Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paul McCartney Releases Album As DRM-Free Download

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the getting-it dept.

Music 292

Medieval Cow writes "Sir Paul McCartney has a side project called The Fireman and he's just released their new album, Electric Arguments, as a digital download. Why this is of interest to this community is that he released it 100% DRM-free. You can purchase just the digital files, or if you purchase a physical CD or vinyl copy, you are also given access to the digital download. Not only that, but the download is available in 320-kbps MP3, Apple Lossless, or even FLAC format. If you're interested in trying before you buy, you can listen to the entire album in a Flash player on the main page of the site. It's so nice to see a big musician who gets it. Bravo, Sir Paul!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (3, Interesting)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056833)

...usually like to release DRM-free, or even free, period (Radiohead, NIN. etc.). With certain exceptions *cough*Metallica*cough*.

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056843)

Paul McCartney was one of the biggest proponents of that attempt to get retroactive copyright extension of sound recordings a few years back. Maybe he's changed his attitude towards copyright since then.. or maybe he's just interested in making a buck (or a bob) any way he can.

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (4, Insightful)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057075)

Paul McCartney was one of the biggest proponents of that attempt to get retroactive copyright extension of sound recordings a few years back. Maybe he's changed his attitude towards copyright since then.. or maybe he's just interested in making a buck (or a bob) any way he can.

Yeah, I don't think he's doing it because he's suddenly anti-copyright.

This is a particularly good time in the history of the recording industry to be one of the "good guys" who drops the DRM and gets press for doing it.

Notice the huge free ad he just got on Slashdot?

And think about it -- if you're choosing between paying for a Metallica vs. paying for this one, what goes through your head?
* I hate that @#$%in' DRM...
* Metallica! Those DRM-loving pricks. @#$% 'em, I'm just getting this one off the internets.
* McCartney! He removed the DRM... Maybe I shouldn't rip him off.

It's a marketing experiment. There'll probably be more freeloaders, since the people who *wanted* to get their music for free but couldn't figure it out will have an easier time of it. But if sales are boosted enough by the good press and goodwill, the experiment will have succeeded.

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (2, Informative)

g253 (855070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057753)

You can listen to the last Metallica album in whole, on their website (http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601231). They also sell all their live shows as drm-free mp3...

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057851)

I doubt many Metallica fans would rush out to buy this one.

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (1, Insightful)

nozzo (851371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057231)

DRM free or not it's still rubbish music - who cares either way?

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (5, Funny)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056935)

Napster Bad!!!!

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057729)

This could only have been modded "flamebait" by a metallica fan who agrees with drm.

Probably someone who loves Vista, doesn't use car analogies...and...and moved out of his parents' basement years ago.

ZOMG! /. has been infiltrated! Where's the tinfoil?

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (3, Informative)

Spliffster (755587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057821)

Yesterday I have seen the first TV advert on German TV which said (in german obviously) somthing like: "musicload.de: pure MP3, no digital restrictions".

AFAICT DRM was a topic for gamers but not the average music customer. The DRM topic has hit the mainstream Media now.

-S

Re:Interesting how artists, when given a chance... (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26058117)

I think with the wide proliferation of portable music players since 2001, there's a big market for portable music files anyway. I think every musician is starting to realize that if they want to capture this market they have to find a way to make it easier to copy music to these portable music players.

Mind you, I'd like to see everyone on the commercial side gravitate towards using AAC-encoded files, since they tend to sound better than MP3-encoded files and the fact that most generation Apple iPods support this format along with most higher-end portable music players.

It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056851)

I'm impressed that he lets you try the album before you buy it, and that it's in flash. Of course, nobody would ever download the file and convert it to an mpeg because that wouldn't be honest.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26056889)

http://www.thefiremanmusic.com/assets/flv/ [thefiremanmusic.com]

I did the work for you in 2 minutes.

If you want, I can uncontain the mp3's from the flv files, so that you won't have to reconvert them to mp3 and lose quality.

But I will just tell you use http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html [erightsoft.com] and do a direct stream copy to mp3 for the quickest way to do this.

