RIAA Attacks Sites Participating in Its Own Campaign

An anonymous reader writes "The RIAA is once again at their old tricks. The band Nine Inch Nails has intentionally 'leaked' songs via USB keys hidden at restrooms during their current European tour. Sites hosting the songs are now being sent cease and desist orders. 'Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet. According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.'"

Comments

Huh?

[g051051]

How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? The RIAA isn't an advertising or marketing body. Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites? Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.

Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?

Re:Huh?

[rucs_hack]

who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more.

Re:Huh?

[Crazy Man on Fire]

Exactly. Just because they authorized the distribution of some promo copies of an upcoming release doesn't mean that the people in possession of those promos are authorized to distribute them to others. Yes, it is stupid of them to be killing the buzz around the album by sending these takedown notices, but I don't think they have a choice but to go after the people violating copyright.

Re:Huh?

[BDPrime]

I think Interscope and Reznor knew that if they left a thumb drive in some bathroom so some dude could find songs on an upcoming album, that the music would probably end up being distributed online. They may not have explicitly authorized it, but they knew.

That being said, don't you know that anytime an industry makes its customers actually pay for something, it's a serious crime in these quarters?

Re:Huh?

[theStorminMormon]

More importantly - who steals USB drives from bathrooms?

Re:Huh?

[iminplaya]

who owns these songs?

Once they're released, they belong to the public. The distributors steal from the public. So, yes, copyright is theft. It used to be something that "borrowed" from the public back when distribution costs were an issue. Now it justs takes and hoards and speculates.

Re:Huh?

[Halo1]

but I don't think they have a choice but to go after the people violating copyright

They sure do have a choice. Unlike trademarks, copyright does not become suddenly void because you did not prosecute infringements (except possibly in some fringe situations, but in this case there's definitely no danger of that happening).

Re:Huh?

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

When lawsuits are brought against copyright violators, the plaintiff is oftentimes the label - NOT the RIAA. The RIAA is acting on behalf of the label. The label signed off on the promotion.

Re:Huh?

[kamapuaa]

Well, in point of fact you're saying something that simply isn't true, and accusing distributors of being thieves is hot-headed rhetoric and nothing more. Your post was only two lines long and didn't contain any evidence or support arguments. Did you expect to be modded informative?

Re:Huh?

[kingpetey]

Actually, the RIAA is only "an advertising or marketing body." They are essentially a PR firm with one amoeboid client: the recording industry. They aren't a political group or law enforcement agency; they're Ambassadors of Jackassery. That's why their attempts to bully P2P music sharing is so ridonkulous. Nonetheless, I agree with you that just because NIN put some songs on USB keys doesn't necessarily mean that Reznor means for everyone everywhere to have access to them. However, he has given stuff out like this before. He posted GarageBand-ready songs on his site a long time ago and invited users to mash 'em up. And really, if someone puts something like an MP3 out there on the web, the assumption HAS to be that "everyone everywhere" might potentially get access to it. Hmm, so maybe I don't agree.

Re:Huh?

[gregmac]

It's not even necessarily infringing. Case in point, open source. The authors of the work still hold the copyrights, but they've effectively granted a license to distribute it freely (GPL, BSD, etc).

Re:Huh?

[jedidiah]

Current works are built of previous works as a matter of necessity. So calling music distributors thieves is not simply "hot headed". It's simply taking EVERYTHING into account. People build on the works of others and the expect exclusive ownership. Then they interfere with others trying to do the same thing they did (build on the work of others).

That is as much theft as anything that consumer pirates do.

Now the RIAA is trying to interfere with one of it's artists that has realized that pirates are a damn good distribution medium. This situation simply highlights the fact that artists have no real control over their work anymore. Those with the most valuable creative contribution are actually being exploited and abused by the very body that loudly proclaims to protect musicians.

There is also fair use and the actual artists intent to consider.

Re:Huh?

