Slashdot Mirror
Outspoken Group Releases Album as Free Download
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."
That is nothing, artists have been doing that for awhile now. Jeff Cliff a semi local musician has offered his music for download freely in mp3 and ogg vorbis for at least 5 years now.
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
Who needs the RIAA when you have Slashdot for publicity?
sigfault. core dumped.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Except... wait! There *is* a story here: Slashdot Editors have finally been surpassed by a room full of chimps!
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
This is probably the most positive use of the Slashdot effect I've ever encountered: how to build a torrent in seconds. I'm at 4 mbit/sec and my pipe is maxed out. Hot damn!
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Recording a CD: $2000 Ripping your CD: $0 Saying 'Screw you' to the RIAA's business model and getting Slashdotted for publicity: Priceless
E.g. Landline has all there music available for download -- not just a single album, and there's no DRM or other bullshit.
Is it novel and exciting because they also have a record deal? I thought a lot of industry-hating musicians would just refuse record deals on principle.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Harvey_Danger-Little_by_Little.OGG.zip.torrent
Here's the Ogg Vorbis torrent.
For those who haven't heard of Harvey Danger, they're a mid-90s rock band and their hit song was "Flagpole Sitta". I applaude them for doing this, because they're not exactly a no-name band.
To better understand why an artist would do this, I figured some people would like to know the actual financial breakdown of the music industry. I have several very good friends in the music industry, one is the publicist for several major artists, so here's the skinny:
For a standard artist (not yet established), out of every CD sold they receive about $0.20. For you non-math whizzes, that means when their album turns platinum (1 million copies sold), they bank $200,000. Seem low? It is, but we'll get to that.
For an established artist, there are 2 possibilities. The first is that they have their own label. If this is the case, they will still use one of the major labels for distribution, and they have to pay all those little people that made things happen, but they're pocketing more cash. The second possibility is that the record company convinced them to stay by offering a MUCH better contract, which ends up being about as much as having their own label minus the hassle.
But this still isn't a big portion of their income. That comes from several other sources.
ASCAP is The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. They dictate who can play your music, such as music at a bar or in a restaurant. They have a virtual monopoly on all genres of music (out of 100 established artists, maybe 1 or 2 are not signed with ASCAP), they are expensive, and they are about as well liked by the people that know them as the RIAA is here. Tactics include sending in "undercover agents" to places not paying ASCAP, and writing down the inevidable songs that they play. Then comes an agent, who will "aggressively suggest" that you pay up to ASCAP or be sued out of business. They've actually had people call the cops on them thinking it was a mafia shakedown. Oh, and they've never lost in court.
There's some issue over how much of that cash actually makes it to the artists, but rest assured it's much more than they're getting from their label for album sales.
Licensing of music is stepping up into a bigger payscale. This mostly refers to commercials, movies, and now video games. Obviously the pay scale varies widely based on the popularity of the artist and of the specific song, but there are virtually no costs for the artist.
Touring is where the money is really at. To give you an idea of how much, you need to understand what a "floor" is. This refers to the minimum amount an artist is willing to make in a performance. Let's take Britney Spears for example. Her "floor" is (or was, it constantly changes) $750,000. What this means is that if the show only makes $500,000, she still gets paid $750,000, and the organizers eat a loss of $250,000 plus production costs. Also keep in mind that organizers know what they're doing, and shows hardly ever hit the floor. So you can assume for her last tour, Britney pocketed $1+ million for each of the 37 shows on her last tour.
And that's just at the gate. Don't forget to buy your T-shirt, or poster, or anything else "Britney" that cost a dollar to make and $8/hr for some schmuck to sell it to you. All of that money goes straight back to her.
For the really big artists, you can cap it off with an endorsement or two. Britney's Pepsi endorsement deal was reportedly $10+ million.
Substatial evidence that music sharing doesn't effect album sales aside, there's a reason sharing music doesn't hurt artists. Singles act as commercials for all the other things that make them money. They want their music played on the radio so you can hear it for free. They want their video played on MTV so you can see it for free. It's called exposure, and it's a good thing like Martha Stewart doesn't even know. If an unsigned artist found out people had downloaded 100,000 copies of his song, he'd crap his pants he'd be so happy.
There's a reason Harvey Danger is willing to do this. It's also like VW letting people download their latest commercial. Good. It will probably make more people buy their cars.
It's not just a publicity stunt or moral stand, it's a brilliant financial move.
... but then again, there's a lot about music in the early-mid 90's that I blocked out of my mind. Sometimes I get nightmares of teenagers in baggy purple sequence pants, and I wake up screaming.