Malware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057037)

Looking at that website and reports on some others that program seems like a bunch of malware to me.

http://blog.gilluminate.com/2007/01/27/how-to-download-super-from-erightsoft/
http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/07/16/erightsofts-super-video-converter-looks-safe/

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (-1, Redundant)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056915)

http://www.thefiremanmusic.com/assets/flv/ [thefiremanmusic.com]

Here you are good sir.

You can use http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html [erightsoft.com] SUPER to uncontain the mp3's by doing a direct stream copy to mp3.

Have fun!

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056927)

.... That was odd. Ah well, looks like I accidentally double posted.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (2, Informative)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057151)

Or instead of hunting for a 20+MB download...
ffmpeg -i in.flv -acodec copy out.mp3
mplayer in.flv -dumpaudio -dumpfile out.mp3

...or just listen to it in the flash player already and buy it if you like it.

I've sampled it and I find it good-ish, but not impressive. Still, I am tempted to buy it just to "make a statement"... I know. Silly me.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057429)

So I get modded troll for an idiot webhoster who did not chmod -007 the directory?

Figures.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26056961)

Maybe people *would* download the file and convert it to an mpeg but let's be honest, it'll most probably be in shit/poor quality anyway. Probably below 128-kbps.

Don't know about you, but I like to *listen* to *my* music.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057099)

I think you'd find this to be of acceptable quality:

ffmpeg -title "SomeTitle" -i .flv -acodec libmp3lame -ar 48000 -ac 2 -ab 128k -vn -y .mp3

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057493)

Interesting, you have been modded "Score:0, Funny". I am confused. Does that mean "not funny at all"?

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057841)

I think (although I may be wrong) that the funny mod doesn't count towards karma.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

phillous (1160303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057883)

doesnt count towards karma, but should still affect the post's rating (ie what level you browse at to see it)

What probably happend is that he got modded +1 funny and then -1 Overrated (since overrated just removes points without changing the funny or whatever).

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057943)

OK

I thought karma was (post rating) - (no of posts) ... not that it actually matters since karma isn't expressed as a number any more.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (2, Insightful)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056983)

I'm impressed that he lets you try the album before you buy it, and that it's in flash. Of course, nobody would ever download the file and convert it to an mpeg because that wouldn't be honest.

Meh, some obviously will. But what's the quality on that MP3? And of course the obvious realization: you can bet a lot of people in the music industry watch these experiments very carefully.

If more people just find a way to get the album without paying for it (because that's obviously easier without the DRM... though still not completely trivial for the average fan) ...then they will be forced back into DRM-based approaches.

It's a money experiment. Dunno how they'll measure exactly... I suppose they can at least monitor in some way how widespread the album becomes on the various p2p networks & torrent trackers; if it explodes, you may not see this approach again.

Re:It's nice that he lets you sample it first. (-1, Flamebait)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057095)

It's a dupe, anyway. Radiohead did it (sorta kinda). People will just say that Sir Paul has such a fanatical fan base (those crazy, crazy baby boomers) that they will throw money at him just to feel good. It's like those wacky Apple fanboys who download a Hackintosh image, then buy a retail OS.

Metallica did the same (4, Interesting)

g253 (855070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057629)

When they released Death Magnetic, they put a flash player on their website so you can listen to the whole album to see if it's worth buying. You can still listen to it now : http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601231 [metallica.com]

I was very surprised at the time that nobody seemed to give a flying fuck, I thought it was a very interesting move, especially coming from Metallica... It was not even mentioned in online reviews ffs! I hardly saw any mention of that anywhere, and had to add it myself to the Wikipedia page (it was deleted instead of being expanded, natch).
Really, I've no idea why, but nobody cared. At all. (Not even fans, before you say noone cares about Metallica period)

This album sells extremely well, btw.

Already on mininova (2, Informative)

Smuttley (126014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056873)

In fact it's been there since the 20th November.

Also on eMusic (1)

68kmac (471061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057523)

It's also been on eMusic [emusic.com] since November 24.

Not quite your average artist (5, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056893)

One point to make though is that Paul McCartney is the sort of guy who can afford to go DRM free, if this album is ripped, lobbed on bit-torrent and limewire then Macca is unlikely to be out on the streets through lost revenue. Its great that he has done it but the _fear_ of being ripped off is going to be less for one of the biggest selling artists of all time than it would be for the average band.

