Slashdot Mirror

Not the GP, but my CD collection went up from a handful to 220ish CD's during the Napster era.

Through napster I discovered music and artists I didn't even knew existed. I would then go to the local Circuit City and would buy their CDs (sometimes their whole discography) since I had got a taste and I liked it. I wanted more and I wanted it all at the highest quality.

When Napster was shut down I refused to send a penny to the RIAA and its labels. A Nine Inch Nails album - Ghosts (which Trent released as an independent an sold directly through his website) was the first CD I bought after all those years.

After that I bought a few CDs (less than 10 though) thanks to the guidance from RIAARadar (a website that has sadly gone silent).

I bought a lifetime membership to Magnatune. I have gotten my money's worth in album downloads from that site.

I pitched in a donation to Musopen (many CDs worth) during their Kickstarter a few years ago to help them record and release free open music. The recording was done, the donors were given the first downloads and it has been great.

So I have been willing to put money in the proverbial guitar case, but to this day I still refuse to hand money to the RIAA. When given the opportunity I will gleefully hand my entertainment dollars to their competition instead.

I now own about 230 physical CDs and I will likely own no more than that for the foreseeable future.

I'll continue to pump my (now more numerous) entertainment dollars to other non-RIAA recipients at every opportunity. Not (just) out of spite for what they've done to the music scene and to stifle the growth of consumer friendly distribution channels, but to cast my votes, my dollars to a better alternatives.

You sure are snarky for someone who is seemingly incapable of using a search engine.

Google: "site:techdirt.com apple arbitrary" They've done a fairly thorough job of documenting Apple's arbitrary policies. Of course, Apple is free to be as arbitrary as they wish, as are the fanboys free to defend them blindly (thanks for your shining example!). And the rest of us are free to criticize their silly approach and enjoy a superior product.

For the lazy ones:
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/04/24/crudebox-becomes-prudebox-to-make-it-into-the-app-store/
http://almerica.blogspot.ca/2008/09/podcaster-rejeceted-because-it.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10042127-2.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?59,651569
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91508-Apple-Blocks-Obscene-Newsreader-App
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/may/21/apple-iphone
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/apple-imposes-n/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36946/Interview_Molleindustria_On_Phone_Storys_Objectionable_Message.php

I await your apology with bated breath.

you state that as though it's common knowledge he's running around with his pants on his head. Please give us more to go on.

Sorry I was a bit busy at the time to look for relevant links.

Mitt Romney: Another Crazy Republican Gear

The 'Crazy', 'Extremist' Republican Party Is About To Nominate a Massachusetts Moderate

Are the Republican candidates all crazy?

My favorite quote from that article:

A leading Republican, who was in Congress for more than 10 years, answered my question: "Who can beat Obama?" with a casual, "a mammal". Then he added sadly: "But they are all reptiles."

You could spend a lot of your evening looking at all the crazy Republicans. Normally I don't like to lump by party, but this year there's clearly something in the Republicans' water glasses at the debates.

Hypothetical - If I'm an independent game developer who relies on game purchases to finance myself to make future games, what do you expect me to do?

Let's look at the not-hypothetical-at-all practical and functional answers to this question, which has already been handled quite adroitly by that community...

Fund them upfront -- granted this seems to work a lot more for Board and Card games (too many examples there to list even a significant fraction of them), but there's no specific reason it couldn't be used by indie video game developers (and maybe they'd get better at estimating costs after a project or two).

Let people decide how much they think your work was worth -- hey look, you could buy them all for $0... but people don't.

Free-To-Play -- provide services, cosmetic add-ons, and bonuses for revenue

Those are just your basic answers. Handing out your game for free isn't the end of the world... and in many cases has proven to be a far better business model than actually trying to sell it!

P.S. It also works for music -- give it away, sell performances and physical copies worth actually owning.

Might want to look at this. They've put up multi-tracks for the last three albums.