-Vendal Thornheart
If you're not one of label's top artists with a renegotiated contract after your second album has made the label ungodly amounts of cash, you're treated like shit anyway. Bravo for Harvey Danger. Download their music, if you like it, send 'em something for it. FWIW, I sent them ten bucks because I hope more artists will take the opportunity to ditch the lables.
Paranoia, paranoia!
The RIAA's coming to get me...
Just say you never met me...
I'm runnin undeground with the moles (digging holes)
Okay, but you just compared the album sales revenue from a "standard artist" to the touring "floor" of Britney Spears.
How about comparing apples to apples?
-a
The point is that the "standard artist" who sold 1 million copies will make more than that $200,000 in one night for a good portion of their tour dates. It makes perfect sense that artists like Harvey Danger (and they won't be the last) would sacrifice that $200,000 to bring in more fans to their shows. Fans who are grateful to have an extra $15 they saved not buying the album.
I guess it was only a matter of time before bigger artists finally started offering better online distribution options... but for Harvey Danger to offer an entire album on their site - one that's encoded correctly and free to boot - that's almost a dream come true. I hope this experiment of theirs works out, because I'd love to see a lot more artists out there take note.
For those who don't realize why this is a rather big deal, Harvey Danger was a fairly popular rock band from the late nineties. They're most known for Flagpole Sitta', off of the album Where Have All the Merrymakers Gone?. That album and Kings James Version are both pretty decent and it's kind of sad the band has fallen to the wayside as of late. Hopefully this publicity will do something for them besides raise their bandwidth costs.
While the whole idea may not be entirely novel, they're still one of the few more popular bands that are offering a full album for download off of their site. Also their site doesn't have any terribly gaudy and annoying flash elements. Kudos for that.
Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss.
You probably didn't go to high school in the 90's, they are rather well known with the mainstream rock crowd.
I just paid $1.632 for the album on AllofMP3.com!
Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
As I understand it he would never make any money to begin with. The record label would front the money necessary to record, produce and market the album but the artist would be indebted for that amount. Any sales would first go towards recouping the record company's initial investment with a paltry amount left over for royalties. If the record sells well then the record company may pick up an option for a second album and the process starts again. To top it off, the cost of producing the album is grossly inflated by such things as manager fees, artificial production costs, etc. 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.
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.
Well, I certainly wasn't expecting to see this pop up on Slashdot... I had actually downloaded this a couple of days ago since I already love the band's other two albums, but this isn't a massively new idea. I certainly won't begrudge them the publicity though.
But for those of you who'd like a geek tie-in, I've been poking through the websites of one of the band members and come across some interesting commentary about getting things set up on the technical side, from choosing a webserver to making sure the files are tagged properly.
It is false that nobody has ever heard of jeff cliff, by example, since I have heard of him(hell, I am him).
But your point still stands (even though I've been approached for movie soundtracks). Mod parent up.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
IMHO, it's always a good thing when artists decide to cut out the middle man and let the music sell itself over the web. However, as many have already noted, this is hardly unique to Harvy Danger. I suggest checking out http://bt.etree.org/ for a lot more great trade-friendly artists. They have a good variety with bands such as the Black Crowes, the Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews Band, Phish, and Gwar.
Again, this is a good thing that Harvy Danger is doing. It just makes me wonder why it took them so long (Maybe they had to wait for a contract to expire or something), other than the fact that they haven't had a hit in years and are probably desparate.
This is good because:
1. I don't buy music. Really, I don't. I feel fine listening to everybody else's music which they bring to work. Or listen to oldie's on the radio. (My local stations have no good music, so oldies it is for me.)
2. There are plenty of bands I've never heard of, and are quite good. I had never heard of Jet, but a friend brought them in to work to listen to. Good stuff. I've heard some old Harvey Danger when I lived in Olympia, WA in the 90's. They were quite the sensation. Good stuff is hard to come buy, and when it does... we get interested and want to find out more.
3. For those who do buy music, they'll buy the album. Seriously, the average consumer likes to support what he or she likes. If the price isn't outragous, they'll pay. Sometimes they'll play again, because they lost the CD somewhere. I've seen it happen all the time.
4. For those who won't buy music, this changes nothing. People who won't buy the music they listen to are probably stealing it... So, this doesn't change the model.
5. For older music, either you already have it, or you have to go find it. If it's available on your band's website, then you can tell them all about your new music, or tours, or whatever.
I've always been of the opinion that if you broadcast any media, it should be public domain. Basicaly, if I can pick it up off the air, why can't I record it and replay it whenever I want? Don't want it to become public domain? Then don't broadcast it: Use pay-service such as Cable or satellite radio. Put it on a broadcast channel?