Kudos indeed, but this isn't just a random artist choosing DRM this is the bloke from the Beatles who co-wrote the first hit for the Rolling Stones and the Frog Chorus.

Re:Not quite your average artist (4, Interesting)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056941)

Yes, but McCartney is also an unusual artist by virtue of the fact that he owns the rights to a vast number of songs (something like 3,000) which he didn't write himself. Among others, Buddy Holly's back-catalog. So, seeing it from the viewpoint of a rather large rights-holder releasing songs DRM-free, the shoe is on the other foot.

Re:Not quite your average artist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26056959)

One point to make though is that Paul McCartney is the sort of guy who can afford to go DRM free, if this album is ripped, lobbed on bit-torrent and limewire then Macca is unlikely to be out on the streets through lost revenue. Its great that he has done it but the _fear_ of being ripped off is going to be less for one of the biggest selling artists of all time than it would be for the average band.

Kudos indeed, but this isn't just a random artist choosing DRM this is the bloke from the Beatles who co-wrote the first hit for the Rolling Stones and the Frog Chorus.

What the f*** are you talking about "co-wrote this first rolling stones hit" ??? I'm not going to even honor that statement with facts. Better to talk from your mouth than your anus.

Re:Not quite your average artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057021)

I suppose he was talking about this song [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not quite your average artist (4, Informative)

FailedTheTuringTest (937776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057033)

The song in question is I Wanna Be Your Man, written by Lennon and McCartney. The Rolling Stones released it as a single in 1963, before the Beatles did. It was their second single, reaching number 12 on the UK charts. The Stones' first single reached number 21, so I Wanna Be Your Man could be considered their first "hit" if you think of "hit" as meaning "top 20". The song was also the B side of the first single the Stones released in the USA.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_discography#Singles [wikipedia.org] for more music trivia.

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

JavaRob (28971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057025)

...if this album is ripped, lobbed on bit-torrent and limewire then Macca is unlikely to be out on the streets through lost revenue.

It's another test, in the eyes of the music industry & other artists. Naturally they're all watching to see how this goes.

And obviously everyone knows he's filthy rich, and doesn't need their money... so you won't have people buying the album (vs. snagging elsewhere for free) simply because they feel he needs the money. That could be a factor for less well-known artists.

So, yeah, let's see how the test goes. For all the people who argue that *this* is the more profitable way to release an album -- this is where we see if they're right, or if they're just BSing because defeating DRM is annoying.

I'm not saying this because I like DRM -- I just think it's funny how the *same* people who shout about how DRM will kill the music industry are also the first ones to put instructions online explaining how to rip the new DRM-FREE album without paying for it, just to help out the people who are too stupid to do even that.

Uh -- let the stupid people buy the album. That's how you support more DRM-free music.

Re:Not quite your average artist (1, Troll)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057157)

Any artist who would be on the streets through lost revenue in his/her sale and fears it should simply not be trying to earn a living through music.

You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job. The multi-millionaires rock stars didn't exist before the invention of disc records and probably won't exist after that. That was more of an accident. Artists don't have a right to make money from their art, it just happened to work well. I don't have the right to listen freely to their music, it just happens to work well.

Re:Not quite your average artist (4, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057203)

You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.

Stallman is that you? Are you serious?

Artists don't have a right to make money from their art, it just happened to work well.

WTF? So Michaelangelo should have done the Sistine Chapel for free? Da Vinci shouldn't have taken that commission for the Mona Lisa? Mozart should never have taken that court job or done those popular operas?

The multi-millionaires rock stars didn't exist before the invention of disc records and probably won't exist after that.
Go and have a look at some of the musicians, opera singers, composers and the like (who didn't drink it all away) from previous centuries and realise what a piece of muppetry you are saying.

I don't have the right to listen freely to their music, it just happens to work well.

I've never felt like condemning copyright violation as outright theft before but your mentality really does seem to be in that category of "F-U, F-everyone" and "I'm alright Jack" asshole that just deserves to be up before the judge. I don't have a right to my neighbours car... and you know what I won't be taking it for a joy ride no matter how well it would work for me.

