Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Attacks Free Prince CD
Mike writes "You might not like Prince, but he's planning on giving away a free CD in a national British newspaper. Harmless publicity, right? The music industry disagrees. Executives are practically going insane over the idea and are threatening to 'retaliate'. 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behavior like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday,' said Entertainment Retailers Association spokesman Paul Quirk, who also said it would be 'an insult' to record stores. Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?"
The more bad press you give us, the more ammunition bands have to never sign with you in the first place. Keep it up, you're doing a better job at killing yourselves than we music lovers could ever do!
Prince should just open his own online store. Publicly announce he is no longer a member of the RIAA, and start selling his music online via his own channels. I'm sure he is rich enough to give them the finger.
So an artist decides to share his music and give it away. Where to start with the ensuing anguish by the industry?
If the RIAA and music industry could be anthropomorphized, they'd be that crazy uncle anybody would keep up in the attic.
"Perception of value"... that just about says it all, doesn't it?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
In the public mind, digital music already is rapidly approaching zero economic value, and this scares the crap out of the Music Industry.
Of course they are pissed at Prince - his action reaffirms the value of digital music in the public mind.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"The executive with an attitude like this should know that his outlets will soon be The Buildings That Used To Be Record Stores"
Fixed that for ya.
A-Bomb
Should make for utterly gripping testimony in the antitrust lawsuit under Sherman Act Part One.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Let the "industry" expose themselves for the idiots that they are. They're well on the way to irrelevance. Why would anyone want to slow them down?
Most people don't even think inside the box.
But, if that is the case, you are insane. Seriously. Okay, the current stuff isn't that good, but if you don't like Prince, you probably don't actually know much about him. If you learn about this musical genius, who, unfortunately gets lumped in with a lot of talentless 80s hitmakers (I hope you read this, Madonna), you will, at least, respect him.
I'm just sayin'.
To actually answer the last question, "Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?". No.
Just as Prince can do what he wishes with his business, so can they. They might just be shooting their own foot, but it is their right to do so.
once he signs the record deal, the music no longer belongs to him. which sucks, but that's the biz.
-- build a man a fire and he'll be warm all day. set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Q: "Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music..."
A: If the music sucks then I think the answer is quite clear.
What a loon.
He *is* known as Prince. For a time, he wasn't, because his label owned the name. However, he is now, and has been for some time, known as prince.
We could of our own free will send Prince $1 for each free CD he gives us!
Do RIAA execs throw chairs?
Disclaimer: I love Prince's work, have seen him live many times, and his guitar is amazing and every bit as good as Eddie Van Halen or Eric Clapton, who yes, I've also seen live.
We're going to party like it's on sale for $19.99 !! Thank you, come again!
... Paul Quirk, who also said it would be 'an insult' to record stores. Record stores? If the recording industry is genuinely interested in record stores (as opposed to on-line sellers of bit-streams or supermarkets selling just the top 20), why has yet another chain of decent record shops closed today in the UK? Perhaps he really means "a danger to my company's profits".Everybody know him, he doesn't need record labels. He really doesn't. He understands that.
I would imagine that the record labels are actually more fearful of other artists like him coming to this realization.
Do you have ESP?
From TFA:
>The eagerly awaited new album by Prince is being launched as a free CD with a national Sunday
>newspaper in a move that has drawn widespread criticism from music retailers.
>.
>.
>.
>Prince, whose Purple Rain sold more than 11m copies, also plans to give away a free copy
>of his latest album with tickets for his forthcoming concerts in London
Clearly, Prince gets it. Digital Content is no longer an object to sell itself, as it has no value anymore, but is merely an attraction to attract consumers to purchase other things.
I think this is the mainstream start of the beginning of the end for people who have traditionally sold digital content to consumers. Those days are rapidly drawing to a close. With content so easily copyable, it's economic value is virtually zero. So there is no place for selling digital content to consumers anymore.
BUT, you CAN sell your digital content to an advertising firm, who will use it as flypaper to attract consumers to buy physical things.