[jedidiah]

This situation highlights why we need to roll the copyright act
back to 1970. Copyright registration needs to be made mandatory
again along with copyright notices. If something is not intended
for distribution, it should say so. Their should be no presumption
that the RIAA can come and bully you.

If a copy isn't sitting in the Library of Congress and copyable by
the Librarian of Congress, then it should be treated as public domain.

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more."

I don't know the details of NIN's contract, but generally the people who wrote the words and music own the words and music, and the people who funded and produced the recording own the recording.

There are several record labels for which SOP is for the artists to own the masters, but -- and this is very important -- the artist must pay for and arrange for the production of those masters themselves. Magnatunes comes to mind here, but there are several others.

I think what a lot of Slashdotters would like to see is a record company that provides the cash and the expertise for producing the recordings, and then lets the artist have the rights to the masters to use as they see fit without worrying about the record company recouping its investment. This would be absolutely great for artists... it would be like finding a rich uncle or a bank that would give you a loan and never expect to be paid back.

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"Current works are built of previous works as a matter of necessity. So calling music distributors thieves is not simply "hot headed". It's simply taking EVERYTHING into account. People build on the works of others and the expect exclusive ownership."

They expect exclusive ownership of the recordings which they produce. The artist maintains the copyright on the words and music, assuming that they wrote them. There's a big difference between a piece of paper with some words on it, and a finished recording of same. It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album, and that's why the record companies insist on having exclusive distribution rights: so they can make their money back.

"Now the RIAA is trying to interfere with one of it's artists that has realized that pirates are a damn good distribution medium. This situation simply highlights the fact that artists have no real control over their work anymore."

A finished CD is the end result of the work of a lot of people.

If Trent Reznor and crew produced and funded the recordings themselves (which they may have) and then signed over the distribution rights to a record company, perhaps that was a mistake -- instead, perhaps NIN should have started their own record company. Lots of established artists do.

I certainly understand that it would work much better for the artists if the record companies were to put up the cash to produce the music, without any sort of agreement that they would get the exclusive rights to distribute that music. It would be tough to make this work as a for-profit business. There are plenty of smaller record companies that don't want to own the masters or even have exclusive distribution rights, but the musicians have to pony up the cash to produce the music themselves.

Re:Huh?

[Xtravar]

Nothing Records and the studio in New Orleans are defunct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Records

Re:Huh?

[billcopc]

Regardless of your opinion of NIN's artistic integrity, Trent Reznor is a self-produced artist. His label, Nothing Records, is in limbo right now over legal woes with his former manager and business partner, John Malm Jr. It is still legally operating, but the owners are going through rough times as Reznor recently won a law suit against Malm for a significant chunk of money. It is speculated that one will buy out the other's half at some point in the near future.

What I'd like to know is what authority does the RIAA have in these matters ? Can they legally "defend" an independent label ? Were they called upon to pursue litigation by either Reznor (unlikely) or Malm (very likely, but I never liked him to begin with) ? Could this be a sign that the RIAA's members release so much filth that they can't even keep track of what's theirs ? It's somewhat common for the RIAA to claim damages on things they don't even own, as many suits have been thrown out of court on such premises.

Re:Huh?

[shark72]

"I think what we'd like to see is the record companies stop demanding more and more money for the creative work of the artists *after* they're recouped their investment."

Interesting idea! If I understand you correctly, it would be a record company that would aim for zero profitability. The mission statement would be to fund the production of music and earn back the costs, but not to make a profit going forward. This would be a very bold step indeed, as even Magnatune and CDBaby aim for a profit, rather than simply covering costs.

Perhaps some enterprising Slashdotter can set up a non-profit organization to do just that. It could be a foundation, or even an artist-run collective, that would have as its mission statement to give away the music for free, or give the rights to the artists, after the costs had been recovered. However, given the state of the record industry (Warner managed to clear something like three points of net profit last year, and lots of smaller labels are bleeding money) going for zero profit would be a goal, not a step backward for many of them!