Oh hang on, you are clearly actually an RIAA plant because no-one could be that big a sociopath.... could they?
 

Re:Not quite your average artist (5, Insightful)

oojimaflib (1077261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057437)

Despite the very real risk of being whooshed, I'll bite.

You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.

Stallman is that you? Are you serious?

Artists don't have a right to make money from their art, it just happened to work well.

WTF? So Michaelangelo should have done the Sistine Chapel for free? Da Vinci shouldn't have taken that commission for the Mona Lisa? Mozart should never have taken that court job or done those popular operas?

Being fair to the GP post, I think you are perhaps reading a little more into it than is there... It's fair enough to say that artists don't have a right to make money from their art. They don't have this right now, and never have had it. The fact is, if the art is good, people will pay for it. If not, they won't. Copyright is neither here nor there. Indeed I'm not sure that any of the examples you cite enjoyed any significant copyright protection on their work.

The multi-millionaires rock stars didn't exist before the invention of disc records and probably won't exist after that. Go and have a look at some of the musicians, opera singers, composers and the like (who didn't drink it all away) from previous centuries and realise what a piece of muppetry you are saying.

Quite.

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057491)

Not quite so. This "muppetry" is quite true. Sadly or not, that is a debate.

- Mozart died relatively poor, in the middle of his Requiem.
- Van Gogh shot 'mself in the chest, poor as a church rat.
- Rembrandt didn't get paid for painting the Nightwatch because it was "too realistic".

The world is riddled with Artists who are poor during some stage of their lives. Some may gain recognition in life, some may gain it posthumously, some may never gain recognition. It is not your "right" to get paid for being an artist, just like it's not everyone's "right" to become a billionaire.

You need to make it happen and most of all you need to be lucky.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't download the Radiohead album. I store bought the disc because I am a fan and a consumer of music, books and many things. And I like buying physical media. So I'm not at all against paying for a product that works for me. But the record labels, the DRM factories and the various groups that infringe on my fair use of what I buy I do see as despicable. So I can understand where the author of the previous post is coming from.

An artist, if (s)he produces great works of art, would deserve to earn a good living on that. But it's never their "right", because that would turn it into my "duty".

Re:Not quite your average artist (0, Troll)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057765)

You are supposed to make music because you like to do it, not as a full-time job.

Stallman is that you? Are you serious?

Are you an asshole? Are you serious?

Stallman wrote: [gnu.org] "Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds."

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057873)

Maybe I didn't phrase that correctly. Artists have the right to make money from their work, they just are not entitled to enforce a way of making money this way. They don't have the right to prevent an evolution that will bring change to the way people enjoy music. And it just happens that today, they can't force people to buy disc in order to enjoy their music

I still believe that being an artist is not a job. The job you are looking for is entertainer. Creating art is a different piece of work that won't have you making something of value every month. Feel free to fill this with an entertainer job but this job changes a lot with time and a big part of it is adaptation to the changes.

About the rock stars : their particularity is that, unlike an opera diva, or a virtuoso violinist, they have a very big audience. Their money is (was ?) made through record sales. Given an international success, one (studio) performance could lead to a huge monetary return. That is the accident. That is the passing fad and that is what **AA are fighting to preserve. I still believe that the fortune of the most wealthy modern singers are without historical precedents. According to a quick Google Search, Michael Jackson would have close to a billion dollars of assets, Madonna would have even more than that, according to another source. There have been rich artists in the past, but not at this scale.

I don't have a right to my neighbours car... and you know what I won't be taking it for a joy ride no matter how well it would work for me.

That is a good example. By going for a ride you would make the car unavailable, maybe break it, use fuel, etc... When listening to someone's songs, well, we are talking about is something like hurting your neighbor by reading his car's number (but then, again, the car analogies only go so far)

And if we are to continue this conversation please refrain on the name calling.

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

six025 (714064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057453)

*cough*

Any software developer who would be on the streets through lost revenue in his/her sale and fears it should simply not be trying to earn a living through computer programming.

You are supposed to write software because you like to do it, not as a full-time job. The multi-millionaires developers didn't exist before the invention of home computers and probably won't exist after that. That was more of an accident. Software devs don't have a right to make money from their software, it just happened to work well. I don't have the right to use their apps for free, it just happens to work well.

