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!

Wired Releases Creative Commons Sampling CD

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the mash-with-garlic-and-basil dept.

Media 185

An anonymous reader writes "In this month's issue of Wired Magazine, there is an included CD featuring songs from The Beastie Boys, David Byrne, among others. The unique thing about the CD is that all of the tracks are released under Creative Commons Licences, making them legal to share."

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

frost piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618514)

drink it, filthy humans!

MPAA (-1, Offtopic)

mikeleemm (462460) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618515)

Does the MPAA recognise this license? If so will they ever use it for more than just samples?

Re:MPAA (0, Offtopic)

synthparadox (770735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618523)

MPAA is Motion Picture Association of America, has nothing to do with music, I believe.

Re:MPAA (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618620)

MPAA is Motion Picture Association of America, has nothing to do with music, I believe.

They don't have much to do with movies either. Just with suing people.

Re:MPAA (-1, Flamebait)

admanb (824304) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618695)

I'm confused, what else are "Associations of America" supposed to do besides sue people?

Isn't that our national business?

Re:MPAA (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618728)

In the olden days, promote interest in the industry and provide standards. I built a pre-amp in the record days, and it had to compensate for the audio curve records used to attenuate the low frequencies and boost the high frequencies to increase the over-all frequency response. This curve was the "RIAA" standard, and that was my first time having anything to do with them.

Re:MPAA (2, Funny)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618730)

I'm confused, what else are "Associations of America" supposed to do besides sue people?

Isn't that our national business?


No!

That would be reality shows!

But hush! That's all only until the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers take over.

Re:MPAA (1)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618818)

The MPAA [wikipedia.org] organizes the Rating System, and the RIAA [wikipedia.org] awards whether an album goes Gold or Platinum. They also do a lot of lobbying.

Re:MPAA (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618963)

The MPAA organizes the Rating System, and the RIAA awards whether an album goes Gold or Platinum. They also do a lot of lobbying.

And to fund this they sue people...

The above have nothing to do with providing a service. They are only furthering their own interests. If RIAA and the equivalent organisations world wide label certain albums as gold or platinum, they become more desireable to people who in turn buy more. Film classification is also about having a marketable product for people who have younger children (and avoiding getting sued themselves.

Entertainment industry shake-up (3, Insightful)

Media Girl (823578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618786)

AMPAS (the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) [oscars.org] , aka "The Academy," has been watching and fretting over these kinds of developments in the music industry (--All the more so since this upending of the music biz is happening right after the studios (and/or their owners) spent a couple decades devouring just about every music company they could find and stomach.) There is a whole thicket of contractual and union entanglements with movies -- for example, actors in the Screen Actors Guild and directors and production managers in the Directors Guild of America see a large part of their income from movies (and commercials) in residuals paid out per airing on tv, video sales, etc. How Creative Commons licensing would work affect the Hollywood economy, I don't know.

From the corporate perspective, the Hollywood studios are starting off from a stronger position than the music industry, though. CDs were always easy to copy analog, but most DVD players will MacroVision scramble (possibly multiplied with other copy proteciton systems) a program so that the everyday consumer cannot copy it. Yes, there are hacks for these protections and codecs for pulling off the Mpeg-2 video into a DVD+/-R-friendly format. But it's not as easy as making a tape off an album was.

But it can't last. With digital television and broader-band internet (e.g., WiMax) coming, something is going to have to give. Mandating chips into players and burners only can go so far. It cannot last forever against the democratic marketplace of Open Source and Creative Commons economics.

But it will take time, and pain. For music, it's proving to be not as painful as it might have been for the musicians, though the tassled-loafer boys living in Bel Air might be feeling the pinch. But with movies, a lot more people are involved in each project. And what this spells for the big movie, I don't know. (If the blockbusters go, no real loss, some would say.)

We are in a time of upheaval, and one of the biggest sectors of our economy -- entertainment -- is going to be pretty much unrecognizable to our soon-to-be-outdated perspective in just a few years.

Re:Entertainment industry shake-up (1)

Deternal (239896) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618865)

Entertainment is that big? Last time I checked IBM generated more grossincome then the entire music industri combined.

Re:Entertainment industry shake-up (1)

Media Girl (823578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618872)

I was talking about music, movies and television. It adds up to billions a year and is one of our biggest exports.

Good idea (4, Interesting)

synthparadox (770735) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618517)

Thats actually a good idea, with RIAA complaining that file sharing hurts the music industry by letting people get songs for free, this may promote people buying CDs again. (You hear 30 seconds of a song, you like it, you buy the CD, etc.)

