Slashdot Mirror
Phish Offers Archive Concert in MP3
moron0 writes "Phish has partnered with emusic.com to offer a Halloween show from the archives because they won't be performing one this year. The show will be webcast on Halloween, and then available for purchase in MP3 after the webcast. " It's actually a re-broadcast from 1990's Halloween show, or as eMusic calls it: "...the early years of Phish's legendary
Halloween tradition, prior to the
development of the band's 'musical
costume' concept. " Whatever. Something to listen to.
In the case of data theft (in this case, the taking of music created by someone else), although the first component clearly exists (thereby making it something a lawyer can call theft), the second may or may not. Ater does raise an interesting point: if you are not depriving the original owner of anything, have you stolen from them? Lawyers representing the interests of IP publishers say yes, of course, and for the most part case law supports them. However, if you are depriving the IP's creator of nothing other than a payment, and if given the choice between paying for the IP and completely doing without the IP, you'd do without it, I think things get a bit more nebulous from an ethical perspective, though not a legal one.
And don't go saying things like "if it weren't for the money, nobody would create art." I'm sure Linus Torvalds etc. would disagree.
--
This is not my sandwich.
This astounds me... Phish allows people to bring recording devices to shows, and freely distribute the recordings at their will. To buy this in mp3, wouldn't make much sense, when I could run over to the flea market and pick up the tape for $2. I doubt this is a move on the band's part at all... are they still signed by Elektra? Read their audio recording policy.
I'm happy that Phish is doing this. Phish is one of the most overworked bands in show-business. By webcasting this show, they get a much-needed break AND do a great public-relations bit.
:)
Also, I'd like to address some of the less mature readers of this site. Calling people names such as "tree-hugger" and "dirty hippie," doesn't do any good, and only shows your ignorance. Not all geeks sit there listening to punk rock; I even know a few who used to be Grateful Dead groupies. I know one who hacks to Beethoven and one who works best while playing rap. (I personally prefer Pink Floyd, Strangefolk, and Guster.).
I would also like to address those who say that this is just an attempt to capitalize on music they "couldn't otherwise sell." Remember that Phish already has several live albums on the market...this is no different. And Phish, in addition, maintains a policy that allows concert-goers to audiotape shows and to circulate those bootlegs. In a way, Phish is one of the most open-source bands around! Their music is for sale so they can eat, but in the end it's free for everyone.
Thank you, Slashdot, for throwing our little piece of sub-culture a bone!
Intercarve Networks, LLC
This group really isn't known as a "do it for the money" group. They're constantly on tour, having a good time.
off hand, here's a joke...
What did one Phish head say to the other when they ran out of drugs?
this music sucks.
Hemos' dismissive comment notwithstanding, I wanted to explain what is meant by the "Musical Costume". Phish has done this for many of the last several Halloweens. It involves them "becoming" another band for the second set of their show by playing an entire album. Over time they have become The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Who ("Quadrophenia"), The Talking Heads ("Remain in Light"), Pink Floyd ("Dark Side of the Moon"), and the Velvet Underground ("Loaded"). Some of these presentations are note-for-note replicas (a non-trivial effort) and some are more interpretive. *ALL* of them are very cool, fun musical exercises. It is always a secret until the show.
Incidentally, I also wanted to point out that one of the things that make Phish interesting musically is the playfulness with which they approach their art. It is not a far stretch to think of it as hacking the music. They construct musical metaphors (not that they originated the concept -- consider Ravel/Mussgorsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition") and explore the theme musically. Some of the metaphors have included being in a maze, freezing, melting, and bouncing. Quite obviously these are not complex themes, but it is fascinating how they choose to interpret them. This of course says nothing about their technical mastery, professionalism, and jaw-dropping light shows. A chacun sont gout(to each his own), but there is a hell of a lot more to these guys than the usually dismissive "hippie, Dead-like jam band" allusions.
These artists give away their music; the only requirement is that it stays free.
Sound familiar?
The self-governing online 'jam band' communities have maintained this trust,
just as the snail-mail tapers before them:
The profit motive here is more likely emusic.com's.
This is funny, if not a little venomous. Aside from the "lousy music" part, (Phish rocks, IMHO) it's kinda accurate. Phish is not exactly an "all things for all people" group.