This is precisely what Prince is doing. He isn't giving away his content for free. he's sold it to a newspaper company that will give it away to get people to buy (physical) newspapers, and he's giving them away to people who buy physical tickets to his concert.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behavior like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores.
Sure. Feel free to stop selling one of the more successful artists in the business. I'm sure that will encourage customers to come running to your store when they're looking to make a music purchase.
Also, in case you haven't figured it out, Mr Quirk, Prince has figured out the dirty little secret of the music industry - he doesn't need you any more. In fact, he's been doing quite well ever since he told the music industry as a whole to get bent. In case you haven't been paying attention for the last few years...
So you mean to say that it's morally reprehensible to give away that which you own? Can you comprehend how nonsensical your position is? Prince giving away his music has NOTHING to do with P2P networks. This is about one artist choosing to give away his music and that scares the music industry for some reason. If you decided to give your mother $20 for a cab ride somewhere and I threw you in prison because you didn't demand repayment or charge your mother interest, wouldn't you be pissed off? Of course you'd be pissed off -- because that $20 was your to do with as you damn well pleased. The same principle is at work here.
Is it me or did the RIAA become the record industry's "Nazi Industrial Strike Force".
Legally I don't think Prince can do this if his records are licensed. His distributor may seek to sue. On the flip side, he can always re-do a re-mix like release of said songs and release those worry free. I do believe though that if he went the ASCAP way though, he is legally bound to his distributor...
With ASCAP and BMI control somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% crap, it all depends on copyrights at this point... Two copyrights associated with a song, one that covers the song itself another that covers a particular of the song. E.g. author of a song might hold the copyright on the words and music - person who performed the song might hold a copyright on the actual recording... To perform said song - the performer would need the permission of the holder of the copyright on the song itself. In order to distribute a recording of that song - distributor would need the permission of the holder of the copyright on that recording.
So it all depends on how Prince laid this out (copyrights). Judging by who he is, he likely is the copyright holder of both which means he pulls weight... However, he is to some degree imposing on the distributor's TERRORTORY so its likely they'd want to fight him and tie some money up knowing damn well they'd lose. In this case, if they took say a 10mill hit from his antics, tying him up in court cases in which the amount of legal fees amount to what they perceived to lose... They'll likely like that anyway. They're nothing more than rich, selfish crybaby bastards anyway
Infiltrated dot Net
Might The Artist Formerly Known as Prince then become, in response, The Artist Formerly Giving A Flying Fuck?
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Should these guys really be calling attention to the illegal actions an illegal monopoly may be taking in the future?
is as it is and ever will be. One day soon, the phrase "I got it for a song" will have it's meaning back. It's not that talent is worthless, it's that it will not remain a centralized commodity three companies can manipulate and artificially limit. That it was is the real quirk.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have very strong feelings on this issue and I'm very impressed with Prince's intentions here.
The day music started becoming easily traded online was the day music became monetarily worthless. The cat is out of the bag and will never go back in. Whether this is immoral is irrelevant because the morals have been rewritten for the 21st century. The music industry's only hope is to embrace this fact and make their money from "NOT music" - albums with nice art, books, t-shirts, concerts, and other services and widgets that are related to music and cannot be duplicated.
I highly respect artists like Prince who give their music away for free and allow people to purchase it after the fact. I also highly respect artists like Nine Inch Nails who release their songs and samples under a Creative Commons license to allow fans to remix their works. It's going to happen whether the industry likes it or not, so why not embrace it today and show the world you're a pioneer full of good will?
If anyone is interested I blogged on this topic last week. I spoke primarily about DJ Amber from San Francisco who sells CDs for cheap but also gives the same music away for free in MP3 format. For $10 she sent me a beautiful CD, autographed, within a week of sending her the money via PayPal. I had the pleasure of dealing with the artist personally and all my money went directly to her.
The internet empowers everyone but those who fight it. RIP music industry.
They spelled my name correctly, right?
Then its alllllll good.