Re:Good idea (1)

davesplace1 (729794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618607)

I have done that before downloaded a song, then went out and bought the CD. Have not been downloading any music lately or buyind any CDs.

Get paid ... :) (0, Offtopic)

AM7 (719911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618731)

Get paid to recieve sms messeges.

Just click on the link below and register, then tell your fiends and get them to do it too, and you will make a mint, i'm on $700 a month and its growing by the day.

Please don't bid on this auction as this information is free This is effectively free money, just go to:

http://www.smspays.com/reg_country.asp?refer=22060 4 [smspays.com]

What's better (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618518)

free music or sex with a mare [ytmnd.com] ?

Re:What's better (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618529)

I don't know.... Sex with a mare sounds pretty tempting

Re:What's better (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618635)

I saw the mare, but where's the sex?

so ? (1, Insightful)

sbjordal (654330) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618519)

It means Wired is only one lawsuit away from RIAA...like they know what type of license it is, They know one thing: $$$

Lysol - don't drop the soap buddy! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618649)

LINDON, UT (AP) - A member of the GNAA trolling organization was arrested Thursday morning at his Lindon home following the devastating crapflood he allegedly organized on the Slashdot.org Web site Wednesday evening. Police were able to successfully track down the suspect by tracking the IP address he used to brag about his exploits in the hours following the attack.

The attack, directed at an article on Maestro, began at 9:00 PM MST (0400 GMT) and abruptly stopped 1 hour and 33 minutes later. The crapflood consisted of over 1,000 comments, and rendered the discussion virtually unreadable at a threshold of 0 or -1. It is thought to be the largest crapflood in the history of the site. This attack comes amid a recent spate of similar attacks against weblogs. One Slashdot editor whose site was vandalized responded by disabling all comments to his personal site and deleting his entire archive of blog posts.

Editors responded to the attack by adjusting the "lameness filter" and moderating the crapflood comments to -1. Some have suggested that this attack may reignite the debate on the proposed permanent disabling of anonymous posting on Slashdot.

Crapflooding of this magnitude is a rare occurrence on Slashdot, thanks to a variety of anti-troll measures that have been implemented over the years by the site's editors. Because comments cannot be submitted within 2 minutes of each other, and repeated downward moderation results in an IP ban, it is necessary to compile a long list of proxies in order to create a high-volume crapflood. It is believed that several GNAA members cooperated in Wednesday's attack.

The GNAA, or Gay Niggers Association of America, founded in 2003, is a trolling organization known primarily for its frequent boilerplate postings. The text, designed to be offensive, contains numerous racial slurs, links to pornographic web sites, and has recently been updated with text insulting the Slashdot editorial staff. Rob Malda has indicated in his journal that he considers the GNAA to be part of an "axis of abuse," along with Trollkore and anti-slash.org.

Slashdot, founded in 1997, is a popular science and technology website known for its in-depth discussions on a variety of topics. It is also a popular target of trolls, in large part because the site invites and in many ways encourages competitive manipulation of its moderation system.

The GNAA member arrested this morning is known only by his online name Lysol. His real name has been withheld because he is a juvenile.

If convicted on all counts, "Lysol" could be sentenced to a maximum of 5 years hard labor, which would likely consist of answering customer support calls for America Online. Because of his age, he is not eligible to receive the goatse penalty in the state of Utah.

Anti-slash.org has issued a statement condemning yesterday's attack and emphasized that it is in no way affiliated with the GNAA, though it does support GNAA actions as long as they are in line with its stated mission.

Re:so ? (4, Interesting)

Indy Media Watch (823624) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618905)

It means Wired is only one lawsuit away from RIAA

Hang on a second.

What they have done is either legal, or it is not.

If they are subject to a lawsuit as a result of something legal, provided they are willing to fight it out (and trust me, they will be) the RIAA will be the loser.

Being the defendant in a lawsuit is not necessarily a problem. Being the loser is.

Sharing is only the half of it (5, Informative)

Raindance (680694) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618520)

These songs are licensed under the Creative Commons license-- which means not only are you free to share these songs, but you're free to tinker with them. Extract samples, make new mixes, whatever. In stark contrast to the norm.

This isn't just about "good free music" (though it looks like it is that). It's about artists and labels "getting it" about what creates a culture of creativity and walking the walk.

Seeing this makes me happy.

RD

Wrong. (5, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618536)

Not all the songs allow sampling...

Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommercial sharing and commercial sampling, but advertising uses are restricted.
Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and
noncommercial sampling.

