Slashdot Mirror
Led Zeppelin Agrees To Digital Distribution
cphilo points out a NYTimes article on Led Zeppelin's decision to sell its music online. The group is one of the last superstar acts to hold out against the digital tide. There was a months-long, trans-Atlantic bidding war for the rights to license the band's catalog. In the US, the only digital holdouts that outsell Led Zeppelin are the Beatles and Garth Brooks.
FINALLY!
The game.
listening to Led Zeppelin, I can say they are easily one of the best rock bands of all time. Unlike a lot of recent 'talent' which seems to be concerned only with imitating others, Led Zeppelin pioneered rock and roll and actually brought creativity back to a genre which many had dismissed simply as hippie music.
Good to see their catalog online; however, a few years ago I had a rather revealing experience after buying one of their earlier works on CD: I could definitely notice the limitations of the analog equipment used for recording. I hope that the tracks offered online are of better quality, or it will be a little bit of a disappointment.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
must... stay... awake...
He was speaking about the ORIGINAL terms for copyrights, which Congress has gotten into the habit of extending whenever they are about to expire for anyone with some power, and have become in effect perpetual. And even if they are from the UK, they were still published in the US under US law, their citizenship or country of origin has nothing to do with it.
How regularly a work is performed or used has no bearing on the term of copyright for it.
USA copyright laws are relevant to people in the US. A UK performer's works are covered under US law for people in the US.
The original poster very explicitly stated the original US copyright laws, which were in fact 14 years plus another 14 years as an optional extension if the copyright holder wished to put forth the time and money to obtain it. You are correct that they last a very long time now, but that is just confirming his point.
whats wrong with hippie music, pal ?
Read radical news here
Retirement for me will come if I ever make enough money to sustain me for the rest of my life. Garth Brooks had more than enough. Why shouldn't he retire? What I don't get is people like Bill Gates or any other businessman who is rich enough that his great great great great grandchildren won't have to work and they still get up every day and go to work. It's not that I'm lazy and they are workaholics. I work to make money. There are many many other things I'd rather do with my life. As far as being a musician, he can play and sing to people anytime he wants.
Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
Country music today is basically what rock 'n' roll was in the 70s (more true of the Eagles, CCR or Tom Petty than Zep, but I digress). So it wouldn't surprise me if similar music has similar fan-bases.
Wouldn't that be nice? The Black Sabbath 1996 Castle Remastered releases were amazing compared to the original releases. I hope Led Zeppelin does the same. We could finally hear what they are saying before the songs (not even yet?). If iTunes had their say I'm sure the quality would be reduced. Would Verizon be able to get reels or would they use CDex like everybody else? So... I guess I already have all the digital Zepp?
Seriously, who doesnt have all the Zep songs in MP3 by this point already if they like them? I dont get this concept of downloading bands that have been purchased over and over and over again in the past. If I didnt have the MP3's I could get them in short order from rip of my cd, or a library, or have em dropped off on my server by a friend, or turn on any classic radio station for more then 20 minutes.
I was a big fan, I even have hours of boots, back when that was interesting, and I still like them, but think about it, even 20 years ago (1987) you didnt have to buy an album or cassette because someones big brother or friend would give you one. They were very common during the transition to cd. And about 8 years after that I think you could pick up a cd in the $2 used bin.
It's true, the band should have been more up front about the music they were covering, but you are exaggerating the case. They did not "steal everything." They did cover some songs and there were lawsuits to force them to credit Willie Dixon and I don't know if they've ever credited Jake Holmes. But that is a small handful of songs in a large catalog -- Led Zeppelin has plenty of "original" songs. Sure, they were basically a blues band, but they used the blues to basically pioneer a new hard rock sound. Rock n Roll is itself basically ripped off from the blues and country music. And a lot of heavy metal ripped off Led Zeppelin. And so on.... that's how progress occurs in the open source world of popular music history. You're right that they should have credited (and paid respects -- not to mention some percentage of their profits -- to) the musicians whose work they used. But I don't think you can define all of their work by that.
The original poster is criticizing the fact that copyrights were extended.
I always find the popularity of these Country acts genuinely amazing. Coming from the UK, it seems inconceivable that an artist like Garth Brooks should be the 3rd best selling artist of all time. Just shows how much taste varies geographically. Mind you, there must be some Bollywood stars that sell a few recordings. They have a very big audience.