Re:Huh?

[RexRhino]

The thing is, record companies LOSE money on most artists. They pay most artists more money than the artist will ever make. They sign 100 artists, and 99 of them are total and complete flops.

That 1 artist who is highly successful, subsidizes all those artists who failed. Profits from NIN recording subsidizes someone who recorded an album, got a big advance, filmed a video, etc., and then only sold a few albums.

The end result of a record company only taking a small cut of the profits on an album would be that record companies would be extremly risk adverse. They would only sign artists that they would be sure would sell millions of records.

It is one thing to claim that there is a moral right for the free exchange of information, and we should be able to trade our mp3s without restriction... YOU or I have not signed a contract and given our word to respect any intellectual property agreement. We should be free to do whatever the hell we want.

But the artists on a record label DID sign an agreement, along with their lawyers, buisness managers, etc. They knew exactly what they were doing, and accepted a big-ass check to do just that. All the people who claim they didn't understand the contract are full of shit - their lawyers will not sign the agreement themselves unless they have fully explained the contract so they can cover their ass. The artist is most likely working a shit job and they are desperate to be a star, sees that $100,000 or $200,000 advance check and record contract, and just doesn't care at the time - then after they go multi-platinum they get pissed off about the deal they signed.

Without a popular artist like NIN making only a fraction of the profits on his work, you wouldn't have the band who gets signed, gets a $200,000 advance, a $200,000 video, $50,000 for recording the album, and then doesn't sell any records and is ahead by $200,000 and the record company is out half a million.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Because the costs of producing any work are non-trivial, and these works on the whole do enrich and further society as well as our individual lives a system to reward the production of such works should be in place.

Almost.

First, many works are trivially produced. Look at the average /. post, for example. Secondly, and more importantly, we should only encourage the production of works where the costs of that encouragement are less than the benefits that those works provide to society (where the types of benefits are 1) having the work created and distributed and 2) having the work be in the public domain so that it can be enjoyed freely). It doesn't make much sense to encourage the creation of works when the costs of doing so would be detrimental to the public even accounting for the benefit of having that work exist. This means that there are limits to how much copyright is best to have, and these limits have nothing to do, really, with where artists or publishers think that they ought to be.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Given that deposit was mandatory for a long, long time, they'll have no difficulty being that busy. Hell, how did you think they got such a large collection to begin with? Of course, you'd also see a tremendous number of works enter the public domain, since most works are not felt by their authors to be important enough to be worth taking even the slightest step to get a copyright. And if that's what the author thinks, who are we to go against their judgment and give them copyrights anyway? Authors who are encouraged by copyrights to create works will actively seek out copyrights. Authors who don't care will ignore getting copyrights and would have created the work anyway.

You keep using that word...

[Nasarius]

Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet.

Ironically? So the band deliberately released a few songs (albeit in an unconventional way), but the album hasn't yet been illegally leaked. How are these two facts remotely related?

Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, I saw Tool a year ago and all I found on the bathroom floor was vomit.

Re:Tool did it differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you look under the vomit??

Re:Tool did it differently

[mwvdlee]

Did you try inserting it into an USB port?

Security Standpoint

[Jazzer_Techie]

I just can't help but hope this doesn't catch on. Encouraging people to plug in randomly acquired USB keys is not going to be step forward in security. While I can't imagine it would be a viable option for widespread malware distribution, it could have a significant effect on social engineering one's way into closed networks. Want to infect corporation X? Put USB keys in the restrooms of places where their employees eat lunch. (Yes that could already happen and I think I've heard of it being done, and yes unneeded USB ports should be disabled, but one has to imagine that this would increase the chances of successful penetration significantly. )

Re:Security Standpoint

[RainierSnow]

been done already :)

check here http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/08/215 1222

Re:Security Standpoint

[delt0r]

And what kind of OS will just blindlty starting excuting the code on the USB? Oh... nevermind.