Re:Sharing is only the half of it (5, Informative)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618539)

As a point of clarification, there are several varieties of CC licenses [creativecommons.org] (one of the great things about CC), some of which specifically allow derivative works and some of which do not.

Great, just like Linux distributions (1, Insightful)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618614)

More choice = more confusion! Now "Creative Commons Licensed" means nothing, because it can mean lots of different things.

Rubbish (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618653)

It's a simple acknowledgement that one size does not fit all.

In fact, by assembling a variety of licence options under one roof and explaining the options in a consistant and coherant way (and with comics [creativecommons.org] ), they go a long way to helping people really understand the issues.

It was ever thus. But what changes? (5, Interesting)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618812)

The Creative Commons organization always had multiple licenses with different terms; it never meant just one thing (so the complaint was never valid). But more importantly, this matches "free software" licensing and "open source" licensing which are also varied in what is allowed and what copyright powers are retained. You can't know that a program is "free software" or "open source" and know that everything you might want to do with the work is allowed (most licenses don't cover software patents, for instance); you can't be sure what is allowed downstream for derivatives from your derivative (some licenses don't have a copyleft, for instance).

How is this new set of CC licenses new? I can't answer that for everyone, but only one thing changes for me: I host "Digital Citizen" on alternate Wednesdays from 8-10p on my local community radio station (WEFT 90.1 FM). On my show, I air only things which can be copied and distributed (at least verbatim). CC-licensed music and talks make up a good deal of my show (in the language of CC licenses, I make a "Collective" work).

The Sampling license doesn't allow the entire work to be copied and distributed. But the other sampling licenses (Sampling Plus, and Non-Commercial Sampling Plus) do allow the entire work to be copied and distributed. So, for the first time, knowing that a work is a CC-licensed work is not enough to merit inclusion in my show. I have to make sure a CC-licensed work is not licensed to me under the Sampling license.

This isn't a big deal, but it is a change.

More pants = More badly dressed people (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618870)

Of course, it also means less half-naked people too !

"The" Creative Commons licence? (4, Informative)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618550)

You mean "a" Creative Commons licence. There are a variety of them, and what you are permitted to do varies between them.

For example some of the tracks on the disc are only samplable (?) for noncommercial purposes which is probably a restriction that doesn't fit with some peoples ideas of "freedom".

Obey your master!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Magickcat (768797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618526)

I've already got the Metallica edition.

No commercial sampling for a few. (5, Informative)

plumpy (277) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618533)

Most of these songs are licensed for commercial sampling, but a handful aren't.

Chuck D and the Beastie Boys, two bands who have built their careers on sampling (like most of the artists on the CD) won't let you sample their work commercially. (The other band that doesn't is "My Morning Jacket", but I don't know who they are.)

Bizarre.

Ask Chuck D yourself... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618624)

The nice thing is you can give Chuck D a call and ask him about it yourself. He hosts Unfiltered [airamericaradio.com] , a talk show on Air America Radio [www.airamericaradio] . I believe it airs every weekday and can be heard either on the radio in 30+ markets or via RealAudio or MS streaming.

Chuck D's been pretty vocal [rapstation.com] on the side of pro-music sharing, so I'd be interested in anyone who might ask him why he doesn't want to be sampled...

Re:Ask Chuck D yourself... (5, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618880)

It's all to do with permission. If I sample something, and get permission to use that sample, that might well exclude me giving away permission to let other people sample my sample, if you see what I mean. No?


Ok. I sample a chunk off a record (say, the bassline from Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Relax). I get permission from ZTT to use that sample, but not to distribute it apart from my record. This effectively means I can't give people permission to sample my record, in case they sample the bit off Relax. It's a viral licensing scheme, effectively, where "closed" samples "infect" otherwise open content.

MMJ (1)

gr0ngb0t (410427) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618631)

My Morning Jacket [mymorningjacket.com] ROCK. I've only seen a few bands in my many many years of seeing bands *truly* enjoy and get into what they're doing as much as these guys - and they're all really really good at their instruments. very well rehearsed (or partially psychic) and talented individuals. They rock hard when they play even though their music isn't the most rockingest. great band.

All of you should check them out, and support them if you like them by going to see them if/when they play in your town, because thats where most bands get their income, not from cd sales.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (5, Insightful)

spiralscratch (634649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618689)

Do these songs have samples? If that's the case, I would think it safe to assume that the owners of the original works being sampled have extended usage rights only to these artists. Beastie Boys, et al would most likely not have a legal right to extend sampling rights. And since it would be difficult to impossible to say, 'you can sample this and this part of the song, but not this part," they have to deny sampling of the entire work

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (1)

rxchurch (238188) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618694)

Not bizarre at all.
If you look at the rest of the bands who do allow coomerical distro of derivative works, you can notice a similar trend among all of them.

