Which Artists Support Music Swapping? 94
jtauber asks: "With RIAA's new campaign to 'educate' people that unauthorized downloads of music are illegal and with the range of artists who are endorsing the campaign, I thought it would be interesting to ask the question: which well-known artists (if any) go against the RIAA and are _in favour_ of music swapping? Certainly many unsigned bands like my own encourage it, but what about those signed with major record labels?" We did a question along a similar veign not too long ago, except its focus was non-RIAA Record Labels. What artists are you aware of (popular or not) who have come out in favor of music-swapping?
one... I guess (Score:2)
Re:one... I guess (Score:1)
Yep...they had a free tour [wired.com] sponsored by Napster.
Speaking of Limp Bizkit (Score:2)
Re:Pete Steele of Type O Negative (Score:2)
Ever heard of The Newsboys? (Score:1)
Rage Against the Machine (Score:3, Informative)
Rage Against the Machine would like to sincerely apologise to all of our fans who were kicked off of Napster for downloading 'Renegades'. The move to take action against Rage fans was taken completely unilaterally by our new management. In their zeal to keep the record from getting out before the release date, they did not consult the band before instructing Sony Music Corp. to institute the Napster ban. As soon as I was made aware of this horrible mistake on their part, I immediately phoned our management and the record company to see what we could do to get our Napster-using fans reinstated as soon as possible. I'm told that the easiest way to get back on Napster as quickly as possible is to download one of many files floating around on the Internet to get around the ban.
Re:Rage Against the Machine (Score:1)
Sony: "OK, we're all set on this end. Now you guys go make a big stink about this."
RATM: "No prob, man. When the girls coming over?"
Sony: "About 45 minutes."
They don't face the risk (Score:3, Interesting)
Do they have a choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do they have a choice? (Score:2)
Re:Do they have a choice? (Score:1)
Why is it relevant to the morality? It's moral to "steal" from the RIAA but not moral to "steal" from the artist? I don't buy that argument (and no, I don't think it's ever immoral, or "stealing").
Re:Do they have a choice? (Score:1)
Re:Do they have a choice? (Score:1)
But the creation always belongs partly to the artist and partly to the people, no matter what our broken laws say. So no theft takes place.
But the artist does enter into a fraudulent contract with the RIAA, then. Is it moral to conspire to enter into a fraudulent contract?
Personally I don't believe the creation belongs to anyone, no matter what our broken laws say. So yes, I agree no theft takes place, but I say no theft takes place regardless of what the artist says.
Re:Do they have a choice? (Score:1)
how does an artist make $$ to live without compensation.
They get a job.
if the potter wants to give pots away, that's his choice, and is fine, but if someone steals a couple because they like them, or just want to use them for a while, they should still be charged with theft.
On the other hand, if someone buys a pot and then makes another pot which looks the same, s/he shouldn't be charged with theft.
Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:2)
I 'worked' for two years as a musician(only - no day job), and it was hard work and rewarding ($$ and otherwise).
Fun is fun, but people should get paid for entertainment. It's their time and talent in exchange for your money.
Hmm. That sounds a lot like my day job.
Forgive me, but when I hear 'get a real job' I about have to smack the person (who most likely has never even attempted what I do - drunken kararoke doesn't count)
Re:Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:2)
C'mon, get a job? Is that to say that actors, comedians, writers, and freakin' jugglers don't work?
No, it's not. But most of them don't own copyrights either.
Or that they should 'get a job' too? Or that if they do these things they should not get paid? What constitutes a job? Coding software? Digging ditches?
A job is "a regular activity performed in exchange for payment." But I thought you knew that.
I 'worked' for two years as a musician(only - no day job), and it was hard work and rewarding ($$ and otherwise).
What's your point?
Fun is fun, but people should get paid for entertainment. It's their time and talent in exchange for your money.