But then again, its nothing new

Re:Security Standpoint

[MMC Monster]

The problem of course is USB keys that autorun on insertion (which shoudn't even be an option on a modern OS) and people clicking on "virus.exe".

Unfortunately, neither one of these is something that can be changed.

Re:Security Standpoint

[nine-times]

Really? How many viruses can be transmitted through simply mounting a drive? Of those, how many are very dangerous? Of those, how many will go undetected by antivirus software?

I'm generally pretty cautious, but I think that I'd plug a USB drive into my computer without being sure what was on it. I wouldn't necessarily run any programs on that drive, but I'd be willing to risk plugging it in. You wouldn't?

It just doesn't seem like a great attach vector for spreading malware en masse.

Re:Security Standpoint

[Lumpy]

and yes unneeded USB ports should be disabled,

good plan. problem all HP and DELL computers come with usb only mice and keyboards, oops the keyboards have usb ports on them. Oops the user can plug in a hub, etc...

the solution is to disable removable storage, under windows its far harder to do than under linux or other OS's because windows at it's heart is a Consumer OS that wants to be friendly to you.

I have done it, all usb ports are useable, no USB storage devices work in them and USB boot will not work. It took us a good week to nail down that image only to have it undone by the braindead idiot that is our CTO. He gave out 1 gig thumbdrives to all employees to replace floppies and CD's, then the flood of bitching started they would not work, the executives commanded us to re-enable USB drives.

the BIGGEST threat to network and computer security is the executives.

Re:Security Standpoint

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Really? How many viruses can be transmitted through simply mounting a drive?

Windows will run arbitrary code upon mounting a removable device. I think with some effort and luck, you could convince an OS X or Linux user to run code from the drive unwittingly.

More importantly, a little rectangle with a USB port doesn't have to present itself as a removable disk. It can present itself as, say, an input device, and then type arbitrary strings into the user's computer. I believe it can present itself as a video output device without difficulty, in which case it can be used to spy on the computer. It can probably present itself as a network device and engage in some MitM attacks that way. It can attempt to just exploit a buffer overflow or something in the OS's USB drivers.

Actively malicious peripherals are a serious security problem.

RIAA

[Guerilla* Napalm]

There's a special place in Hell for the RIAA. Right next to politicians and people who make reality shows.

Re:RIAA

[Elemenope]

There's a special place in Hell for the RIAA. Right next to politicians and people who make reality shows.

Is that anywhere near the special place reserved for child molesters and people who talk at the theatre?

I think you're the confused one

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

If it isn't I don't know what is anymore.

What did he put them on the USB drive for to begin with?
To _not_ get publicity?
To _not_ get the songs distributed and heard?

Seriously, it's like arresting people for taking part in a free give away.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Scarblac]

There's also a difference between "a USB key with a song or two on it", and a string of left behind songs on USB sticks that are part of a campaign that the label signed off on.

I think that once it's clear that the artist is doing it on purpose, on a digital medium, in 2007, with the label's permission - that's implicit license to share it with everybody over the 'Net to your heart's content.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[UnknowingFool]

"Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will."

There is a legitimate question of ownership here so the parent is not off base. If Trent owned the songs, he can do as he wishes. But if the record company owned them, he is not allowed to distribute them. The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves. These are new songs so I suspect that NiN owns them.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Grashnak]

think that once it's clear that the artist is doing it on purpose, on a digital medium, in 2007, with the label's permission - that's implicit license to share it with everybody over the 'Net to your heart's content. Um, no. My wife is in the music business, and we're often at shows where artists give away CDs as promos. Since the songs on those CDs are a digital medium, does the act of giving them away entitle the recipients to post those on the web for "everybody" to share? I don't think so.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[Marillion]

From another article I read, Trent obtained permission to conduct this campain from his label. The label had full knowledge, hope and expectation that the few songs on the USB drive would be widely distributed.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[danimrich]

Let's discuss the following aspect: Assume that an USB stick was given to me by a stranger as a gift. Let's further assume that the USB stick contained an mp3, but no mention of the artist who created it, no copyright message, no license, and the stranger didn't say anything about it. Would I be allowed to publish the mp3 on the internet?