What I'd like to see (or rather hear), is that we can have access to the individual tracks of each song, so that we can remix stuff. Kind of like the open-source of audio.

It's been done occasionally. See, for example, the bottom of this page which provides links to raw multitrack files (distributed as torrents) for multiple songs.

If I ran linux I would buy the Humble Indie Bundles, no question. I have yet to try them on windows and there is a lot more competition on windows, which is why I have not tried them.

on music my understanding is that typically a band gets less than 10% (often down around 2-5%) of CD sales. Me giving them $2 through a link on their site is much more profitable than me refusing to pay $15 and either not buying it or pirating it. I would love for most artists to have a link on their site so I could do this. I feel I owe them money but I am not going to the a store and buying the CD and then ripping that CD just so I can use it. I can download it faster and usually before I can buy it. Nine Inch Nails gives away most his new work for free or really cheap directly from his site using FLAC and no DRM. Some times he gives away the first so many songs then you can buy the deluxe album for $5 or something of that nature.

I often wish I could give $5-$20 (depending on the game) directly to the people that made it and maintain it. I do not wish my money to go to the *IAA, Wal-Mart, etc though. If they would sell it to me for the same price they sell it to Wal-Mart for using torrents or something similar I might could handle that. I never have been to the steam website that might be acceptable. I already had a great place to get my games and moving from $0 cost scene releases to steam was something I never looked into, my way was already working quite well. I do wish I could go to somesite.com and click a paypal (or something better) link and give a few of these guys $5-20 though. Most games I download never get played or only get played an hour or two, there is some I feel I owe them money, but I do not feel so bad I need to go buy a lesser copy at a store to make up for it that I would never use since I can pirate a better version usually.

If I ran linux I would buy the Humble Indie Bundles, no question. I have yet to try them on windows and there is a lot more competition on windows, which is why I have not tried them.

on music my understanding is that typically a band gets less than 10% (often down around 2-5%) of CD sales. Me giving them $2 through a link on their site is much more profitable than me refusing to pay $15 and either not buying it or pirating it. I would love for most artists to have a link on their site so I could do this. I feel I owe them money but I am not going to the a store and buying the CD and then ripping that CD just so I can use it. I can download it faster and usually before I can buy it. Nine Inch Nails gives away most his new work for free or really cheap directly from his site using FLAC and no DRM. Some times he gives away the first so many songs then you can buy the deluxe album for $5 or something of that nature.

I often wish I could give $5-$20 (depending on the game) directly to the people that made it and maintain it. I do not wish my money to go to the *IAA, Wal-Mart, etc though. If they would sell it to me for the same price they sell it to Wal-Mart for using torrents or something similar I might could handle that. I never have been to the steam website that might be acceptable. I already had a great place to get my games and moving from $0 cost scene releases to steam was something I never looked into, my way was already working quite well. I do wish I could go to somesite.com and click a paypal (or something better) link and give a few of these guys $5-20 though. Most games I download never get played or only get played an hour or two, there is some I feel I owe them money, but I do not feel so bad I need to go buy a lesser copy at a store to make up for it that I would never use since I can pirate a better version usually.

If I ran linux I would buy the Humble Indie Bundles, no question. I have yet to try them on windows and there is a lot more competition on windows, which is why I have not tried them.

on music my understanding is that typically a band gets less than 10% (often down around 2-5%) of CD sales. Me giving them $2 through a link on their site is much more profitable than me refusing to pay $15 and either not buying it or pirating it. I would love for most artists to have a link on their site so I could do this. I feel I owe them money but I am not going to the a store and buying the CD and then ripping that CD just so I can use it. I can download it faster and usually before I can buy it. Nine Inch Nails gives away most his new work for free or really cheap directly from his site using FLAC and no DRM. Some times he gives away the first so many songs then you can buy the deluxe album for $5 or something of that nature.