I never stated that people shouldn't get paid for entertainment. Firefighters should get paid for fighting forest fires. That doesn't mean they should own the trees and houses that they save. Teachers should get paid for teaching. That doesn't mean they should own the students they teach, or should receive royalties when those students get a job. Entertainers should get paid for entertaining. That doesn't mean they should own the entertainment they produce.
Hmm. That sounds a lot like my day job.
And if your day job is something that benefits society, then you will still get paid. That's how capitalism works. If you can perform a service that people desire, people are willing to pay for that service.
Re:Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:2)
Do you mean to say that when a writer writes a book and publishes it himself, that he no longer owns the story? Granted, the purchased book is yours to do with what you will, but copyright prevents me from slapping my name on it and calling it mine. I wrote about this earlier..here [slashdot.org]
I DO think I should be able to 'own' a song I write. I wrote it! I labored over it, was not under contract ('write a jingle for Goldfish crackers for us'), and created it out of nothing. If someone wants to share it online, I don't care (talk to me when I'm a rock star, I may feel differently. ;) But the song is mine and attributed to me, not the Doobie Brothers or Elliot Smith.
I appreciate the 'twilight zone' confusion of copyright, especially now that it has been pushed into things that it was never meant to deal with, and situations that were not forseen (instant mass publishing) however, I believe copyright is a useful thing for what it was originally intended to do: Protect an authors work from plagarism and allow the author of a work exclusive use of it for a *limited* amount of time.
A quote I read the other day was, "Copyright in America seems to be extended whenever Micky Mouse is about to fall into public domain." That's what I hate.
BTW; I have not sued anyone for copyright infrigement, nor been sued, but there is always hope - bad artists borrow, good artists steal. :)
Re:Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:1)
Do you mean to say that when a writer writes a book and publishes it himself, that he no longer owns the story?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean, except for the "no longer" part. He never owned the story. You can't own stories. They're not physical things.
Granted, the purchased book is yours to do with what you will, but copyright prevents me from slapping my name on it and calling it mine.
No, plagiarism laws prevent that. I never implied plagiarism was OK, I implied copyright infringment was.
I DO think I should be able to 'own' a song I write. I wrote it!
Fair enough. I disagree.
BTW; I have not sued anyone for copyright infrigement, nor been sued, but there is always hope - bad artists borrow, good artists steal. :)
Well, the reason I bring that up is because I contend that it shows that you don't need copyright law to make money off music. You know this, since you've done it.
Re:Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:2)
So you are for the complete freedom of intellectual 'property' (for lack of a better word).
Now the Devil's Advocate in me asks what you do for a living, since I can't help but think you might feel differently if you were an 'author'...
To be fair, I personally saw the end of copyright when Napster was just starting up and I heard you could pretty much find whatever you wanted on there. My idea of the music 'buisiness' took a sharp turn on that day. I realized that mp3s and p2p were going to shake things up and mess with a lot of wallets. (not mine, at the time)
Of course, when you are deeply involved with biz and study up on that whole scene, it's tough to let some ideas go.
Re:Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:1)
Yeah, I pretty much don't believe in copyright, though maybe I could see it being necessary for fiction books.
I'm not an author, but I think that's what allows me to see the issue more clearly. I mean I don't blame tax preparers for being opposed to vastly simplified tax laws on the grounds that it will put them out of business, but at the same time I don't think the fact that some people will have to change professions justifies keeping a particular law in place. I dunno, maybe that's a bad analogy...
But even most 'authors' (now I'm talking about independent songwriters) I've met don't really make any money due to copyright. I mean, they rely to some extent on people buying CDs, but really that's a donation, not people paying because they're afraid the feds are going to come after them. It seems to me that abolishment of copyright would only help them, because it would probably eliminate the mega-pop-star, and send more money the way of the independents.
I dunno, I guess I realize I'm being naiive and idealistic, not so much in whether or not it would work, but in whether or not it's possible. Like the simplified tax laws (although admittedly much more so) there are just too many people making too much money off the current situation for it to change. Napster is a step toward it, but I still doubt I'll see copyright law overhauled in my lifetime.