Cha - Chiiinnnng!
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?
If you're asking this question, then you don't understand who you are really dealing with.
The music industry thinks they own ALL music. Not just the RIAA affiliated bands - all music, EVERYWHERE. My proof? SoundExchange. They are demanding royalty fees for all music streamed over the net from net radio - and get this - from EVERYONE. Doesn't matter if you're a member or not, they will collect on your behalf in preparation for the glorious day you elect to join the Borg. Until then they're happy to bill people for all music, everywhere.
The music industry thinks it owns all music. Everywhere. If there was a way to drill a tap into your head and bill you every time you think of a song, they'd do it.
So yeah, Prince, having the audacity to make a song and give it away clearly goes against everything these morons believe. I wouldn't be surprised to see them ban him completely.
In response - we, the public - should buy every single thing Prince makes. After he releases it over the net independently. Money straight to the artist with no insane middlemen. This could be where it starts.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Person interested in Prince as a long term brand strategy: "But come on - customers love to get free stuff!"
Music Industry: "What the fuck does what customers want have to do with anything?"
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I think that The Purple One knows that he is/can be a slave to a record company.
Remember a few years back when he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol?
How about writing "slave" on his head?
Ringing any bells?
He has the luxury of not needing the RIAA's or Warner's or whoevers money any more. That's as close as any recording artist can hope to get to beeing "free"
If the strongest threat that these companies can come up with is "stop it or we'll stop making money off selling your old records in our stores" than they are well and truely fscked.
good for him.
-- Sig under construction...
Almost. There is one final bit of value that people will be willing to pay for: finding what you want. Most people won't want to spend hours sifting through all the rubbish to find the one MP3 copy that doesn't sound like crud. Most people won't want to go through the work of discovering unknown musicians. They'll pay for someone else to filter the content and recommend certain musicians and certain digital recordings as being superior.
What the equilibrium price is for this service, I don't know. I suspect it is lower than the current price, in general, but potentially much higher for especially good "editors" whose for-you tailored recommendations are outstanding. As far as I can see, this is the only remaining way anyone can hope to charge money for digital copies of music.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Many many years ago, the president of the Solo Cup Company (they make paper cups and plates) had a wife who had aspirations as a singer. She wasn't very good, but he tried to jump start her career by including copies of her records in packages of his paper cups. I think I still have some of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they were collector's items now.
Somewhat fewer years ago, Wordperfect gave away a demo CD with a demo version of Wordperfect 6.0, and the rest of the CD filled with original music.
Musicians give music away all the time. Did the music industry scream over either of these? No. Then why over this? Because Prince's music sells, and the others really didn't.
Real musicians see music as an expression of art. They make it for their own purposes, and they'd do it even if they didn't get paid (as long as they can eat). I know plenty of indie bands that are happy to "cover their expenses". The music INDUSTRY, OTOH, sees music as a commodity to be sold, like soap. If someone gives away free soap, then real soap makers sell less, and they lose money.
This perception is wrong-headed, but everyone is listening to the wrong people, with the wrong point of view. The sooner we give music back to real musicians, the better.
You can't take the sky from me...
People that get called on stealing GPLed code typically are making money off it by doing so eg. bundling it with some piece of hardware, or sticking it into their proprietary software that they sell.
Most pirates don't sell the music they pirate.
1. There are enough Slashdotters who don't like the GPL for exactly that reason: You can't just copy the code and build something new out of it, and then distribute it without disclosing not only the code you took, but also all the code you wrote solely by yourself (and which according to normal copyright you won't have to distribute). (Yes I know, there is always LGPL and also the "interface code" trick.) Those people tend to be in favor of the BSD License.
2. People who defend the GPL normally argue that copying someone else's work, earning money either with it or a derivative work of it and not giving something back is unethical. That's a different type of fish.
I guess you missed the word "ethically" in my signature. I know you're attempting the tried-and-true "it's not theft because you're not physically taking anything" canard, but then why do all Slashdotters refer to "stolen GPL code" all the time?