I often wish I could give $5-$20 (depending on the game) directly to the people that made it and maintain it. I do not wish my money to go to the *IAA, Wal-Mart, etc though. If they would sell it to me for the same price they sell it to Wal-Mart for using torrents or something similar I might could handle that. I never have been to the steam website that might be acceptable. I already had a great place to get my games and moving from $0 cost scene releases to steam was something I never looked into, my way was already working quite well. I do wish I could go to somesite.com and click a paypal (or something better) link and give a few of these guys $5-20 though. Most games I download never get played or only get played an hour or two, there is some I feel I owe them money, but I do not feel so bad I need to go buy a lesser copy at a store to make up for it that I would never use since I can pirate a better version usually.

But the message is crystal clear. You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it.
I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and
share it with others or copy it without paying. I have every right to expect that what I write IS MINE
TO SELL or give away - but it's MINE.

Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you're not a published author, or you would understand the economics of the situation. You're not going to become a millionaire from a single book, unless you're already dead (and the publisher is fairly certain they can avoid giving anything to your estate).

The publishing industry may not be nearly as draconian as the music/movie industry, as far as profits are concerned, but any business that has as its business plan "sell the works of other people to make money" is screwing the content producer (the person who actually created the content in the first place). Especially in this day and age, when the easiest distribution method is "put it on a website". You can throw up a paywall, or better yet just ask for donations, and make more money distributing the content from a PC in your living room than you'll ever see by going through a company whose sole purpose is to bilk you of your profits.

For example:
Ask Trent Reznor how it works, he's making money hand over fist by giving away his music for free, only asking for currency if you want a physical product. Seems to me to be a very reasonable thing to do; "Here, listen to my music, you won't even have to rip it to mp3 first. By the way, if you want the CD, you can order it here, and it comes with lots of cool stuff in the case."

As a further example of Trent's work in this field: (with some emphasis added by myself)
From Techdirt's The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There):

Trent Reznor, the man behind the band Nine Inch Nails, has done so many experiments that show how this model works that it's difficult to describe them all. He's become a true leader in showing how this model works in a way that has earned him millions while making fans happy, rather than turning them into the enemy.

Reznor has always reached out to his fans, and has an amazingly comprehensive website, with forums, chat rooms and many other ways of interacting. He encourages fans to better connect with each other as well. While companies like Warner Music forced all the music videos of their artists off YouTube for many months, Reznor actually aggregates all the videos his fans take at concerts (he encourages them to bring cameras) on one page on his own website. He does the same for photos. He released a (free) iPhone app that allowed fans to locate each other, and communicate with each other, while sharing photos and videos as well. It's all about connecting with those fans, and helping them better connect with each other, so they feel like a part of a club.

From there, he gives fans real reasons to buy. Lately, he's taken to releasing everything he records for free online, knowing that the music will show up on file sharing sites anyway, so he sees no reason to fight it. Yet, he adds many other options that people might want to buy. With his release of the album Ghosts I-IV, he released all the tracks under a Creative Commons license that allowed anyone to share them online for free. Yet, he also set up some cool "reasons to buy." You could get the two disc CD, if you wanted, for just $10. Above that, though, was a Deluxe Edition Package, for $75. It was, effectively, a box set, but around a single album. Beyond the two CDs, it also included a DVD and a Blu-ray and a photobook of images.

Where the experiment got even more interesting was that he offered up the $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition Pac

But the message is crystal clear. You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it.
I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and
share it with others or copy it without paying. I have every right to expect that what I write IS MINE
TO SELL or give away - but it's MINE.

Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you're not a published author, or you would understand the economics of the situation. You're not going to become a millionaire from a single book, unless you're already dead (and the publisher is fairly certain they can avoid giving anything to your estate).

The publishing industry may not be nearly as draconian as the music/movie industry, as far as profits are concerned, but any business that has as its business plan "sell the works of other people to make money" is screwing the content producer (the person who actually created the content in the first place). Especially in this day and age, when the easiest distribution method is "put it on a website". You can throw up a paywall, or better yet just ask for donations, and make more money distributing the content from a PC in your living room than you'll ever see by going through a company whose sole purpose is to bilk you of your profits.