Similarly, if NIN intentionally lose USB sticks with some songs from their unreleased album, how could the finder be expected to know or verify that the mp3 is actually a real NIN mp3 and copyrighted? Call Trent?
At what stage does a song that is sung become a copyrighted song?

Re:I think you're the confused one

[shark72]

"The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves."

Not hardly. The Beatles were making too much money on royalties and were losing 90% of their income to taxes (the UK does not, or at least did not, have the caps on personal income tax that US residents enjoy). So, they formed Northern Songs as a corporation to manage the publishing rights, so the revenue would be capital gains, rather than income. This was a tax dodge created by the Beatles themselves well after their first record deal, and the record company had nothing to do with it.

And keep in mind that we're talking about the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not the recordings. Even when artists do own the publishing rights (and many, if not most, do), artists still typically don't have the right to distribute recordings on their own -- those rights are owned by the record label.

Re:I think you're the confused one

[SonicSpike]

No - just because you physically possesses the medium containing the material does not give you authorization to reproduce or distribute it. The courts have already determined this.

All creative works are copyrighted the instant that they are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" which means recorded, drawn, written down, typed up, digitized, etc...

I am an audio engineer, I have a degree in the recording industry, and I took 2 semesters of copyright law in college.

"found" USB keys

[foodnugget]

I frequently take things I've found in bathrooms and put them in corresponding ports.
Seriously, USB key, or, really, anything else, who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?
This might just give script kiddies the idea of a brand new way to start spreading worms...

I'm not sure if i'm trying to be serious or gross, here, but i do know i would not be putting a found USB key in any box of mine (esp. if it is running windows...)
Similarly, what kind of format are these being left in? MP3? WMA? something with some nasty DRM?

Re:"found" USB keys

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Seriously, USB key, or, really, anything else, who is taking things they find lying around (in bathrooms!) and putting them in their computers?"

As if you wouldn't. You know, deep down, some little voice is in the back of your head saying "There might be something embarrasing for the owner of this key on here..." ;)

Re:"found" USB keys

[foodnugget]

Actually, I would try it out... In someone else's computer.

USB Flash Drive RISKS

[OzPeter]

When I first read the headline, it reminded me of a story that I saw on the RISKS list (and if anyone can find the exact link please do so) In summary (and from memory only) it was:

1/ A security company was contracted to do a pentration test of a bank.
2/ The employees found out, so were being aware of typical social engineering type situations
3/ The security company loaded up some special USB keys that had had key logger and other software on them
4/ 15 to 20 of said keys were scattered around the door of the bank prior to opening hours
5/ With 3 days something like 75% of the keys had phoned home and were reporting that they were connected to computers inside the bank.

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

Another scenario I heard of (also on RISKS I think) was to go to the front desk of a company, ask to use the bathroom (or toilet for the rest of us), and leave a CD in a prominant location that was clearly labelled with something like "Staff reductions". It wouldn't take very long before that CD was inserted into someones computer at that company.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[drinkypoo]

After reading this scenario I realised that if I saw a stray USB key I would just plug it in to see what was on it - and I would have fallen for the same trap as the bank employees

After reading this scenario I realized that if I plugged it into my Linux box, that I would see the contents of the filesystem, and not be infected unless there was a buffer overflow and the USB key's filesystem had been maliciously crafted as well. But that seems unlikely.

You could also disable autorun... But I never do, either. It's too handy. (I use Windows to run a couple programs.)

