Slashdot Mirror
Sir Mix-A-Lot Using Weed To Distribute Music
An anonymous reader writes "Hip-hop musician Sir Mix-A-Lot has made his new CD Daddy's Home available for download using Weed technology. Weed is a relatively new file sharing system based principles of shareware and referrals. You download the DRM WMA weed file and can listen to it 3 times on any computer before deciding to purchase it or not. If you do purchase it (at a price set by the artist), you will receive referral fees (20%, 10%, 5%) for the next 3 generations of people that purchase your copy. The artist always receives 50% of the price. Certainly an interesting approach to distributing music in a world of p2p and iTunes."
You download the DRM WMA weed file and can listen to it 3 times on any computer before deciding to purchase
...then I get the song in a lossless format, complete with digitized cover art and free of any DRM, right? Because as a paying customer, I'd expect to get at least the sound quality and format versatility that the pirates are getting.
it or not.
Sure - it's a free tril so I won't complain about the format.
If you do purchase it...
Yes, I did RTFA - the format is no surprise. When the only option for online buying is DRM, it only encourages piracy because regardless of whether you're prepared to pay for the content, it's the only way to get the music without funny restriction.
The artist still isn't getting "50%." Whoever owns the rights to the copyright gets "50%." If you signed a record contract, it's probably your label that now owns the copyrights. Thus, of that "50%", you get whatever your contract said. A fringe-case however would be the completely independent artist, receiving all "50%."
And if the artist and friends buy and buy and buy at the beginning, they can create a false landrush that may influence others to jump in early. "Look at this! This thing is selling like crazy! Better get in now!"
Not a good idea, me thinks...no different than time shares and generic brandingiron futures.
then I get the song in a lossless format
What is so "lossless" about a lossless format? An 8-bit 8 kHz PCM recording is in a "lossless format," but it's just about telephone quality. Likewise, a 16-bit 44.1 kHz stereo PCM recording (hereinafter, a "CD recording") is in a "lossless format", but it still loses ultrasonic signals and everything below -110 dBFS. In modern hypercompressed mastering techniques for pop music, a CD recording loses the punch of drums. Only a live performance is truly "lossless."
That said, engineering practice demands only "good enough." If your ears can't tell the difference between a particular recording and any given higher fidelity recording, then you'd call it "good enough."
it's the only way to get the music without funny restriction.
If you're buying through iTunes or Napster music stores, what "funny restriction" is there? You can burn a purchased recording to CD as often as you want; you can even burn an entire playlist a few times before changing it. If downloads do not work with your pocket player, then why did you buy that player?
While, and I quote, "hip hop has always been based on other peoples beats and breaks..." is mostly true, and I can mostly agree with it, when you say "all ripping off..." and "...just to rip off other peoples music" I have to staunchly disagree.
It's one thing if you don't understand or relate to the genre, but please know where fact ends and opinion begins.
Hip hop, and techno, and a plethora of other electronic based (also known as 'groove' based) music uses samples of other peoples works. Does that make their preferred outlet of musical creation any less valid? Are you one of those guys that thinks that unless there is a drummer, bassist, keyboards, guitar, singer, et al making the music that it somehow requires less talent to produce?
As a (self proclaimed) music producer working in the digital realm (with limited analog experience) who has worked with live bands, hip hop, and various forms of techno acts....as well as my own band and experimental electronic productions I have found the strenghts of various forms of expression through production......not only that but the difficulty/challenges inherent to each form.
That being said I believe it to be terribly closed-minded of anyone to think that simply because a beat or rythm was sampled that it somehow degrades the quality or talent required to produce it. Hell, the way I see it doing just that serves as an homage to the original...."I couldn't do that myself or even come close...nothing captures the feeling I'm looking for quite like that...." etc, etc, etc.
Failing that I'd like to see you do it.
To sum this up, it appears to be something you just don't understand. That's fine, but please make it clear when you are speaking (or typing) the difference between fact and your own opinion. To yourself, and those hearing or reading it.
~Dan
But then they get very pissed when someone does the same to them.
Hmm, somebody modded this post as a troll. Albeit this post was meant to be a joke, it's also the truth.
Sir Mix-A-Lot hasn't had a hit in years. In fact, aside from a few minor successes, he only had one major hit... in 1992. Regardless of his distribution method, he is highly unlikely to gain widespread popularity.
Weed will need artists with much more popularity to become successful, not just a fad like Sir Mix-A-Lot.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
The audio quality is not as good as in the original file but then you can take the WAV file created by Bob and convert that to whatever format you like (MP3, OGG, etc...). This is definitely not legal and the artist loses out on the payment. I wonder if anyone bothers to tell the artists that this huge hole exists in the supposedly "secure" Weed technology.
Mmm... nebulous beeeeeee.
a business prof once pointed out that most music you buy is a license to that particular recording on that particular media....at least, as long as the license states that. I checked a bunch of my cassettes once to find that the record companies had neglected to spell out any of the license terms whatsoever. so my question is, should i accept a best guess (this recording/this media) license, or should i consider that i have an unlimited license due to the fact that there where no limits provided to me?
Their FAQ says they use Paypal, and everyone knows how horrible Paypal is. After reading all the horror stories who's really stupid enough to give Paypal their credit card number anyway? If similar stories were written about a brand of car there would be a massive recall and government investigation, amazing how Paypal still manages to sneak by.
Just like everything else, the people not happy with something are going to be a lot more vocal than the people happy with something. I've used paypal on and off for a few years now, and know several others that have as well, and none of us have had a single problem. Something tells me that paypal has far more satisfied customers than unsatisfied customers.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Hey shithead: SHUT THE FUCK UP!
It's necessary for musicians to make money from copies of music, because it costs them money to MAKE that music. "Musicians lose nothing by the free flow of copies..." Well, you lose nothing by going to work for free every day as well.
Except for your house. And your car. And your ability to buy food.
You're just like all of the other fucking whiny freeloaders, who are using technology and "the revolution" to keep from paying for something of value, and as long as you're not supporting the musician with your money, you're helping the RIAA.