Guns N' Roses Loves Online Music, On Its Own Terms
from the release-it-already dept
It will be great when Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy album comes out -- if only because it'll end 14 years of speculation and hype, and maybe we'll stop hearing about it for a while. It's scheduled for release on Sunday (and will be available only at a single chain of stores, thanks to an exclusive agreement), but the band is already streaming the record on its MySpace page. This comes after the band got the FBI to investigate a blogger who posted some songs from the album online a few months ago; the blogger was eventually arrested, and recently plead guilty in a plea bargain. So, like so many people in the music business, it appears that GNR love the power of online music as a promotional tool, as long as it's on their own terms. Having the guy who posted the songs prosecuted did nothing to stem the tide of illegal downloads of GNR songs, while his actions helped to promote the band and their work. Furthermore, what's the real difference between streaming the songs on MySpace, and having them freely available elsewhere online? Those who are so inclined can still find a way to convert the streams into downloaded files, while the streams could just point some users to download the album via BitTorrent, where it's readily available.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, guns n' roses, music, promotion
Companies: myspace
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, they don't. They know they don't. For quite some time now, bands don't have absolute control over their product's release.
So, maybe, they could quit suing and accept and live with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, since the bands only interactions with the industry as a whole are directly through their label, the label gets to brainwash them in the way that suits the labels.
The bands think sharing is bad because their labels told them it is. The labels think sharing is bad, because THIS CURRENT business model is the only one where the label gets to keep the vast majority of the bands revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Despite being radically against copyright, I agree with this (I think, at least - you may be saying something other than what I think you are).
Several months ago, G&R did not authorize their music to be released. It was at that point solely their intellectual property, and taking it without permission is thus stealing.
Now that they're willingly releasing it, though, it's the property of whomever downloads it. If the blogger chose to release the tracks on his site now, it would be completely ethical (as long as G&R is streaming the whole album).
In other words, go read some Crosbie Fitch. He's got the right idea here that pulls copyright down but keeps up the rights to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So yeah, buying a CD (or purchasing the tracks off iTunes/other service) is preferable to streaming, mostly. If the person who was questioning whether they wanted to buy the music already had the music on their HDD instead of not having it (e.g. downloaded vs. streaming), I would say that the person who doesn't actually have the music is more likely to purchase it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It has been shown time and again that the people who sell the music itself share very little revenue with the artists. Many artists have directly stated this themselves.
Also, plenty of bands give away music for free. Radiohead tried it. Nine Inch Nails does it. There are plenty of other bands that do it. They still make a lot of money.
And lastly, its not trickery, its just technology. A different tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Substitute "trickery" with "tech savvy" and I think the point works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defendant
I believe the difference is I cannot name myself as both plaintiff and defendant, nor can I litigate against myself till I am in poverty ? Something like that sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like it RAW Baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streaming=radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]