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[freedomlinux]

Yes, Windows will autorun a USB device.
Solution #0: run Linux or Mac OS X
Solution #1: override Windows autorun by holding Shift as the device is inserted.
(Hold it until the device is shown in My Computer)

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[MulluskO]

Hold the shift key to disable autorun.

Fixed.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[_xeno_]

I actually looked this up a while ago. The short answer is yes, Windows will indeed auto-run a USB flash drive. The longer answer is that making it auto-run a flash drive involves some special setup of the USB drive, so if you just dump an autorun.inf file onto a USB flash drive nothing will happen.

Windows will only auto-run media that marks itself as "fixed" when it's queried. You can find details in this FAQ from Microsoft. (Note: there's no direct anchor to the question, so you'll need to scroll up two questions from the anchor I linked to.)

I'm not sure if it's possible to make any flash drive into a "fixed" device, but there have to be "special" drives designed to allow autorun, so plugging in random USB flash drives is definitely a bad idea - at least under Windows.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[GenKreton]

This is why the non-windows using world can mount disks with permissions such as noexec (no execute) and other nice little flags and we can be sure it is safe first. I'm sorry to hear the windows users haven't discovered this yet. Someday the 1970's era technology of the un-security focused Unix guys will break through.

Re:USB Flash Drive RISKS

[cliveholloway]

Yep, it's so much effort to hold down the shift key when inserting the drive. I get tired fingers too, so I feel your pain.

Reminds me a rabid dog

[HangingChad]

RIAA reminds more of a rabid dog: Biting at friend and foe alike. An unreasoning animal with no clear objective.

I'm not sure what strategy they're pursuing, but it's not working. One wonders why member companies continue funding an organization that frequently acts against their membership's best interests and frequently paints them in a bad light. It's just astounding to me how poorly RIAA performs their task and how ineffective in achieving their objectives. And they don't seem to learn anything from past failures. It's like a corporate version of the Bush administration.

Don't sell Rez short - he knows his marketing...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario.

Um...you really think Rez's leaking songs for something other than to augment his gravy train (CD/tour)? No, like most people trying to make a living in entertainment, he's picked up some marketing savvy along the way, and is using the same "try before you buy" technique that also works when selling software, illegal drugs and laundry detergent.

The story about dropping USBs in the shitter is just a brilliant way to get even more free press: a band putting their B-sides on its web site is already quite common and won't get its story...

Nothing new

[jlcooke]

The Barenaked ladies did this in their last tour to support their "Barenaked for the Holidays" album.

USB + MP3 + concert.

Not to take away from Trent, big fan of his and the 'Ladies.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Dachannien]

Since noone purchased the music they did not subsequently agree to any copyright agreement.

Actually, you don't have to agree to a copyright agreement to be bound by copyright law. The law serves as a sort of default set of rules that you must follow if, for example, you don't agree with the EULA on your newly-purchased software. That's what makes the GPL work, because if you don't agree to abide by the terms of the GPL, then the default - that being copyright law - applies, which forbids you from making copies in most situations.

Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA (rather, the particular record label at issue here) is doing the right thing. In fact, I yearn for the day when artists can make their living off of concerts and give away their recorded music for cheap/free, all without requiring the "services" of the record labels. But they're well within their rights to demand that other folks not create more copies of the music they hold the copyright on outside of fair use.

Any Publicity is Good Publicity

[qigong]

It seems like the marketing brilliance of this entire scenario is being missed by a lot of people here. How much publicity would NIN gotten without the RIAA enforcement? Would we be having this discussion, for instance? This seems like a well-orchestrated stunt, and color me impressed.

1. NIN scatter these songs around to their fans
2. Predictably, the fans post the songs
3. Somehow RIAA discovers this "infringement"
4. NIN looks like the good guy, RIAA makes the news
5. ...Profit!

How do you suppose the RIAA discovered this infringement?