-----
Nice comment! I don't know what the mods are smoking today, but I'd sure like some of that!

Peace,
Andy.

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057585)

Any entrepeneur who would be on the streets through lost revenue in his/her sale and fears it should simply not be trying to earn a living through his or her own business

No matter what you do, people might all of the sudden stop wanting to do business with your kind. Being given an hourly wage by your boss might shield you from the reality, but reality it is none the less.

Should we all stop working? ;)

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

LS (57954) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057163)

You make a good point, and it's all about risk. Anyone who is wealthy can easily release music without DRM, but so do many very small unknown bands. The ones who would be surprising to see release DRM are the ones in the middle - on the verge of success or moderately popular. They may not get a lot of revenue but are somewhat comfortable. If a middle of the road band (monetarily) starts releasing DRM-free music, that would be news.

LS

Re:Not quite your average artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057191)

And... so what? So your argument is if they can afford it who cares, but then does it only matter when garage bands go DRM free?

This is actually fantastic. I was going to buy a single as a donation of sorts, but you have to buy the full CD (which wouldn't be bad if I actually listened to his music). If this makes as much or more than a similar non-DRM release, then it'll make a strong argument to artists to go DRM-less. John's Indie Band going DRM free doesn't mean shit, even though John might really need the money.

Re:Not quite your average artist (1)

Bwian_of_Nazareth (827437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057211)

[...] if this album is ripped, lobbed on bit-torrent and limewire then Macca is unlikely to be out on the streets through lost revenue.

You have to realise that the album would be ripped and lobbed on bit-torrent even if released with the most perfect DRM known to-date. And once it is there, it does not really matter if one person ripped it or five thousand people did. DRM can only delay the spread of the rip by few days, before the volume of copies rumps up.

Re:Not quite your average artist (2, Informative)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057593)

Janis Ian [wikipedia.org] claimed quite the opposite in an article [baen.com] from all the way back in 2002: It's the "biggest selling artists", if anyone, who are to be concerned about sharing - the "average" band/artist hardly receives money from their label but gets a lot more exposure (and thus income) from shared music.

Then again, that is more-or-less also the argument behind the existence of the Baen Free Library [baen.com] in the first place, where this article is hosted. Go check it out if you like SF.

Re:Not quite your average artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057775)

Kudos indeed, but this isn't just a random artist choosing DRM this is the bloke from the Beatles who co-wrote the first hit for the Rolling Stones and the Frog Chorus.

Jonathan Coulton does this is well, and he is hardly a "big guy" (he's the guy who wrote code monkey)

JoCo's website [jonathancoulton.com]

FLAC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26056901)

FLAC you say? Oh my...
Get some Vorbis in there and we're set.
This is an excellent step, hopefully more artists will start doing this.

Also it's great to listen to the album first in a flash player. I remember when Slayer did this for their 'God Hates Us All Album', through that I didn't *have* to download a dodgy copy at all, just went out and bought it.

Re:FLAC (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056929)

Come on man. Feel free to buy the FLAC and convert it to your preferred format. It's lossless compression, you can't ask for more.

Re:FLAC (1, Interesting)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057047)

You could ask for Monkey's Audio, which not only compresses better than FLAC, but also features both a GUI and command line interface from the get go.

Re:FLAC (0)

drcagn (715012) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057315)

Then just convert the FLAC to Monkey's Audio...

Re:FLAC (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057415)

Monkey's Audio is abandonware, while FLAC still sees active support for Xiph.org.

Re:FLAC (1)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057557)

Irreverent. If the format provides a better, more useful solution for some, being in or out of current development makes it no less useful. FLAC being "in development" is a nice thing to brag about, but it's not everything. Based on Xiph's lethargic development of Vorbis, which sat idle for YEARS until it got help from people like aoTuV [geocities.jp] , support from them it's all it's cracked up to be.

Re:FLAC (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057591)

Monkey's Audio is already undergoing bit rot, and the legality of improving on existing decoders is dubious. Being in development does matter if you want to continue to enjoy the format on the devices of the future.

just for fun (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056905)

Let's count the number of posts that occur before the first complaint about "no ogg vorbis".