They are all on independent record labels.

Beasties and MMJ are both on majors.

Chuck D? I can't explain that one.

Bizarre.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (4, Insightful)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618698)

I mean, I'm not trolling here, but for fuck's sake, are some people never content? If they give you a free car, will you complain that gas is not free and they have not given you the schematics for the injection system so you can improve it?

Honestly...

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618775)

Geez, man. I said "bizarre", not "Chuck D and Beastie Boys are such assholes". Calm down, for fuck's sake.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618794)

Why not? But instead of Gas being free... just give me free access to the refinery and details on how to refine it, then allow me to buy raw sweet crude by the gallon so I can make my own damn gas for pennies on the dollar.

Offtopic, but... (2, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618891)

... that would be biodiesel. Brew it yourself from waste cooking fat. If you live in a warm enough country (Scotland is warm enough for 9 months of the year) you can just filter it and pour it straight in.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618906)

..... or you could recognise the "free" car for what it really is -- a plot to keep you beholden to the fuel companies -- and get yourself a diesel car instead. Caterers will actually pay you to take away their used cooking fat, giving you what is effectively cheaper-than-free fuel! NB some bodging will be required; Scrapheap Challenge viewers have the advantage here. You may also have to prove a case in a pretty high court, since most governments will consider it "tax evasion" if you aren't paying your fuel duty {but the ostensible purpose of fuel duties is to limit fossil fuel pollution, to which non-fossil fuels do not contribute; therefore you don't really owe them any money}. Just use a modification of the Howard marks defence, and hope and pray that there are at least two people on that jury who drive diesels!

Perhaps *they* have licensing problems? (4, Insightful)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618736)

i.e just like John Carmack and the Doom source (the music in that game's case), they

can't give you sampling rights because they licensed them themselves...

Sorry, but the commercial world, she's a bitch.

Re:Perhaps *they* have licensing problems? (1)

Ed_Moyse (171820) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618853)

Please keep modding the parent up ... I think that Andy (despite his fall) is probably right.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (1)

Magickcat (768797) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618756)

I doubt that the pioneers of the sampling technique, both in Hip Hop and Dub Reggae, ever gave a second thought to any license whatsoever.

Classsical musicians once used to perform variations and improvements on each other's work. Nowadays, if someone tried that, they'd be in court quicker than you can say "Mozart".

Jazz does variations and improvisations - of course nowadays you'd need a team of lawyers first.

Re:No commercial sampling for a few. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618764)

i dont know - i can say mozart pretty quickly... here - check this out...

"mozart"

pretty fast eh?

contract (5, Interesting)

slavik1337 (705019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618534)

I thought all "artists" gave copyrights to the company for their works ... can the artists do such a thing because I doubt that RIAA would :-\

Re:contract (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618542)

They sign contracts to product albums and such. Their contracts don't stipulate that ALL their work is owned by the record company. They are fully able to create works on their own that aren't under the terms of the contract.

Re:contract (3, Informative)

zerblat (785) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618616)

It depends on what the contract says, but AFAIK, standard recording contracts are generally exlusive and cover all recordings that the artist apears on while the contract is valid. Most of the artists on this CD (but not all) seem to be signed to small/independant companies, which should make it easier to get permission for things like this.

Of course, that only covers the rights to the recording. You'll also need permission from whoever is the copyright holder, which usually means the songwriter's publisher, rather than the songwriter.

Where? (2, Interesting)

Baricom (763970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618535)

I don't see any CD. Are we talking about the October or November issue?

Re:Where? (2, Insightful)

Baricom (763970) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618546)

No - in my excitement, I did not RTFA. Sorry about that.

However, "this month" is not November, IMHO (and I think the Gregorian calendar agrees with me).

Re:Where? (2, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618623)

I have already received November editions of most of the magazines I get. It's only October 24th.

Re:RTFA (3, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618555)

I don't see any CD. Are we talking about the October or November issue?

RTFA

Clip magazine, November issue (get the CD free with your copy, on newsstands now!) end clip

what month is it? (2, Funny)

eSavior (767078) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618537)

o_o
You missed april fools by 6 months.

Re:what month is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618708)

Interesting?

By some stretch of imagination, it's probably informative that April's Fool is off by six months - but interesting?

Tomorrow is October 26th. Mod me interesting. Please? I could use some Karma :-(

~m

Re:what month is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618717)

Great, and I post it anon.

