FYI Radiohead will be releasing a traditional CD (non-box set, ~$15) in December:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cop-out/radiohead-selling-in-rainbows-on-cd-via-one-of-the-big-four-in-january-309948.php F On 10/22/07, William Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I should've checked this earlier: The ID3v2 tags indicate > "_XURBIA_XENDLESS LIMITED" holds the copyright. This is apparently the > name of the secure server operated by Radiohead's distribution company. I'm > not sure what sort of legal effect metadata has, but this pretty clearly > shows Radiohead's intent to have people come to their website if they want > the mp3s -- probably so that downloaders will know where to buy the discbox. > > > As far as the model of staggering release of different quality versions, I > like the idea, but I fear Radiohead might be stretching a bit. First of > all, I wonder how many people care about the difference between 160 and > 320kbps. Secondly, I like "In Rainbows," and I'd probably be willing to pay > $15 for a regular CD, but an $80 discbox might be a little much. Had they > pulled this out for "Kid A" or been really ahead of their time with "The > Bends" I would've been all over it. I wonder how many people are willing to > pay that kind of money. > > Will > > > On 10/22/07, Elizabeth Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Right, but my point is that legally, the may have only wanted people to > > download from their site and NOT from elsewhere, thus not allowing > > redistribution. (And also not allowing higher bitrates.) > > > > This probably isn't the case, but this seems to be the technical legal > > interpretation. > > > > On 10/22/07, Fred Benenson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > We must assume that they were anticipating for everyone to share the > > > mp3s. This is why they released them as 160kbps files, so that the ones > > > popular on the networks wouldn't compete with the box set and the real CD. > > > > > > I think, however, it's too much to assume that they are necessarily OK > > > with people redistributing them. It's a shame because this is a clear case > > > of where a CC-BY-NC-ND license would have worked perfectly. > > > > > > Anyway, it's an interesting twist: Radiohead has been able to wrangle > > > control over their own media by staggering the release of different > > > quality > > > versions. I think this is actually a viable model -- but we'll have to see > > > how popular the CD is when it is sold, as there will inevitably be 320kbps > > > versions floating around then. They may have just gotten enough people to > > > pre-order it that it won't matter. > > > > > > > > > Still, a perfect case of where a CC license would have been a great > > > show of good faith. > > > > > > > > > F > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Elizabeth Stark < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Will, > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, it's still technically ARR. That said, they're > > > > making it available to anyone who wants to go to their site and > > > > download it > > > > for free, so there's obviously some kind of implied license there. That > > > > implied license wouldn't go so far as to say that others can distribute > > > > it, > > > > as it only would apply to downloading it directly from their site. > > > > > > > > Despite the technicalities, it doesn't seem as if they're all too > > > > opposed to others sharing their album, even if not downloaded from their > > > > site. But we're talking about technicalities here. :) > > > > > > > > -E > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, William Norton < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Can someone please clarify if he or she knows the actual copyright > > > > > status of Radiohead's album. Obviously, it's available for free (or > > > > > at > > > > > least really cheap) on their website, but is it legal for others to > > > > > distribute? > > > > > > > > > > The Radiohead model is a great step that could have a profound > > > > > impact on the industry, but it seems like Free Culture would advocate > > > > > going > > > > > one step further in terms of reserving rights. > > > > > > > > > > Will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Elizabeth Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Fred, do you or others think that more bands will start > > > > > > following the Radiohead model? (At least those that are more > > > > > > well-known and > > > > > > have large, established fan bases.) > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I think its a good idea too, but unfortunately the "big > > > > > > > rock and roll groups" are mostly controlled by record executives > > > > > > > who don't > > > > > > > really want to allow people to share music. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the other hand, there are groups like The Grateful Dead and > > > > > > > Phish whom actively encourage their fans to share their music. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've found that it is supremely difficult to convince > > > > > > > established musicians to start giving their work away for free. > > > > > > > It is either > > > > > > > a decision they make for themselves, and come to however they > > > > > > > come to it, or > > > > > > > one they don't make at all -- that is they pass it off to > > > > > > > whomever is > > > > > > > managing the band or record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, the more big acts that release their work freely, > > > > > > > the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope that helps, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Fernando Wermus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am new at the list, and I would like to know if there has > > > > > > > > been any campaign to free music. Does anyone talk to big rock > > > > > > > > and roll > > > > > > > > groups to free its music? where can I find some info related to > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Fernando Wermus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Discuss mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