Equivocation. Likely because the people who talk about "Stolen GPL Code" aren't the same people who talk about piracy. If you're going to argue with someone, argue on the merits of their arguments, not the arguments of others.
And he obviously didn't miss the word "ethically". His point was that ethically, piracy is not like stealing, since piracy is not like stealing in its essential character. Indeed, he came up with an analogy to piracy, and showed that stealing and piracy are ethically very different.
You'll probably feign
After all, I am strangely colored.
No, what they're saying is that Prince is somehow incarcerated! All proceeds from these "Free Prince" CDs go towards paying off his lawyer fees. Please ignore the fact that "Kevin" has been scratched out and "Prince" is penciled in.
S.
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
This is one thing that I was wondering that you managed to put perfectly. It seems that the future focus of music is going to be in the DJ's/VJ's and those who focus on presenting the content. The content may be easily distributed and replicated these days, but it takes taste and a feel for ones audience to be truely great at setting up shows, mixed cd's, etc.
Hopefully we'll start so see more music "packages" become available, where artists with similar target audiences hook up with a talented DJ/VJ type person (not necessarily those labels specifically), and include different lineups of their songs. I do not mean the "OMG SUPER PARTY HITS 335.4235475236452364 2007 EDITION" cd's you see on infomercials, but ones created with the direct input of the artists involved AND such talent. We've seen that a true fan will purchase multiple versions of the same music and be happy as long as there is a reason to (IE: remixes, live version, even _specific_ live versions).
Music seems to be a lot like food, except for the "we die without it" part not being quite literal. And as many chef's know, presentation is everything. Good taste, insofar as it applies to a similar target audience, definitely DOES have value.
Ice Cream has no bones.
You're just going to end up ruining it for everyone else when the government notices the lucrative market for free CDs and applies a whopping 300% tax. I hope you're happy now.
Pop star George Michael said the same thing to BBC radio in 2004, talking about his impending retirement from commercial music.
Frankly I don't see why not. Once you've got "enough" money why not sell-out entirely to your own creative impulses? It's certainly better then wearily pumping out material you're no longer interested in just because you've become accustomed to life as a hamster on a pop-star wheel.
I thasnk Mr. Michael, Prince, and every other artist for sharing their talent with us. If their non-commercial expressions discomfort trade cartels and music store chains then so be it, artists have no obligation to support music industry chattel. Perhaps the record stores would like to have parents stop singing non-commercial lullabyes and birds be required to have performance licenses.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
In 1989 my band made a vinyl record and pressed a 1000 copies. There are 920 or so copies still within our control. I've been giving some thought to setting up a MySpace page and providing free downloads of the band's works and writing and recording some new songs.
Mr. and Madam Record Company executive, this is your chance and time is running out. Sign me to a record deal now before I give away more of my music. Your industry needs you!!!!
Mmm, genetically modified bread.
The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
However they see fit. They can sell music, sell themselves, sell out, maybe quit and go into marketing, do whatever they can think of to live.
My point is simply that there's this absurd expectation that music-as-product should somehow generate mountains of profits. IMO It's absurd to expect any profits at all. Don't get me wrong--I *want* musicians to live on music. I would love to live on my several music projects--who wouldn't? But when anyone starts demanding money--by litigation, lobbying congress, general whining, whatever--they seem to have completely forgotten that there's no magical guarantee for anyone to make money doing anything. This is what upsets me. Record stores bitching about a famous artist giving something away for free, when THEY could have been making money off of it? Boo-hoo! The gall just astounds me! If they want to go into the business of exploitation, why not be pros and start a child-labor camp?
What is interesting to me is the European tendency toward goverment-artist subsidies (grants, etc) for bands and musicians. Have you ever toured in Italy? I HIGHLY recommend it--they're actually interested in maintaining and nourishing culture. As far as I can tell the idea of granting the talented to pursue and generate their talent benefits everyone except people whose sole existence in life is to generate money. And when an artist of any medium has the ability to execute their work without the pressure of their work as a commodity, I will cheerfully guarantee you nothing but good results.