For example:
Ask Trent Reznor how it works, he's making money hand over fist by giving away his music for free, only asking for currency if you want a physical product. Seems to me to be a very reasonable thing to do; "Here, listen to my music, you won't even have to rip it to mp3 first. By the way, if you want the CD, you can order it here, and it comes with lots of cool stuff in the case."

As a further example of Trent's work in this field: (with some emphasis added by myself)
From Techdirt's The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There):

Trent Reznor, the man behind the band Nine Inch Nails, has done so many experiments that show how this model works that it's difficult to describe them all. He's become a true leader in showing how this model works in a way that has earned him millions while making fans happy, rather than turning them into the enemy.

Reznor has always reached out to his fans, and has an amazingly comprehensive website, with forums, chat rooms and many other ways of interacting. He encourages fans to better connect with each other as well. While companies like Warner Music forced all the music videos of their artists off YouTube for many months, Reznor actually aggregates all the videos his fans take at concerts (he encourages them to bring cameras) on one page on his own website. He does the same for photos. He released a (free) iPhone app that allowed fans to locate each other, and communicate with each other, while sharing photos and videos as well. It's all about connecting with those fans, and helping them better connect with each other, so they feel like a part of a club.

From there, he gives fans real reasons to buy. Lately, he's taken to releasing everything he records for free online, knowing that the music will show up on file sharing sites anyway, so he sees no reason to fight it. Yet, he adds many other options that people might want to buy. With his release of the album Ghosts I-IV, he released all the tracks under a Creative Commons license that allowed anyone to share them online for free. Yet, he also set up some cool "reasons to buy." You could get the two disc CD, if you wanted, for just $10. Above that, though, was a Deluxe Edition Package, for $75. It was, effectively, a box set, but around a single album. Beyond the two CDs, it also included a DVD and a Blu-ray and a photobook of images.

Where the experiment got even more interesting was that he offered up the $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition Pac

http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?52,378166 I'm sure there's more exa

I believe there may be a couple of methods, but I chose to go with TuneCore. I read this article with Trent Reznor, someone I have a lot of respect for, and arguably one of the musicians who really, really gets how to harness the power of the internet. I think he has some very insightful views on how new and established artists can prosper, and he has definitely paid his dues with bad recording contracts.

And Robin Pecknold of Fleet Foxes think so for an entirely different reason "As much music as musicians can hear, that will only make music richer as an artform,". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8097324.stm

All music would be free too since Nine Inch Nails/Trent Reznor also started releasing all his new music for free and is arguably better than 99% of the crap put out.

"But I can't imagine HTML 5 being capable of something like this"

Nor should it be. That's like saying my car should be able to traverse water too. There are tools for crossing water and tools for crossing land - and they are usually different.

But for simple "Here's a video of my cat yodeling" or "here's a sample of the music file you are about to download" you SHOULDN'T need a plug-in any more than you need a plug-in to view a picture (with apologies to the Lynx users among us).

However: there is no way HTML5 will replace Flash even for those sorts of applications until a large enough set of installed browsers can properly handle HTML5 that webmasters can safely ignore the hold-outs - and even if a large meteor were to strike a certain city in the American northwest that installed base will be quite some time in coming. Flash already has that installed base (modulo the iPhone and a few embedded devices).

Now, if you can make it such that HTML5 can be used to ram annoying advertising down our throats while denying us the ability to save the content we WANT to save - well then, I predict adoption to be swift and sure.

More options is always a good thing.

But I can't imagine HTML 5 being capable of something like this.

Aero

As posted by Trent himself in response to Apple's rejection eMail:

...I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart years ago, which is a matter of consistency and hypocrisy. Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry. Bands (including Nirvana) tripped over themselves editing out words, changing album art, etc to meet Wal-Mart's standards of decency - because Wal-Mart sells a lot of records. NIN refused, and you'll notice a pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart. My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent" material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface" completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense? You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my iPhone!