Re:just for fun (4, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056971)

That would be 4.

Re:just for fun (-1, Redundant)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057029)

How about the lack of bit rate choice? 320 kbps is far more than I need. How about a FLAC or (even better) Monkey's Audio download?

Re:just for fun (2, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057067)

If you RTFS it has FLAC.

Re:just for fun (4, Informative)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057091)

Weird, complaining 320 kbits is too much then asking for a lossless download..?

Regardless, right there in the fucking summary it says they're offering FLAC as well as MP3 and Apple Lossless.

Re:just for fun (1)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057485)

Regardless, right there in the fucking summary it says they're offering FLAC as well as MP3 and Apple Lossless.

Yeah, I missed that part of the summary. I wish I didn't ever make mistakes, but that's for being a good role model on my journey towards perfection. You're a real pal.

And it's not weird at all. The idea of lossless compression is to make it more convenient to use on devices with limited storage. Lossless is useful when storing music on hard drives, less so on smaller consumer devices. If you intend to use a portable player with 2 gig of memory for example, 320kps is certainly overkill. If there was a huge difference in quality past 192, you could argue that 320 is warranted, but testing has shown it is not. 320 is simply used because it's "as high as it will go" and is more in line with the "bigger is better" mentality.

Re:just for fun (1)

elthicko (1399175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057735)

Were you asking for lossless when they offered a 320 kps mp3 because of space considerations? I'll assume you were being sarcastic.

I think the idea is it's a lot easier to compress your audio to whatever you need it to be than to go the other way. This way by offering high quality downloads, you have the choice of keeping the larger, higher quality file, or downgrading it yourself to a smaller file.

Re:just for fun (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057605)

Weird, complaining 320 kbits is too much then asking for a lossless download..?

Not really. The advantage of FLAC, or the CD is that you can encode it to MP3, OGG, etc, at any bitrate, without needing to re-encode. Re-encoding from one bitrate to another, or from MP3 to OGG hurts the quality much more than encoding just once (from a lossless source).

When you have the FLAC, you have any format you want.

Re:just for fun (2, Informative)

Freultwah (739055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057321)

Monkey's Audio better than FLAC since when? Windows only, no portable support, more difficult to transcode, higher CPU usage at decode. Well, the latter is probably a non-issue, since there is no portable support whatsoever, but still.

Re:just for fun (1)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057433)

For me, always. Yes, it runs on Windows and probably works through Wine. A scarf isn't very useful in the desert, but that's life.

Transcending is easy, and faster since you can both encode and decode multiple files at once. I moved close to 400 CDs to Monkey's Audio, FLAC was to cumbersome to consider.

Re:just for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057115)

Let's count the number of posts that occur before the first complaint about "no ogg vorbis".

I thought there was a bot for making that post? I mean there must be a couple of dozen for Linux there has to be one for ogg vorbis? Given time people will be freed from the time consuming hassle of posting as all standard post theme will be made in seconds.

Re:just for fun (1)

Paxtez (948813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057399)

I want mine in binary. I want a text file ("firemen1.txt") of 1's and 0's that match the order of the pits from the CD, except the 1's are 0's, and 0's are 1's [I encrypt all my music... What you don't?]

See, until they provide it in !CD-Binary@1BPC I'll just have to go torrent it because... oh wait... Flac is lossless, since I am a big enough geek to want my music in such an obsure format like !CD-Binary@1BPC I will certainly have the ability to convert it to the format.

Nevermind.

Next Abbey Road (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056931)

How righteous of him. Surely next album to be released is Abbey Road.

Or not. Because he doesn't own the rights -Mike probably does. Or because even since 1969 it still is a cash cow.

No news here (2, Interesting)

drinkonlyscotch (1427129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26056981)

And Radiohead did it a year ago. If anything, it's disappointed it hasn't caught on than anything else.

Re:No news here (5, Interesting)

ghighi (1416473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057179)

Actually Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor played with the idea quite a lot.
He released Saul Williams' album, which he produced, under a "pay what you think is fair" scheme.
His conceptual album 'Ghost' was released 100% digitally & DRM free with the first (out of 4) CD freely distributed.
His last album "The Slip" is freely available for full download [nin.com] as a gift to the fan.
Most of his track material is released under the Creative Common scheme for the fans to remix, and he built a comunity site to support these. For all I know, he created the sourceforge of Music.
Nine Inch Nails is definetely a major band/artist too, and the first one of such importance to explore new way of distributing music.