Of course maybe if we had replicators... Of course that would probably be the end of the world anyway, due to nuclear terrorism, if nothing else.
Re:Geez, its obvious you are not a musician. (Score:2)
Let me add this...
I 'worked' for two years as a musician(only - no day job), and it was hard work and rewarding ($$ and otherwise).
Did you ever sue anyone for copyright infringement? Do you think fear of being sued for copyright infringement caused anyone to buy your music?
Re:Do they have a choice? (Score:1)
IMO the RIAA is only protesting filesharing because they don't like losing the ability to line their pockets from inflated cd prices.
In theory, there really isn't a purpose for record labels anymore. With the internet, artists have the power to distribute their own music. However, in the current situation this isn't completely feasible. Unfortunatly, lawmakers have little or no reason to kill an industry that provides millions if not billions of dollars in tax revenue annually.
Shameless, shameless (Score:2)
Me!! [innig.net]
Although, with the really lame license [innig.net] I have, I'm desperately wishing for the Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] to get the heck on with it and put their license generator online!
Not very free (Score:1)
Not very clear (Score:2)
Regardless, it's a little ambiguous, and it's a pretty lamely worded license in general. This sort of confusion is why I'm excited about the CC's license generator project. Like it or not, there is a reason they have actual lawyers write this crap up.
Note that the original question was "which artists support file-swapping" -- which this license explicitly does. The question was not "which artists use licenses that would make Richard Stallman happy".
I understand (Score:1)
I guess I did just misread it then if that's what you meant for it. And yeah, I realize you were answering the original question, my response was off-topic.
One way to make things unambiguous is to allow public performance (including by digital audio transmission) without restriction.
And by the way, I most certainly wasn't interested in pleasing RMS, I was considering what I'd personally want to be allowed to do.
This need is real (Score:2)
...which is the most reasonable thing in the world. There's a real need for making licensing options a natural part of music distribution, for both the artist and consumer. I'd actually like to see an industry standard for encoding specific licensing grants (e.g. commercial use, derivative works, etc.) as a part of standard audio formats. A curious listener could just click a button in their audio player to see a track's licensing. Since audio generally doesn't come with a README, making this information part of the file format itself is essential.
Responsibility for respecting copyright ultimately falls on individual consumers -- so it seems a good idea to make that responsibility as easily and approachable as possible.
There are lots, for live music (Score:5, Insightful)
- Phish
- Grateful Dead
- Tenacious D
- Oysterhead
and so on. There are several communities that can help you get lossless versions of shows from these bands and others:- www.etree.org
- www.furthurnet.com
-MikeRe:There are lots, for live music (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, the bootlegged recordings might be nice to listen to but they don't compare to being at a well produced concert. Good quality MP3 rips on the other hand can encapsulate the exact same experience the original CD does. The next step in P2P music swapping is to scan the liner notes and offer PDFs of them. After that what's the point of buying the CD?
People who go to concerts, even to record the show and pass it around (is it really bootleg is the bands allow it to happen?) People who download hundreds of MP3s are leeches.
Re:There are lots, for live music (Score:2)
Re:There are lots, for live music (Score:1)
Re:There are lots, for live music (Score:1)
Re:There are lots, for live music (Score:1)
not every bootleg recorder out there is a guy with a cheap mini-cassette recorder.
U2 (Score:5, Informative)
THE EDGE: The terror of online song-trading and bootlegging that has occurred in the wake of Napster is not something the members of U2 are losing any sleep over. "In fact, as long as fans aren't being exploited and bootleggers aren't raking in huge money from the practice, it's a part of the music business they've come to accept."
U2's Bono vs. Sonny Bono (Score:1)
This can get confusing. There's one "Bono" who's pro-sharing, and there's another "Bono" who was (and whose widow is) strongly anti-sharing [everything2.com]. In fact, the confusion has even inspired some bad jokes about volunteer legal work: is it possible for an attorney to fight the expansion of copyright law "pro bono"?
