signs it. It is really very simple.
Joe: Well, what I don't get is that you lend me the money to build my house.
RIAAHMC: Right.
Joe: And then I have to pay you back the money you loaned me.
RIAAHMC: Right, that is standard.
Joe: And then after I have paid you back, you own the house and not me?
RIAAHMC: Sure, that's how we do it! It's standard.
Joe: I think I am gonna try one of them intarweb home mortgage companies. I heard that when banks compete, I win. Almost anything has to be better than this.
-----
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984 [ourmedia.org]
da bubble man
CC BY-SA Licensed Video
Re:You miss one glaringly obvious point (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that is precisely what is or should be contested here. Copyrights were created for the purpose of giving artists incentive to create music. This was achieved by denying others the right to print copies and sell them without permission, thus allowing the author to earn money by selling his works. At the same time, however, also the public's right to freely convey cultural ideas and expressions of others was restricted for the first time ever.
Back in the day it would have required significant effort to duplicate a complete work, so this restriction wasn't considered a big sacrifice. Today, digital data can be copied so incredibly easily that the sacrifice is comparatively bigger. In essence, technology has brought so much more potential to the sharing of culture that it can be argued that giving authors the sole authority over how their work is distributed might no longer be worth the restrictions it imposes on the public.
After all, if music authors really do make most of their money from other things than actual distribution revenue of their music, is it worth it to have a gigantic copyright infrastructure, life-destroying copyright lawsuits, and immensely limited rights to share culture, just to protect the artists' rights that no longer serve any significant purpose?
I'm not saying you are wrong in saying artists' wishes shouldn't be respected or possibly enforced like they are now, but I'd like to raise a discussion on whether the system is in balance anymore. If the copyright law had to this day clearly permitted non-commercial sharing, and a proposition was made to forbid such sharing, would you support this proposition?
Missed a Main Point!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Articles like this one on slashdot can alert people like me to sites that they may have not found before,and that adds not only to the torrent usage, it also helps to publicise those artists that are trying to make it without the huge backing of the industry.
Re:Decent band (Score:3, Insightful)
The AC who responded [slashdot.org] deserves more mod points...
Two thirds of the way there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but getting their album torrents listed on /. has probably increased their download traffic exponentially! How's that for marketing & exposure? Brilliant! Especially since most of us have (or probably would have) never heard of this band in the first place without this post...