--Pathway
There is a difference between legal and illegal file sharing. Yes, you are correct. File sharing CAN be beneficial to many bands, in many circumstances, in a variety of forms (complete, snippets, streams, etc). No one is arguing against file sharing - we are arguing against illegal file sharing.
It is up to the artist and his or her representatives to decide which data to give away, and up to you to respect their wishes.
Quit whining and pay for your music (if the artist asks).
There are 270+ complete albums on Jamendo ! All delivered under a Creative Commons Licence using BitTorrent.
http://www.jamendo.com/
In the MP3 zip file you can download directly from the site, the MP3s have a bitrate of around 160 kbps (VBR). The BitTorrent download zip file contains MP3s of around 230 kbps (VBR).
In one way I guess it means that only the best of the best will ever get a music contract these days.
I hate to say I agree. These days, it takes REAL talent to get the attention of the music industry, not the musicians goofing off like in the punk or hippie era. It takes somebody with the brilliant creativity and style of Britney Spears to convince them to take a chance.
Seriously: I'm still trying to work out if your post was meant to be taken sarcastically or not.
Rather than squander my time as a total dilettante, I went ahead and purchased the album. The collector's package, even, with the buttons and the t-shirt and so forth. And why not?
As a citizen, it makes me feel American-as-Apple-Pie to vote with my dollar in favor of a principle and model for which I have strong feelings. As a geek, it thrills me to participate in the subversion of the standard monolithic approach to cultural design by a leaner, sleeker, more modular one, built upon a (mostly) consentually standardized set of interfaces.
Sure, this may not be a completely original idea. In fact, this idea has been tried out in various forms for quite some time now. As someone who doesn't follow popular music, I've been at best peripherally aware of this phenomenon. Very little product represented in this way has been of interest to me. Up until now, I haven't had the inclination to support this process in an active way, because, while I agree with it on principle, it has never been presented to me in a manner that is compelling enough to cause me to make an actual change in my behavior, despite whatever antipathy I might have for the music-industry-at-large.
Take me as an experimental group, if you like. My reaction was positive for a number of reasons. First, that the presentation alluded to certain social and cultural phenomena about which I feel strongly, namely culture itself, free cultural exchange, and the rights both to personal expression and to the personal establishment of cultural norms as vehicles for communication (which I assert as self-evident as an arguable premise).
Second, the integrity of the experiment. While the artists retain their copyright, they release the music with, for the intents and purposes of the common listener, no restrictions upon its use and distribution. Express what cynicism you may about the common listener and his social motivations, or the artists and their financial motivations, but the things that motivate people do so because they are rewarding to people. The new model might do much, and the traditional business model certainly does comparatively little, to reward its constituency for simply doing what comes naturally to it.
People naturally seem to want to share ideas and experiences with one another, finding a place in the "noosphere" (if you will) to call home. At the same time, it is difficult to be cut off from diversity and potential. Whereas a society that indoctrinates its members to accept culture as it is handed to them does little to foster a deep-seeded sense of diversity of experience, perhaps a society that rewards vigilance, determination and resourcefulness with breadth and splendor and models for expression that suit the individual's needs will do better.
I'll download the album and listen to it, but I think I'll keep my package wrapped and sealed as a memento of a historically noteworthy occasion.
artists don't need to work for free; we just need to turn it around so as it's the artist rather that the distribution channel that's getting 90% of the profits. Previously it was expensive to record the music itself. This is no longer the case - friends of mine churn out HDTV ready content on a $1000 iMac! Nor is it expensive to package and distribute the music. I don't see why a distribution network can't exist that works on a 'cost plus ten' model, especially if that network were built on top of a peer-to-peer network.
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!
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,60650,00.html
"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."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
unfortunately it's not possible at the moment due to bandwidth limits,
They should then use one of the many P2P distribution network protocols available at the moment. That is why they are there!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Wow. What a retarded post.
I don't like REM or Death Cab For Cutie either, but that doesn't make your post any less an exercise in penis stretching.
"Oh, I don't like THOSE bands, they're shit. I listen to much better stuff than that"
Guess what. Nobody gives a shit.
In fact... just what bands do you like? I don't even need you to reply for this, just replace X, Y and Z as appropriate...
X,Y,and Z?! You like THAT mainstream pop shit? Oh well, if that's what you enjoy, I guess, but some of us round here like listening to REAL music.
Hey, check it out! I'm officially much cooler than you now.
If you do like the band (I have not listened to it yet), please consider a PayPal donation that is linked from their site - in this way, more money will get directly to the band.
"As I understand it he would never make any money to begin with. The record label would front the money necessary to record, produce and market the album but the artist would be indebted for that amount. ...
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
da bubble man
CC BY-SA Licensed Video
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
Have today's youth forgotten how to get fake ids?