Re:U2 (Score:2)
And me! (Score:2, Interesting)
You can find four (count 'em!) complete and unrestricted songs by yours truly here. [clara.net] They're in RealAudio, I'm afraid; at the time I didn't know any better. I'll get around to replacing them with MP3s or OGGs one of these years. I'm too old and cynical for a career as a musician now, so do whatever you like with them, as long as you don't sell them or represent them as someone else's work. Ta!
Did anyone say... (Score:2, Informative)
She has at least 2 articles on her website, http://www.janisian.com, that are quite anti-RIAA.
Re:Did anyone say... (Score:1)
The RIAA as a whole has most of the copyrights and they represent the most artists. The sad thing is that artists think that going with the flow with the RIAA Evil Empire is the only way to get out there.
Projekt Records (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Projekt Records (Score:2)
Re: Projekt Records (Score:2)
More information on Projekt's stance can be found at:
http://www.projekt.com/projekt/audio.asp [projekt.com] and
http://www.projekt.com/projekt/napster01.asp [projekt.com]
It's worth noting that Sam Rosenthal is not only the label's owner, he's also a musician with a fairly large number of recorded albums of his own.
Planeside (Score:1, Informative)
Radiohead ok with live tracks (Score:2, Informative)
The artist formerly and currently known as... (Score:2, Informative)
Point of clarification? (Score:2)
Ani DiFranco (Score:2)
Re:Ani DiFranco (Score:1)
Re:Ani DiFranco (Score:2)
Although sometimes necessary, unauthorized duplication is never as good as the real thing
Bowie (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, his site is flash only
Now, flame on about how he is already rich, blah, blah.
-Peter
Re:Bowie (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Bowie (Score:2)
You comment seems to be on-topic and at least interesting if not insightful.
You have an ultra low ID#.
And you post at 0. (And crapflood your own journal.)
What gives?
-Peter
Courtney Love... (Score:2)
Re:Courtney Love... (Score:1)
Bands That Allow Taping (Score:1)
Also, as someone else has already mentioned, etree.org and furthurnet.com are great resources for this material.
Smashing Pumpkins... (Score:1)
Re:Smashing Pumpkins... (Score:2)
From spfc.org [spfc.org]:
"A followup to Machina, and the last album from the band. As a final farewell, and a "fuck you" to a record label that didn't give them the support they deserved, a limited pressing album was made (3x10" +
2LP, 5 discs total) and given away to be bootlegged out among the fans."
"Just to clear up any possible confusion, this is the final album from the band. There are 25 copies on vinyl only. There is not, and will not be a CD pressing."
I started to cataloge this.... (Score:2)
Check out www.musiciansview.com [musiciansview.com] I haven't had alot of time to work on it but I will post any info I can confirm at contribute@musiciansview.com [mailto] with info on how a musician or band sees it.
The Offspring? (Score:1)
Travis
Re:The Offspring? (Score:2)
Dave Matthews Band (Score:2)
"You can burn a cd, but.." (Score:1)
the Legendary Pink Dots are taping-friendly (Score:2)
Some links if you're unfamiliar with the Dots:
fall 2002 north american tour dates [terminalkaleidescope.com] so you can go tape
The Official Live LPD Archive [ling.gu.se], roughly 30 live shows complete, over much of their twenty-year history
LPD official website [brainwashed.com]
(Not an affiliate of any kind, just a fan)))
MOJO (Score:1)
Don Henley must die
a lot (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I've heard a few bands say that turnout for shows in smaller cities has actually been getting better, and a lot of kids will say it's because they checked them out via MP3.
Metallica (Score:1)
Metallica are dead-set against sharing of studio albums (and concerts which they have recorded and released). However, they have always allowed taping of concerts and trading/sharing of concert recordings.
Leftover Salmon (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the majority of bands of the "jam band" genre are cool about low key bootlegging and people trading their music.