Re:Any Publicity is Good Publicity

[saintory]

If you take a look at the site and the story behind the album, one could correlate the behavior of the RIAA to "the man" in the story. Pretty cool how the RIAA attack really helps Trent's cause.

Re:Has anyone

[operagost]

Granted nin has been downhill since downward spiral

That seems logical.

If they didn't like the marketing campaign...

[dfay]

What do you think they'll make of this?

Trent Reznor has put the full album up on the official website for promotional purposes.
http://yearzero.nin.com/

(no reg: http://yearzero.nin-thespiral.com/FLJoi4gjw2f/play er.html?reg=no)

This is the first RIAA-produced album I'm considering breaking my boycott for. First, because it's very good, and secondly, because even if they may get some profit from it, the message to them should be very clear.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[jonnythan]

Copyright doesn't depend on any kind of license agreement.

If I find a copy of a book, I can't distribute copies of it. If I find a CD, I can't distribute copies of the CD.

Copyright is coded into law and does not depend on any sort of contract.

Who modded this interesting??

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[gsslay]

Nonsense. Say I attend a convention (let's say it's a Linux convention) and hear a great presentation by a Linux guru, full of great tips and insights. At the end he gives me a signed free copy of his new book! Sweet! I did not buy this book. I did not enter into any contract in obtaining this book. Does this mean I can scan the book and put it up on my website? No, because the writer retains copyright and I'd be depriving him of sales. I guess what he was saying when he gave me his book was "Only those people at this convention get a publicity copy of my new book for free. It doesn't mean you can give it to everyone else a copy too so that I never make any money from it". Now, explain to me why music is different?

Re:You can cut the sarcasm with a knife

[veganboyjosh]

i think that if everything were free, then people wouldn't tend to hoard. a big reason people buy so much crap now is that they're bombarded with ads. not that (most) people see an ad and immediately go into "must-go-buy-consumer-product-655321" mode, but they hear ads, their friends hear ads, they want to be like their friends, etc. sort of a one-ups man ship type thing.

if everything were free, i'm sure we'd see a glut of "gimme gimme gimme" right away, but then it would taper off as people realize they only have enough space for so much.

i found myself in a similar situation in regards to pirated music. when i first got introduced to bit torrent, i went nuts downloading everything i might ever be interested in having the ability to listen to. then i filled up my hard drive. then another. then i was faced with buying more storage, or tapering off my consumption of "free" music/movies/whatever. it started to cost something to store it all.

the other issue is that i don't need to download it all, since it's mostly all available anytime i want it. it's just a matter of finding a source for it.

people won't be in such a rush to get the latest greatest thing once it's all available for free, cos they can get whatever they want, whenever they want. there'd be no false sense of scarcity, etc.

i'm not saying that everything should be free, nor that there wouldn't be a slew of problems inherent in such a system. i'm just saying that i don't think the current consumer mentality would transfer over if all of a sudden every product and service were all of a sudden free. as in beer.

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[Jaysyn]

There is no such thing as copyright "agreement". Maybe you're getting confused with licensing. Copyright is bestowed upon creation of a work.

Re:was part of an alternate reality game

[Rob T Firefly]

Yeah, for a few weeks my inbox was peppered with email from friends along the lines of "there's this weird NIN thing, I think it's computer hacker stuff, you're a nerd right?"

Much of it is actually fairly brilliant, the Wikipedia article is worth a once-over if you haven't been following things. I'm especially impressed with the fact that they hid a picture in the spectrogram of one of the songs.

Which brings me back to this article.. NIN wasn't just leaking music tracks, they were distributing clues which were part of this whole ARG thing. As such, they were obivously counting on the tracks being further distributed, unless they really believed that the one person who picked up the USB stick in the bathroom would just happen to be a steganography buff or whatever. People were supposed to throw these tracks around and analyse the crap out of them.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[Lemmy Caution]

Well, delivering clean drinking water is, in fact, an important service, and needs to be paid for somehow, and it usually is. Now, if those North American companies were charging for the right to collect rainwater, then the same reductio ad absurdum applies.