Free (as in beer) music (4, Informative)

karstux (681641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057003)

Anyone know good sources of legal free downloadable music? There's a lot of it out there, but sometimes hard to find. Here's what I've stumbled upon recently.

Re:Free (as in beer) music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057323)

www.noisetrade.com

Re:Free (as in beer) music (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057473)

I've found a lot of good music on Jamendo [jamendo.com]

On Jamendo artists allow anyone to download and share their music. It's free, legal and unlimited.

Re:Free (as in beer) music (1)

RDW (41497) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057487)

CASH music has a nice setup. Creative Commons music (complete tracks, and some mix stems to play with), with open source site code:

http://cashmusic.org/ [cashmusic.org]

Mostly of interest to me for solo stuff by Kristin Hersh (of Throwing Muses), but there are now half a dozen other artists to check out.

Re:Free (as in beer) music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057577)

* goa-project.com
(there's some further links there)

Re:Free (as in beer) music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057783)

Try the 50,000++ CC-lisenced drm-free albums on:

    http://jamendo.org

You can even search per liscence (if you want music you are allowed to remix). All of the music may be redistributed.

Finally! (2, Funny)

tryfan (235825) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057019)

A McCartney album that's actually worth the money!

Re:Finally! (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26058029)

Can we pay McCartney in exchange for not producing anymore music? Ever?

Why he "gets it"... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057045)

Because he's made hundreds of millions of dollars using the old system now it's painlessly easy for him to be relaxed and enlightened denouncing the system that gave him the lavish lifestyle he now enjoys.

FCC versus McCartney? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057057)

Perhaps FCC Commissioner Taylor Tate [slashdot.org] will make it her personal project to ban his DRM-free album as unfair competition?

Liquid Sound Design (2, Informative)

six025 (714064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057089)

This is good news, even if it's another major artist, rather than the whole record industry!

The producer that is the other half of the project - Martin Glover a.k.a. Youth is well known in music production circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Glover [wikipedia.org]

His side projects Dragonfly Records and Liquid Sound Design lean towards the more psychedelic aspects of trance and dub. The liquid dub styles promoted through Liquid Sound Design in particular are releases that are well worth a listen and feature some really stunning production values.

http://www.liquidsounddesign.com/index2.htm [liquidsounddesign.com]

It's the kind of music you generally won't hear anywhere else ... try it! :)

Peace,
Andy.

torrent? rapidshare? megaupload? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057123)

How big is it again? I gotz to no!

Re:torrent? rapidshare? megaupload? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057229)

I know parent is fishing for lols, but how long before steam (valve) get their arse into gear and start offering music?

Could easily build into the steam overlay to control a media player, combine each games soundtrack into your playlist, allowing you to listen to whatever while you play :)

Easy once you have made your millions... (1)

nicc777 (614519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057131)

I don't think this is so great... He has made his money. What we need is for the rest of the musicians to follow the example - now that will make a difference.

Great, if only (1)

mmu_man (107529) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057217)

he didn't use flash for the preview... It's a defacto DRM for those who don't have the plugin (yes there still are!) :-( Appart this it's a nice move, regardless if I ever buy it :-)

Re:Great, if only (1)

mmu_man (107529) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057241)

Seems the video clips on the website are also in flash :-(

Does he really get it ... (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057227)

I vaguely remember that he was one to the people consistently pushing for extensions to copyright length here in the UK.

Note how here in the UK copyright is now Life + 70 years ...

In my opinion, his choice for DRM free formats is a natural followup to the same considerations that lead Recording Companies to go ahead and support the new Amazon music store which sells DRM free music in MP3 format: they were scared shitless that Apple was becoming the Microsoft of the Digital Music Distribution world and thus the de facto gatekeeper for the future of music distribution.

That and he can afford it, seeing that he's gonna keep getting payed for the rest of his life for his 6 months of light work in 1966 and all little pieces here and there of followup work ...