Limina.Log
Just because he is giving away CDs for free doesn't mean he is giving away his copyrights, so it doesn't automatically make it legal for anyone else to distribute the contents of the CD via, lets says P2P or streaming.
If the copyright notice on this free CD says that anyone can copy and distribute, that is a different matter alltogether.
I wonder if anyone would question that "shrink wrap" agreement?
I think he meant "all true Scotsmen"...I mean "Slashdotters".
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Here's the difference:
Stolen music becomes more free.
Stolen code becomes less free.
What we care about is the freedom of information. The law is just an expedient to secure that freedom. When the law becomes injurious to that freedom we must break it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls.. but consider that he's on stage 5 while you are stuck somewhere between 3 and 4.
Copyright holders have long ago broken their social contract with the people, nothing produced today will ever become public domain during your (or your children's, or possibly not even their children's) lifetime as per the original social contract that gave birth to copyright.
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
How dare you link to my website as your own? You jerk.
How would one show support for an artist that is giving their music away for free?
I definitely don't want to buy anything from the music stores..
So what would be a good way to support him on this, without feeding the mouths that are so upset..?
that person went through the work of designing and creating those items so that they were unique to him/her and planned to sell them for a living
The vast majority of artists would not be upset in the slightest to know there are infinite digital copies of their work floating around the world. In fact, they would be quite flattered, and would look forward to the increased demand for paid live performances and other product sales that would be sure to follow. The small minority who would be upset about it are already rich enough to live out the rest of their life in comfort. I don't think they have been deprived of anything that could be considered ethically significant.
I think the AC makes a valid point. I also think he draws a wrong conclusion. If you make a knock-off of something a merchant creates either the original isn't valuable in itself, or the original will retain its value (or it could do both). Take the situation of knock-off designer bags. The original bag still sells for as much (arguably more - due to increased visibility increasing desire) while the people both buying and selling the knock off are also benefiting.
No number of obnoxious people on E! claiming that knock-offs "dishonor the brand" is going to make it true, just as no number of people calling copyright infringement theft will make that true. The difference is that fashion designers, along with artists, have figured out a viable business model, whereas the RIAA has not. Designers and artists understand the value of having an original prestige item and charge for it, the secondary market doesn't harm them at all. OTOH the RIAA fails to understand that something easily copied cannot be a mass consumer good. They're trying to have it both ways. They'd be better off selling albums for $3 and concert tickets for $50 (sort of how the MPAA is slightly more relevant due to the value of a movie screening) or sell authentic original CDs for $200.
Companies have found ways to be successful in spite of (sometimes because of) knock-offs, generics, reproductions, or piracy basically forever, why the RIAA seems so intent to buck this trend is beyond me.
It's easy, and fun! Here we go:
It ain't SoundExchange that's deciding they should collect those royalties, it's the *government* deciding they should, and it's actually not a bad idea.
Of course it's not a bad idea - if you're the one collecting the checks. And just because the government says it should, that doesn't mean it represents what the people want. Let me introduce you to a concept called a Lobbying Group. Just because you can lay down big bucks and effect a change in the legal system does NOT mean it's what the people want. It's what the industry wants, and they are radically different things.
They can simply sign some forms and demand their cheque.
It's as simple as that! No...actually it's more like this. You must join to collect your money. Resistance...is useless.
It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play.It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play.
Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid. Some of us make music just because we like it, you know. It was art before it was a business. Some folks think of it still as art. Not everything amounts to a "cash flow opportunity".
Without compulsory licensing, I'd bet the vast bulk of college, independant, and web-based radio stations would shut down completely, thanks to the overhead of negotiating licensing deals.
And yet, these are the exact same groups compulsory licensing are shutting down. Wow, what a surprise! The people who promote indie music are the ones being nailed, all the while the shill says that these are the people he's trying to help.
