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.
Filed Under: copyright, guns n' roses, music, promotion
Companies: myspace
Comments on “Guns N' Roses Loves Online Music, On Its Own Terms”
I think when a person/band or company create something it should be up to them to to decide how, when & where it is released/sold/streamed. No one else even if they are creating business for the group should be allowed to distribute the music in any form or method
Re: Re:
Ideally, they have control over how their product is released.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Have had absolute control. Typing moron.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s not a typo, but wrong grammer,if that. I think (s)he means to say ‘have’, the proggessive. It’s restricted by that ‘ideally’. My focus goes on that word ‘ideally’; who’s ideal: not mine. The most irksom aspect to me though, is that (s)he seems to take for granted that their is not even a logical possability this ‘ideal’ might not be shaired by all.
Re: Re: Re:
The bands (artists or mass production type) don’t have any control over their creations at all. Their Label has absolute control and makes all decisions NOT in the bands best interests.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excellent point. Seems like no one gets their feathers ruffled when the RIAA doesn’t pay the artists. God forbid the ‘pirates’ do the same though.
Re: 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.
The difference is that by streaming you aren’t letting people download the music to their drives directly (without trickery), and therefore letting the people who sell it for money have a chance to make money as well as the actual artists.
Re: Re:
Why would I buy your CD when I can just listen for free on MySpace?
Re: Re: Re:
Because you have to be online to listen to it, you can’t bring the internet with you in a car (or on a bus) (excluding some kind of mobile internet package from a mobile provider), and going to myspace.com and then navigating around on the site every time you want to listen to the CD or a specific song is downright inconvenient in the long run.
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.
Re: Re:
.. and therefore letting the people who sell it for money have a chance to make money as well as the actual artists.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: downloading streams — I think what Nitrodist was referring to is that, in general, people still don’t know how to convert streaming media to downloaded files, and that’s not the “intended use.” Contrast that to actual files ready to download, which everyone is familiar with and knows how to work with.
Substitute “trickery” with “tech savvy” and I think the point works.
Defendant
“what’s the real difference between streaming the songs on MySpace, and having them freely available elsewhere online?”
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.
I like it RAW Baby
The new G&R is to processed like most of today’s music.
streaming=radio
I think streaming is comparable to traditional offline radio. Sure, you could record it if you want to, but but most people don’t becuase its an inconvenience. If you record offline radio and give away cds of the track to few hundred people, you would still potentially stir up legal problems for yourself. All that being said, thanks for the pointer about their Myspace page because I think the tracks rock.
you know
Free music should be a charity when you know they made it in reality. reality checks.