As for the "dirty hippy" aspect, I guess you get that with almost anything, but the general attitude at a Phish show attracts seekers a bit more than most other events. Maybe it's because kids in search of a little kindness and compassion know they won't be overrun with bigotted jerks. Not that I'm fingerpointing or anything. ;)
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
Etree is a collection of volunteers who distribute entire Phish (and gDead, and SCI, and MMW, etc.) shows, compressed with the non-lossy SHN format. A typical show (3 CD's) is around 1350 MB or so.
They collect only the highest-quality digital source tapes (for Phish, anyway), master them, and split the tracks (no more one-track sets!).
It's free, and it's the highest possible quality, and you're free to do whatever you like with your burns (give them away, trade them) as long as you DON'T SELL THEM. Check it out!
What would happen if a competeing group decided to perform and record a whole bunch of Phish tunes on an album? Would they be able to?
Yes, a competing group can record any Phish tune they want, after paying the required royalties.
From Cecil Adam's Straight Dope about Micheal Jackson and the Beatles.
Another thing the publisher can't do (in the U.S. at least) is prevent somebody from recording a cover version of a song the publisher owns. Usually the would-be cover artist and the publisher work out a deal on royalties. However, if negotiations fail, U.S. law allows the cover artist to make and market the recording anyway provided he pays a stipulated (and fairly stiff) royalty to the publisher.
Would the Dead Kennedys be able to produce a sharply modified Phish satire album?
If the Dead Kennedy's were still around, I'm sure they could, you just described Weird Al's career.
Not that anybody would want to listen to yet another band similar to Phish, but the whole myth of "open source" and Phish is, umm, a myth.
You're not thinking of it in the right way. It's not Open Source as in you get the lyrics and tabs, and can recreate the songs anyway you want to, and call it Phish, it's Open Source as in you can freely trade the live recordings. Maybe GPL music is closer to the true meaning.
Many bands do not allow audience taping, and attempt to prosecute people trading unauthorized recordings. This may be due to record company pressure, but the idea is "Only we can determine what music of ours you can listen to, if we haven't gone over the music and approved it, you aren't supposed to listen to it."
Phish (and more originally, though not the first, the Grateful Dead) feel that the fans should be free to tape a live concert, and once they are done playing a concert live, the fans are free to trade these live concerts for other live concerts, as long as no profit is involved. Perhaps a better way to describe this is as "Open Source distribution."
Yes, "Open Source distribution". If I don't like the quality of a CDR I get from MZ, I'm free to look for a CDR from TB, JT, or AJ, and never deal with MZ again. If I want to accumulate 400 hours of live Dead without paying a cent to the Grateful Dead organization (or 400 hours of Phish to the Phish organization), I'm free to do so.
I hope this helps,
George
But you are depriving the original owner of something which they own. Their right to receive an amount which they establish for use of their intellectual property. Just because one thinks that amount is excessive or not properly allocated doesn't give anyone the right to steal. In the case of music, if you don't want to pay for the work of others, then make your own. How lazy and spoiled have we become? We must have the great artist's work, it pleases us, but we refuse to pay for it because we are entitled to this pleasure.
You can dance around the issue all that you like with words, but in the end it's theft. Please tell me how point two is not fulfilled. Are you saying that the artist does not own his art?
While it is true that art would be created regardless of money, artists themselves would be even hungrier if they were not rewarded for their art. And while I'm quite sure that Linus would agree that art for art's sake would thrive, as if his opinion has any bearing on this, I doubt that he would advocate the use of someone's art without their permission.
Just on a side note, I find that most people who don't believe in intellectual property rights don't really contribute much in the way of intellectual property to the world.
Your first "fact" is a very interesting rationalization. Sociopathic, but interesting. The artists choose to give the record company the rights that they have. No guns are used. And I'll bet that you were not part of the negotiations either.
Making an unauthorized copy of intellectual property is theft. And those who do it are theives. No amount of argument or rationalization will change that fact. Call yourself a pirate if it makes you feel that you are doing something romantic. But you are just a thief and you are the real scum.
It's time Phish (and anyone else interested in giving away legal MP3s) encodes them in at least 160kbps, preferably 192kbps. 128kbps is sort of a relic of MP3s, and it harks back to a time three or four years ago when they had just caught on, but no one had the bandwidth that they do today. So to save on d/l time, we all encoded 128kbps. It's time we upped our standard a bit - 128kbps is not sufficient and does not produce CD quality music. It saddens me to see MP3.com, what with its millions (?) of MP3s, yet all of them not high enough quality to really warrant me buying them. This is pretty much the same for every site/artist that has MP3s on it.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.