Come on Apple, think your policies through and for fuck's sake get your app approval scenario together.

Later in the threaded discussion, Trent clarifies his position with this little gem:

Everyone - let me be clear. I love Apple products and as goofy and out-of-touch as their app approval process / policy is, I will still use them because they work 1000X better than the competition. This is not a debate, it's a fact. The iPhone is THE most elegant, modern smartphone at this point in time and it's perfect for what we want to do with the NIN app - except for the ludicrous approval process, and that's what I want to draw attention to.

Android is cool, but nobody has an Android phone. Blackberry is OK but the hardware is inconsistent and WinMo straight-up sucks balls. If Apple doesn't get it together, we will most certainly make it available to the jailbreak community. I didn't invest in this app to see it languish on the sidelines from an idiotic policy while this tour is in full swing.

The nin.com front page currently has a link to download the app for those of you who are interested in it.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated or affiliated with Engadget, the above quoting was simply convenient for posting purposes.

The app update was rejected because "The objectionable content referenced ... is 'The Downward Spiral'.".

According to Reznor's app developer "we removed the song 'The Downward Spiral' from the server, hoping to appease apple and get this bug fix through."

Trent didn't release the last album on iTunes. Or the one before that.

To be honest, I probably buy less music than the average person. Part of that is because I think too much of the money goes to the labels. But when Radiohead released "In Rainbows" for a pay-what-you-want download, I gladly forked over a large wad of paypal cash to support them directly. I did the same when Nine Inch Nails released "ghosts I-IV" and Saul Williams released "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust" for $5 mp3/flac downloads. I have also bought concert tickets to all of them. If more artists would cut out the rich middle man, I would be more willing to fork over some cash, and probably be a lot more broke.

But until the record companies stop being so greedy, as Trent Reznor said, "STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another these mother****ers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that's not right."

Trent Reznor's HD footage: 400 gigs http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?52,378166 http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/download/ And, yes, the newest Ubuntu upon release.

Trent Reznor is giving away NIN's new album for free, and still making a load of money on the album through online, CD, vinyl and DVD sales. (see [1] and [2])

I say kudos to this man, and his slightly innovative, yet very successful method of distributing music. I have not yet paid for the album, but already downloaded the mp3 and flac version, and I like it! I guess I will try to buy the vinyl, if I can get it in any of the record stores here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_inch_nails#Ghosts_I.E2.80.93IV_and_The_Slip_.282008.E2.80.93present.29
[2] http://www.nin.com/

This is music:
http://theslip.nin.com/

This is a movie:
http://www.elephantsdream.org/

This is a game:
http://www.alientrap.org/nexuiz/

This is software:
http://www.ubuntu.com/

Their service can be used both for good and bad. If the majority of people choose to use it for illegal sharing, that why don't they pursue those people? And, I'll tell you why - because everyFUCKINGbody does it! It's a signal to the fact the the companies producing the content have no idea how to distribute it and price it correctly and instead start this frivolous witch hunts.

It would also be a helluva lot more successful if we could eliminate most of piracy.

Yes it would, but is it the most efficient business model? I don't know, but unless people try other models we'll never know. Oh hey look, people are and they are being successful, and their business models don't rely on checking or curbing piracy, which means they don't have to resort to more expensive litigation and DRM and "educational campaigns" that add to their costs but contribute nothing to their revenues.

I can also say that if we condone piracy, then we have a lot to lose.

Not so, if the business models moved to not only allow but perhaps even encourage piracy then we lose nothing and gain a lot. And that "would make distribution easier, benefiting publishers, the artists working for them, and especially, indie artists who can't survive piracy sapping their few profits." So I guess it does come down to business model issues. There are people out there right now experiment and changing their business models with great success to where they don't care if their stuff gets pirated and some even want their stuff on bittorrent.