Re:Does he really get it ... (2, Funny)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057245)

Probably he realized that he'd loose most of any profit made at the next divorce anyway.

Re:Does he really get it ... (1)

Weedlekin (836313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057463)

"I vaguely remember that he was one to the people consistently pushing for extensions to copyright length here in the UK." Copyright extensions for recordings, not all copyrights. "Note how here in the UK copyright is now Life + 70 years ..." Recordings have a 50 year copyright. The life+70 bit comes from the Berne Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, but the Berne Convention doesn't cover recorded works, so their copyright period is set by individual countries.

1.6 billion reasons why.... (2, Interesting)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057251)

Paul McCartney has an estimated worth of $1.6 Billion so it's not as if he's going to be affected by people pirating it so is far better placed than up and coming groups to be able to afford to take the hit.

$1.6 Billion in the bank allows you to be able to afford to have altruistic ideas.

However, the vast majority of musicians aren't in such a position so need the sales.

I don't need to steenking subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057257)

Too bad anybody but John Lennon's and late Beatles from related groups music sucks shit.

Flac rocks (4, Interesting)

onceuponatime (821046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057277)

The only reason I didn't download other drm free ones in the past was the lack of flac or ogg. Flac is best of course, as it's just like buying the album for real. Using one price for the globe is also cool. I never expected it to come from Paul McCartney though considering comments from him in the past. I've never downloaded an album illegally in my life, but then I've never bought an album via a download either till now when finally someone makes flac available. To be honest though, I'm mainly doing it out of principle to support good sense finally. I'd like to see Madonna's albums like this, I wouldn't have to all the way to the shops :-)

Purchasing the album (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057299)

I tried to purchase the album, I wanted the FLAC version. It prompts saying I don't have flash! I'm using FreeBSD. There is no flash for FreeBSD. Why flash is required for a purchase? I used to buy books from amazon and Addison Wesley over the net. They don't ask for flash. Sir, Paul McCartney, you have got a fool to design your website. You lose business.

He has money, so what? (2, Interesting)

VertigoMan (727060) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057327)

So he has a butt load of money. The fact is that he took the step and a lot of artists have been inspired by his music so perhaps they will be inspired by this move and follow his example. Does it really matter if he needs the money or not? Oh and it doesn't matter if you like his current work or The Beatles his name is very well known in the music industry. If more big name artists take steps like this then things just might start to change.

Robert Fripp and Discipline Global Mobile (1)

Freultwah (739055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057377)

Discipline Global Mobile [dgmlive.com] (see also King Crimson, Robert Fripp) has been offering their full catalogue in DRM-free MP3 and FLAC for ages now, and purchases also are downloadable via Bittorrent. There is some wicked stuff there, I can tell ya.

The Very First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26057419)

The very first step towards DRM-free

easy for the ultrawellknown authors... (2, Informative)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057559)

When you have been famous for years, to the extend just your name is known to almost everybody, abandoning the classical publishers not only ie easy: it gives you MORE advertisement (e. g. a paper hree on /.)

OTOH, when you are a completely unknown new band, then you must be courageous. I for one will be happy when there'll be a post here listing the last ten courageous little groups trying http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com] .

And in case you were among the happy few knowing Magnatune, let's mention a foreign, minuscule one for classics mainly: Zig-Zag [zigzag-territoires.com]

Some thoughts (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057805)

A) Even post divorce he has a personal fortune of some GBP800m so he can afford to put out DRM free music
B) Pretty much anything he's done since about 1972 has been crap (sorry, but really guys...)
C) Except the Frog one

Big Deal... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26057853)

Big freaking deal. We are back to 1982 - digital music without copy prevention - plus the internet. This is where we would have been over a decade ago if the MPAA hadn't taken the DRM detour.

I guess the guy deserves some credit for not participating in the DRM clusterfuck, but he's still a decade behind where the industry would be if all the cocaine snorting suits running the business weren't a bunch of colossal idiots more intent on putting the internet genie back in the bottle instead of getting their proverbial three wishes and moving the industry into the modern era.

Fuck the fuckers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26058081)

Beatles or whatever, pop music is such a bore, it has to be free. We just don't need most of the things we buy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?