Sure, pal. Sure.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
When record companies cry.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Stolen code becomes less free.
What we care about is the freedom of information. The law is just an expedient to secure that freedom. When the law becomes injurious to that freedom we must break it. The GPL equivalent for music would be giving it away with the sheet music, and allowing others to redistribute it or modify it as they pleased, so long as they also distributed the modified sheet music with it. Would you be happy with a "music license" like that? (Also note the parallel here, what if you only modify the binary/mp3 and not the code/sheet? Do you have to create code/sheet to match your modified binary/mp3 and distribute that, too?)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I'm from the first camp, but let me take this discussion one step further into the "Off topic" area and argue the second camp's point of view back.
:P), you don't sink to their level and break the rules as well.
Not so long ago (it's still in my RSS feed) Marcus and Theo of the OpenBSD project were accused (mainly Marcus) of "stealing" GPL'ed code and porting it into the OpenBSD project. Regardless of how you feel about the whole fiasco, I'm pretty sure they weren't planning on making money off of the GPL'ed driver code.
Sure, people can argue all they want about the possibility of BSD code being close sourced by an entity that will make money off of it, but I bet you a $1000 dollars that if I were to close source a GPL project and give it away for FREE (without even an ads supported site), I'll have the author knocking on my door the next day demanding the enhanced (or not) source code.
Heck, some people (Referencing an AC.. brilliant!) argue that Google is unethical because they [allegedly] didn't distribute the GPL license (which any kid in kindergarten can find online in under 10 seconds) with their GSAs despite the fact that the source code is available on code.google.com.
Copying music is (in my opinion) exactly like copying GPL code and not adhering to the license. You may not like the rules but you have to play by them.
The music guys want money to allow you to obtain copies of their songs, the GPL guys want credit and source code enhancements back.
Rules are rules, and no matter how low your "enemy" is (not GPL in this sentence, spare my Karma
GBTW.. GBTW... GBTW...
If you can't mod them join them.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
The problem being that your assumptions are based on the knock off being of inferior quality and not an exact digital reproduction. When talking about songs, each digital copy of a song in the wild lowers the value of the authentic song file. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Oh but the artist should perform at concerts to make his money! Well that was simplistic and quite frankly unfair. Why should a musical artist be forced to make money by touring? Why can't his song be a commodity like any other work of fiction? When E-books are shared, do you expect the book author's main source of income being from performing public readings?
To be fair, I am mostly irritated by the idea of giving an artist (or ticketmaster) a valid reason for charging even more money for a concert. It would be nice if a concert ticket remained within the economic means of an average teenager/young adult.
I was led to believe that an artist tours to promote their album...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Yet another example of Why the Recording Industry Doesn't Get It.
Music as music has been around for thousands and thousands of years, but music as a bunch of salable mass-produced physical artifacts is less than a century old. If your business model is failing, it doesn't mean the Big Bad Pirates are stealing from you. It's not an attack on Music Itself. Make no mistake: they are not defending artists, which they treat as indentured servants. They're defending their threatened business model.
From what I gather, Prince had a world-wide marketing deal in place that would have distributed his CD to UK record stores, but greed inspired the UK distributors to stay out unless they could get a higher percentage. It seems like distributors everywhere else plan to get some profit by going with the deal in their regions, and the UK distributors would have got a bit of profit as well. Now they're not going to get anything. Prince doesn't like leeches trying to blackmail him like this. So everyone in the UK who gets a copy of the MAIL gets the CD. Blackmail me, will you, you putzes? Take that! Maybe he will be seen as a kind of Guy Fawkes of the music distribution system with this little bombshell, inspiring other big artists to do the same and knock the current corrupt system in the UK. But it's also a shot across the bows of distributors everywhere. Come to think of it, hasn't Paul MacCartney done something similar with his recent CD, at least in terms of bypassing the usual distribution outlets?
(Incidently, what does "B&M" mean?)
Brick and Mortar. In other words a store with physical presence, as opposed to an online store.
The World's Worst Webcomic!