Proving what? That pirates buy media?

Again you are missing the point on the piracy buying media thing. Did you read any of those articles? They don't say pirates buy media, they say pirates buy more media than the average media buyer. It might be because of guilt. It might be because they like to support those that create stuff they like. It might be that they pirate because they really like media more than others and thus of course are going to be spending more on that media. Does it matter why they do it? Perhaps, but as of right now, they buy more on average than non-pirates.

Also, it doesn't show guilt is in play. None of those studies showed that was the reason. They only reported on the findings that pirates buy more on average, not the reasons why. You are jumping to that conclusion and so the rest of that paragraph is useless conjecture at this point. I will venture a useless guess as well and say that people pirate because they love music/movies/games and because they love it they buy it, and because they've bought so much they can't afford to buy more, so by pirating they didn't cost any one a sale since they weren't going to buy it anyway. In short, they pirate because they bought so much they couldn't afford any more.

As a final note, I'd like to add that since your first comment in this thread you have not provided one source or link to back up anything you've said. On the other hand, I have given over a dozen links various websites, articles, studies, blog posts, artist forums, etc that backup my claims. I'll

With regard to your live events comment, it was just posted on the Nine Inch Nails forum that three shows were tapped by non-officials in HD. Almost 400GB of content being offered up over Bittorrent.

http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?18,378166

since the albums are both released under a creative commons license that allows redistrbution here are some torrent links

Ghosts: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4061815/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_Ghosts_I-IV_%5B2008_FLAC_Lossless%5D
The slip: http://dl.nin.com/data/dl/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_The_Slip_-_Flac.torrent

Actually Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor played with the idea quite a lot.
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 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.

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.

• NIN - The Slip
• Mercedes Benz Mixed Tape, the most recent compilation can be downloaded
• Severed Fifth - Denied by Reign, a creative commons-licensed death metal album. Didn't like it so much.
• Phlow Compilations lots of ambient electronics

http://ghosts.nin.com/images/popup_product_ultradeluxe.jpg Pay $300.00 for music you are allowed to download for nothing? Sorry, limited edition of 2,500 and already sold out. Sold out in under two days. That's $750,000.00 sales from freely downloadable music.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention: that only works because the limited edition is copyrighted up the ass. Why pay $300 when you can buy an identical set for less than $10?

"Sure you can."

Sorry, we are not going to reach agreement on that one. Can you give your examples from things able to be easily and cheaply digitally copied in millions of current homes?

I ask this because we are not speaking of people going in to stores and demanding that the DVDs be sold off the shelves for nothing.

"That's exactly my point. The buyer is going to go buy the cheapest DVD possible."

I know, and that's one place to attack to overcome the problem even if copyrights should be done away with.

http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-memorabilia/autographed-baseballs/ Buy a baseball for $499.00
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/sports-products/michael-jordan-autographed-basketball1.html A basketball for $1,350.00

http://ghosts.nin.com/images/popup_product_ultradeluxe.jpg Pay $300.00 for music you are allowed to download for nothing? Sorry, limited edition of 2,500 and already sold out. Sold out in under two days. That's $750,000.00 sales from freely downloadable music.

The creators can do things other than copyright the work to give added value to what they are selling. To make enough people care to but from them and not the copiers that it is worth their while to produce their art.

"If you take away their other options, they're not going to sell the movies cheaper, they're just going to stop producing the movies at all."

That remains to be seen doesn't it? Perhaps the market will come up with innovative funding options? Necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

For instance Swarm Of Angels intends to raise a million pounds up front and are well on their way. They could have used a Free license instead and I see no reason why their model could not have handled it.

Getting rid of copyrights might kill business as usual, but I don't think it will kill business as you seem to think and I especially don't think it will kill the creation of art that is in demand in the market. And it almost certainly will not touch the rate of creation for art for which there is no current market.

