[Previous entry: "Smilin' Shrubs of Symphonic Sympathy"] [Next entry: "vidpoding? telepodding?"]

11/12/2004: "Old dog, old tricks"

John Gilmore once stated, "The Internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.".

[...] The band has said over and over they would release the CD Nov. 23rd in the US and a day earlier in Europe. They have also said that the moment it leaked to the internet they would make it for sale at iTunes and elsewhere.
 
That sure sounded like a challenge a month ago when we all first heard about it. So what happened?

Well, over the weekend it was starting to show up on BitTorrent sites. The whole CD was there in fine audio form. By Tuesday I would guess almost everybody in radio had it. BUT nobody was playing it. (You can now monitor this in real time for stations country wide with search and all that.) Why? Well to do so would piss off the record company and the band.


Though Doc says that the album is not yet available on at the ITMS, one of the better tracks, "Vertigo", is available for download (for $0.99) from the iTunes Music Store.

Simultaneously, U2 and its label, hoping to make the best of their predicament, are hooking up with MTV.com and VH1.com to stream the new album online, as of Tuesday, November 16, one full week before the November 23 release date. Quoting from the lyrics to "Vertigo":

All of this can be yours
Just give me what I want
And no one gets hurt

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, conspires with Creative Commons to release a 100% legal rip/mix/mash/burn bomb of its own. The backstory is that in August of 1991, Negativland released an overpriced single called U2 , featuring snippets of U2 recordings, outtakes of Casey Kasem's American Top 40, ("These guys are from England and who gives a shit?") and a mangled sample of U2's song "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". Island Records turned around and sued the band and its label (SST) for copyright infringemnt and deceptive packaging. Have a listen.

Now that same Negativland developed the ideas for the sampling copyright licenses, though they are written by real lawyers. As far as I know, the following track are the first actually covered by the Creative Commons Sampling licenses. You can literally do what you want with these tracks, as long as you don't attempt to sell the result. I fully expect that these will start showing up in podcasts.

Beastie Boys / Now Get Busy
David Byrne / My Fair Lady
Zap Mama / Wadidyusay?
My Morning Jacket / One Big Holiday
Spoon / Revenge!
Gilberto Gil / Oslodum
Dan the Automator / Relaxation Spa Treatment
Thievery Corporation / DC 3000
Le Tigre / Fake French
Paul Westerberg / Looking Up in Heaven
Chuck D with Fine Arts Militia / No Meaning No
The Rapture / Sister Saviour (Blackstrobe Remix)
Cornelius / Wataridori 2
Danger Mouse & Jemini / What U Sittin' On?
DJ Dolores / Oslodum 2004
Matmos / Action at a Distance

One of these events is an Atomic Bomb that will, no doubt precipitate fallout from the RIAA followed by a Creative Commons arms race once the artists recognize that getting listened to and recognized is far more valuable than any promotion their label is likely to offer (and even then, the artist pays for it.)

The other is the fizzled dud old-school label promoting a washed-up, 25 year-old has-been with the Same Old Shit.

Which one of these albums will result in more collective sales for the labels and artists? Which one of these albums will still be listened to in 2 years?

Negativland, the band that U2 sued for sampling, came up with a license that encourages sampling, which directly resulted in the release of an album of free music by top stars, timed to directly counter U2's latest campaign, while U2 is distracted trying to fight downloads of its hoped-for smash hit.

In short, U2 and its label are caught sitting on their collective ass.