Slashdot Mirror
Barenaked Ladies Battle Napster (But Not In Court)
Yet Another Smith writes: "CNN is running a story about the Barenaked Ladies' attempt to flood Napster with trojan downloads with ads for their new album rather than the alleged songs. Say what you want about Napster being right or wrong, at least the band isn't just doing the kneejerk lawsuit, and it sounds pretty tongue-in-cheek." I don't listen to the radio, so I downloaded "Pinch Me" from Napster, and based on that (and the fact that I rank Stunt and Gordon among the best albums ever) I bought Maroon the day after it came out (making it the only CD I've bought since the lawsuit vs. Napster started: and for someone that used to buy 5 CDs a week, that's saying something). Personally I think this is a good way to fight (but unfortunately upcoming technology will make this technique less successful) so I've got no problem with BNL doing this.
-- Oh Well
This is a "good way to fight"? It seems someone would rather have vigilante justice than clean-cut law.
Ultimately, it seems this is all about just wanting to get free music. Would you buy their music if they sold you MP3s online? Would you then respect their ownership, and instead of passing it around, point others to visit the site?
If someone doesn't want to let their music be passed around, they have every right not to let it be. If someone likes the concept of their songs being passed around, let it happen! It's up to the creator to decide (or at least, it should be...)
Do you agree with this Trojan-style approach taken by the Barenaked Ladies?
And the results after 3583 Votes are:
Yes: 57% (2037)
No: 43% (1546)
Really, we have already seen porn banners and usage tracking scams on Gnutella and Napster, here one band is actually using the medium to try and do a bit of self promotion. They (I'm sure) are under no self-delusion that they are going to manage to obfuscate access to the real mp3s of their music, they are just reminding all the people who are hunting for their music that it would be nice if they actually paid for it.
The REAL question is could the RIAA break Napster/Gnutella etc. as a useful tool by bombarding it with files like these (or just corrupt mp3s) and would it be economically viable to do this (just how much bandwidth would they need).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
BNL wins approval of CmdrTaco, Canada lets out a collective "Huh?"
Holland, MI (AP) In a post this morning, CmdrTaco gave the nod to the Barenaked Ladies' use of Napster to promote their upcoming album. BNL could not be reached for comment, and Canadians all over the world were saying that it was too early in the day for tacos, anyway.
Ok, looking through some of the comments here, I find people gettin' a tad antsy about the fact that BNL have posted ads, or, files that don't exactly contain what they specified.
Napster isn't just about swapping MP3s for free.. It's about filesharing. Any file. I heard this mentioned quitea lot in the napster defence, and also that of GNUtella.
So, why oh why slate BNL for pointing out that they are, indeed, free to post whatever they want, even if this is just advertising for them.
They are making a legitimate use of services offered for all, in the same way that Napster uses services offered across the internet (connectivity etc).
Personally, I'd far prefer this to the kneejerk 'call in the legal vultures' to sort it out.
I think they've made their statement pretty well out there.. "We'd prefer it if you didn't rip off our music"..
I'm all for that. It's just them exercising their freedom of speech, in a fashion. I'm not about to slate them for that.
Malk
I wish people would quit equaiting all retail CD purchases with the RIAA. There are many high-quality artists out there who do not like nor support major labels and the RIAA. Not buying CDs as a whole simply because of the whole Napster fiasco is as much of a knee-jerk reaction as the lawsuits purported to in this Slashdot article. Start thinking about what you buy. Read the back of the album to find out what label it is on. Support non-RIAA artists but don't boycott the industry as a whole if you want to stand up for Napster. The music industry isn't all major labels and big name mainstream bands (like the Bare Naked Ladies are).
Another way of battling Napster -- and probably more effective than what Barenaked Ladies are doing -- is the Pearl Jam Method: simply give fans what they want and price it reasonably.
Pearl Jam is releasing 25 "bootlegs" -- obviously not bootlegs since they're "official", but that's beside the point -- of their European tour shows. The sound quality on these things -- all of which have been pre-released to fans of Pearl Jam's Ten-Club for around US$10.98 each [for 2 CDs!] -- is fantastic -- just the right mix of band and audience so that (if you're a PJ fan) the shows are pretty damn electrifying.
Moreover, the shows are largely uncut. No post-concert fiddling -- overdubbing, editing -- they even include long stretches of applause, fan-chanting, lyric-flubbing, etc.
Now I realize this doesn't mean much if you're not a Pearl Jam fan -- and to release 25 live concerts, well, that's a hell of a lot of music.
A few of the PJ bootlegs have been "blessed" by the band as their favorites of the 25 (there are little symbols on the backs of the "blessed" concerts) so you can at least zero in on what the band considers to be their better performances (but all the performances -- at least the 10 that I've heard thus far -- are fantastic.)
But it dawned on me when I ordered 10 of these of things at once that, yeah, these are the first CDs that I've bought in over a year. And not only did I not mind spending the 100+ US$ to get the 10 concerts, but I did it with pleasure. I couldn't wait to buy these things. The thought of getting the MP3s on Napster just filled me with repulsion: I mean, not only would I not get the full concerts on Napster, but I'd have to contend with bad rips and crappy normalization by neophyte rippers who wouldn't take the time to carefully rip the tracks.
I hope all this Napster-mania puts pressure on labels not so much to get with the program and start releasing official MP3s (I mean, there is nothing drearier, in my mind, than paying $2.99 for an official MP3) but to realize that the problem isn't Napster, isn't the internet, isn't fans wanting something for nothing -- the problem is the chokehold on product.
Fans of any good band -- PJ, Springsteen, Dylan, Neil Young, you name it -- love live performances. And, yes, getting a CD of the performance is not the same thing as actually being there but my hope is that this move by Pearl Jam will make the companies realize that battling Napster -- and winning against Napster --- starts not with fucking around with stifling technology but with simply giving the fans more of what they actually want: more music and better prices.
It seems *really* simple. I wonder if anyone is inside these record companies preaching this kind of (what I assume to be) common sense. Fans want product -- and they'll pay for more product -- and because of an increased emphasis on performance (thanks to Napster) there is no excuse for not releasing more product since (for the most part) fans (and even casual fans) really dig the live stuff.