Even without copyright, what is to stop a movie being made now, distributed to movie houses under contract, admission to movie houses to forbid taping and earning back costs and a decent profit before going to dvd? Then you are on an equal footing with the copiers and you have advantages that they don't.

all the best,

drew

So my Mickey Mouse / Prince hentei slash rape movie set in the Palladium universe using music from Metallica is perfectly legal. Sweet. Intertube fame, here I come!

No. you need to mash the music with something else also, or at least the use of the unaltered music will be problematic.

You know, that's an interesting point. I'm making a musicalized version of Metropolis as a pet project —since before the mentioned extra footage was discovered— and redoing all the title bits.

I'm using mostly free Nine Inch Nails music but there are a few songs by other industrial bands. Since I will use YouTube to "distribute" it privately to a few friends that might be willing to put up with it I wouldn't be too concerned with being prosecuted by copyright violations. But I will mash up those songs that are not released under CC anyway and hopefully I will be on the clear.

Plus, copyright laws are saner on the planet where I live and are irrelevant at my friends' planets, neener neener :)

I do not think "community edited" means what the author thinks it means.. it seems that he wrote a novel draft and released it online. He allowed people to send him comments/corrections etc., which he would either implement or not at his own discretion.

This makes him the copyright holder, meaning he can release the work under whatever license he wants. You may want to check out a very similar situation where the work is available under a CC-by-nc license and yet is also sold commercially by the copyright holder.

Aikon-

Are the colleges to be held culpable? If a student commits a real crime, are the police going to go to the dean and complain, or are they going to go kick in the student in question's door?

If a kid beat another kid with the power cable from a college owned PC, does that make the college responsible? If a kid downloaded some music using the college's T1 line does that make the college responsible?

Also the RIAA isn't a government agency. It doesn't have any more rights than anyone else. Sure in our society anyone can sue anyone else, and the RIAA can complain to anyone they want, but could a college get a restraining order, or a counter suit for harassment?

Conversely, there's a lot of bands who are just as happy to have fans download their music for free. NIN is releasing their new album on their website for free http://www.nin.com/ Radio head posted their album with a "Tip Jar" Other bands like Moe encourage fans to record concerts and share the music. Seems like the Record Labels and the RIAA are just in between the bands and the fans pissing everyone off.

Enjoy "stealing" it :) It is licensed as BY-NC-SA. You just can't make money off of it. See the faq for my source.

http://download.store.nin.com/sdl/nin_ghosts_I-IV_mp3.zip

they are nice enough to use a nice static url, that anyone can get without paying even...

I found a way to download the 5$ version without paying:

fetch http://download.store.nin.com/sdl/nin_ghosts_I-IV_mp3.zip

Of course if its any good I'll pay, but talk about your typical security through obscurity!

Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I (2008) Hello from Nine Inch Nails. We're very proud to present a new collection of instrumental music, Ghosts I-IV. Almost two hours of music recorded over an intense ten week period last fall, Ghosts I-IV sprawls Nine Inch Nails across a variety of new terrain. Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label, we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites, because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method, and we believe in finding ways to utilize new technologies instead of fighting them. We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc. It's licensed for all non-commercial use under Creative Commons. We've also made a 40 page PDF book to accompany the album. If you'd like to download it for free, visit http://ghosts.nin.com/main/pdf Ghosts I is the first part of the 36 track collection Ghosts I-IV. Undoubtedly you'll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you're interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5. You can also order it on CD, or as a deluxe package with multitrack audio files, high definition audio on Blu-ray disc, and a large hard-bound book. We genuinely appreciate your support, and hope you enjoy the new music. Thanks for listening.

The link that says listen on the order page launches the entire album in a stream.

But I see your confusion. You have to actually click on the link for it to work -- you can't just literally listen UNTIL you click the link.