Bad article

[cwilly]

The article does a horrible job of explaining the campaign. Here are http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070402/music_nm/ninei nchnails_dc;_ylt=AgIXkKsEUNycFRi_5MtSiIeVEhkFtwo http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/20 07/02/22/year-zero-project-way-cooler-than-lost/si tes that do a better job. This "new thing" everyone is talking about has less to do with the fact that he's giving music away on USB keys and more to do with the series of sites that are linked together and help promote the album. The first site's address to be "discovered" by fans was given in highlighted letters on a tour t-shirt. From there, further "codes" were solved and those lead to other sites, all related to NIN and the album. The keys/songs are just bonus material for fans at the concerts. The sites, with the USB keys, with the tour, with the album is what they are buzzing about, not just the USB keys.

Ironically, the album did leak..

[cliveholloway]

...(probably) between when this article was submitted and now (here).

But, because Trent GETS IT, it looks like they had a player already lined up, and you can legally listen to the album here (I bet Rob can't wait to get slashdotted :)

Of course the album will leak before it hits the shops. The RI(fucking)AA haven't a clue how to use this to increase sales, so they run around like a headless chicken. Trent decided that since it was going to happen anyway, he might as well be in control as much as possible as to what gets released and when. Makes perfect sense to me from a marketing perspective.

Not only all that, but this album is the best in over a decade (IMHO) - look out for "Vessel" and "The Great Destroyer" (complete with a token nod to The Prophet's Song by Queen :) I think that TGD can best be summed up by (stolen from ETS), "I AM THE GREAT DESTOYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEER-BOOOM-ZOING-BOOOOM-ZOING- BOOOM, CUURr OAOOOOWWW TING TING BOW!" - yep, the noise is back :)

Re:This is a matter of point of view

[linhux]

If isn't clearly marked as being not copyrighted, then it is. In general, everything copyrightable is copyrighted by default, unless the author puts it into the public domain (or the author could attach a license to it (such as Creative Commons), but then it'll still be copyrighted, just with some extra freedoms).

Re:Blam!

[Stanistani]

I want to buy the brand of socks you wear - are they made of Kevlar?

We are the RIAA Execs who say NiN!

[krbvroc1]

Arthur: Who are you?
RIAA Execs of NiN: We are the RIAA Execs who say..... "NiN"!
Arthur: (horrified) No! Not the RIAA Execs who say "NiN"!
RIAA Execs of NiN: The same.
Other RIAA Execs of NiN: Who are we?
RIAA Execs of NiN: We are the keepers of the sacred music: NiN, Ping, and Nee-womm!
Other RIAA Execs of NiN: Nee-womm!
Arthur: (to Bedevere) Those who hear them seldom live to tell the tale!
RIAA Execs of NiN: The knights who say "NiN" demand..... a royalty!
Arthur: RIAA Execs of NiN, we are but simple travelers who seek the musician who
lives beyond these woods.
RIAA Execs of NiN: NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN! NiN!
Bedevere: No! Noooo! Aaaugh! No!
RIAA Execs of NiN: We shall say "NiN" to you... if you do not appease us.
Arthur: Well what is it you want?
Knight of Ni: We want.....Royalties! All your music belong to us.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[broohaha]

Your post isn't as silly as you thought. people in south America had to pay north American corporations for clean drinking water not so long back. If they refused to pay, their water was just cut off.

I don't recall the company, or country involved, I saw a documentary on it last year.

Company was a subsidiary of Bechtel. Country was Bolivia.

Here's a link to a piece by PBS.

Re:OMG copyright makes no sense

[broohaha]

I don't recall the company, or country involved, I saw a documentary on it last year.

The company was a Bechtel subsidiary. And the country was Bolivia. Check out this piece that PBS did on the water crisis in Bolivia.