The local jam band from my whereabouts Toadstool Jamboree [toadstooljamboree.com] is pretty cool about bootlegging as well. I got permission to throw my DAT on the board at a couple of their shows.
I think its mostly the uptight corporate bands that have such an issue with people MP3'ing. Most of the lowerkey / unsigned / indie bands don't really make much off of CD Sales and aren't in music to make a bundle, rather they love entertaining and would rather you buy a t-shirt and pay admission to their show. They also manage themselves typically so they aren't getting screwed by industry insiders.
Just my Opinion, but check out Toadstool and LOS... rocking music, plus you get to say slamgrass
Answer: Some of the same one's quoted... (Score:2)
For instance, they quote Neil Young as being against file-sharing by using a quote from Yahoo! Entertainment News: "I don't like to have a record out and have people hear versions that we don't want them to hear. With the Internet, there is no more privacy and not even the chance to express yourself in front of your audience in the intimacy of a concert that lets songs evolve. You can't do this because they immediately get circulated."
For enough, but this doesn't necessary mean he's against file-sharing, only that he's frustrated when unauthorized songs are released. Maybe they did get his permission, but since he isn't listed on the actual ads I sincerely doubt it. He's also on the record as talking to BusinessWeek about Napster: "It's great. Whatever gets the music around. The record labels will worry about that, and I'll worry about the music." I wonder how many of these other artists have similar views and if they realize they are the being represented as the poster children for anti-piracy.
I would LOVE to see someone make a parody of the these ads [musicunited.org] with a list of equally prominent artists that have come out in favour of file-sharing. You could change the tag-line to "we don't care about file sharing" or something, and maybe take a dig at the RIAA for mispresenting certain artist's views ("libel is wrong").
Björk does (Score:5, Informative)
In another interview I read, she said she composed the album with the idea in her mind of her fans sharing the album through the web, and wrote much of the lyrics as a kind of "whispered secret" for listeners to enjoy. I think she's one of the few artists who realizes that without her fans, she wouldn't be where she is today.
Chuck D. has also seemed to be fairly clueful about the web, although I'm not sure how he feels about P2P apps.
The Sound of Urchin (Score:1)
At first I thought that seemed naive... the songs are gonna get shared, but then it occured to me that the average time it takes to get a "non-hugely popular" track seeded to a P2P network is far less than the amount of time that most new CD's have on a national distributors (Best Buy etc...) store shelf.
Pearl Jam (Score:1)
Re:Pearl Jam (Score:1)
Re:Pearl Jam (Score:1)
'Any way you can' in my case means buying the albums (twice in one case *drools over Vitalogy on 12"*),buying the one concert i went to (and getting a vcd of it as well) then getting all the others from p2p/ftp etc
I did have a huge collection of live/rare covers by PJ, all thanks to napster, until partition magic decided to die whilst resizing my music partition to fit linux on, but thats another story........ - About a week after this happened, napster was effectivley shut down & ive never been able to get them back....
Most if not ALL of them ... (Score:1)
Metallica has 'shared' songs on garage days where they paid a royalty and distributed millions of copies. Dr. Dre shares quite a few things, some of them without permission(there's a lawsuit filed against him now for that song 'contagious')
I'm not trying to bash the artists, I like both of their work, but just thought that I'd offer examples of the two biggest opponents of file sharing.
Music that's free to copy (Score:1)
Acoustic Rock for you (Score:2)
bengarvey.com [bengarvey.com]
Mod Parent Up! (Score:1)
I just checked them out and, yes, they're real punk. I'll tell you something AC, I didn't expect to see anything true to a subculture in this thread. Whoever the hell you are, thanks for being able to see past the RIAA's (mostly successful) attempt at commercializing what should have always been free.
If you know any other Punks, tell them to "hang in there" for me.
Passive Aggressive (Score:2)
Public Enemy and Slamjamz (Score:1)
On a shameless side note, my band [digrev.co.uk] will be releasing tracks which are available free of charge and Free to share.