:) And your right. It would have been nice if the original post included the above link straight to the player. Probably time for one of those "you must be new here" quotes. :)

I was able to eventually get the flac version using repeated wget -c. Unfortunately it was corrupted in two places, rather than retry to get the file all over again(probably with similiar results), popped over to TPB and picked up the torrent and used it to fill in the missing pieces.

The storefront did change the way the file was linked between when i first tried and when I succeeded, but I think they were still massively overwhelmed.

You did notice that "Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license."

I paid my $5 for the album download the day before yesterday, but still haven't managed to download my MP3s. The server took such a severe beating initially that the connection dropped consistently.. a snowball's chance in hell getting the album.

I decided to wait for the traffic to ease off, but later I've been greeted with an error message "Exceeded download limit" or "Please click the download link in your origi(o)nal email".

I've contacted NIN support twice for help. No response.

Should have known better. I'm surprised if I'm the only one with these problems.

Actually, according to the FAQ: "Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license." Legally speaking, anyone who downloads the $5 songs can freely distribute them in any manner they want, so long as tit is attributed and non-commercial.

You have to pay $5 to get all of the tracks and not just 9. But--the web site says that Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/faq

That license says

You are free:

        * to Share -- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Technically... the freedom to share does not seem limited to the first 9 tracks.

Maybe once the busted ass download server is working and I get my copy, there will be a different license inside the zip.

Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license. http://ghosts.nin.com/main/faq The whole album is licensed under a Creative Commons, not just the first 9 tracks. I still don't know what did he share onlt 9 of the 36 tracks if the album is meant to be "Share Alike"

From http://nin.com/ :

Update: The response to this album has been overwhelming, causing our
website to slow to a crawl. We THOUGHT we were ready, but...
We've been adding more servers to accommodate the unexpected demand and we expect to be running smoothly in the next few hours. In the meantime, if you've had any problems with downloads from the Ghosts site, don't worry - you'll be able to use your download link again when the site is more stable. Thanks everyone for making this such an
immediate success.

Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I (2008)

This torrent is an official upload from Nine Inch Nails.

We're very proud to present a new collection of instrumental music, Ghosts I-IV. Almost two hours of music recorded over an intense ten week period last fall, Ghosts I-IV sprawls Nine Inch Nails across a variety of new terrain.

Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label, we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites, because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method, and we believe in finding ways to utilize new technologies instead of fighting them.

We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc. It's licensed for all non-commercial use under Creative Commons.

We've also made a 40 page PDF book to accompany the album. If you'd like to download it for free, visit http://ghosts.nin.com/main/pdf

Ghosts I is the first part of the 36 track collection Ghosts I-IV. Undoubtedly you'll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you're interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5. You can also order it on CD, or as a deluxe package with multitrack audio files, high definition audio on Blu-ray disc, and a large hard-bound book.

We genuinely appreciate your support, and hope you enjoy the new music. Thanks for listening.

http://ghosts.nin.com/

Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I (2008)

This torrent is an official upload from Nine Inch Nails.

We're very proud to present a new collection of instrumental music, Ghosts I-IV. Almost two hours of music recorded over an intense ten week period last fall, Ghosts I-IV sprawls Nine Inch Nails across a variety of new terrain.

Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label, we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites, because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method, and we believe in finding ways to utilize new technologies instead of fighting them.

We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc. It's licensed for all non-commercial use under Creative Commons.

We've also made a 40 page PDF book to accompany the album. If you'd like to download it for free, visit http://ghosts.nin.com/main/pdf

Ghosts I is the first part of the 36 track collection Ghosts I-IV. Undoubtedly you'll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you're interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5. You can also order it on CD, or as a deluxe package with multitrack audio files, high definition audio on Blu-ray disc, and a large hard-bound book.

We genuinely appreciate your support, and hope you enjoy the new music. Thanks for listening.

http://ghosts.nin.com/

by-nc-sa is right in the Ghosts FAQ
- give credit
- can't be used commercially
- derivative works must follow the same license

Other information:

Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license.

An exciting partnership and experience regarding this release will be announced soon.