Duh.

Man, I could use some sleep. And some brains.

~m

Re:what month is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618881)

Click here [slashdot.org] to see an example.
I was moderated "informative" for saying what the date was, and where one could see it. Not only that but +5 Informative -1 Redundant. What's worse is it was in response to a 1st post troll who said simply "Is today April 1st" so the first people see when they click on "Microsoft Won't Charge More for Multicore Licenses" they see my stupid post about the date.

While by some stretch of the imagination it could be interesting that it's been over six months since April 1st, it has nothing at all to do with the copyright holders of music granting permission to share specific works. It in it self doesn't add to the conversation unless the topic is calendars.

It's my hope that this time I get flagged as being off topic, because I am about as off topic as you can get. If you don't mod me as off topic, I will hit you over the head with a large watermelon until, until... until you had enough!

So, it's legal to download ... (3, Funny)

dougmc (70836) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618538)

So it sounds like a job for Bittorrent!

Re:So, it's legal to download ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618577)

Yes, the real question here is, where's the torrent?

Re:So, it's legal to download ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618684)

But does it run Linux? And can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of CDs in Soviet Russia YOU! Insensitive CLOD!

RIAA: All your Creative Commons are belong to us!
General Public: What You Say!

Re:So, it's legal to download ... (1)

Professeur Shadoko (230027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618918)

Oh, sounds just like a nice super-hero gimmick.

BitTorrent: "Sounds like a job for BitTorrent !"

I'm eagerly waiting for "BitTorrent, the movie"

That could then be shared with... Bittorrent :-p

This makes sense... (5, Insightful)

footage (317314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618551)

Music, photos and film/video footage gain value the more they're heard or seen; they can't be diluted or depleted like physical property. Ultimately artists who approve sharing and sampling of their work will sell more music. Free downloading has worked well for us, a historical film archive, and led to more business. See http://www.archive.org/movies/prelinger.php.

Re:This makes sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618836)

Yeah, and smoking is good for you and Santa Claus exists. Got any more fairy tales?

How can the Beasty Boys (4, Interesting)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618564)

release songs under the CC, when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

Plus, they're listing theirs under the 'Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and noncommercial sampling' which is fine and good for them; I'd be curious to know how many songs they've 'bitten' over the years that never got attributed.

Paul's Boutique was an excellent example of how sampling should work, and how completely new works can be made from old - that was a fantastic record.

Then we've got P. Duddy to show how old works can be ruined by 'sampling' *entire songs*. Ugh.

It IS great to see that there is some attempt at a revamp of copyright, and this CD will only increase the exposure of CC. At least until the songs get on P2P and are all mixed up with ones that are not legal to share...

Re:How can the Beasty Boys (3, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618699)

Yeah, I've got mixed feelings on the B-Boys. I have been a longtime fan, spent a -shitload- of money on their CD's, and the DRM on their last one was a huge slap in the face. So my B-Boy CD collection is complete, except for their latest. Unless something changes drastically, I won't be buying any more of their stuff.

For a band with "'tude", who are built their little empire on "rhymin' and stealin'", releasing a DRM'd CD, then telling their fans, "it's not us, dude, get over it" was the height of hypocrisy.

Yeah, I'm a little bitter.

It's going to take more than a little publicity stunt like this to make up for what they did, releasing one track under a non-commercial-only sampling license is a pretty weak apology.

Beasty Boys - Bit by the lawyers? (5, Interesting)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618734)

... when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

It could be legal problems -- If they live by sampling, they'll have to get the rights to release the samples that they're using.. They may not have been able to get a release for anything more than non-commercial sampling.

As for the flip-flop, they may be experimenting to see which approach sells more records, or they may be trying to get back into the good books of all the fans they would have pissed off with a DRM'ed CD.

Re:How can the Beasty Boys (3, Insightful)

jschottm (317343) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618896)

release songs under the CC, when they couldn't even release their last album without a bunch of DRM?

According to their statement, all of the albums released by their label outside of .us and .uk (IIRC) have the copy protection on it. I'm not saying that the copy protection was a good thing, but it's not as if the group sat down and decided to use it, it was forced on them.

Plus, they're listing theirs under the 'Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and noncommercial sampling' which is fine and good for them; I'd be curious to know how many songs they've 'bitten' over the years that never got attributed.

I don't know for sure, but it may be that songs on the album use samples whose license forbids resampling.

Just a guess.

Metallica? (5, Funny)

Nos. (179609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618565)

Funny, I don't see anything from Metallica on this CD.

Re:Metallica? (3, Funny)

edalytical (671270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618585)

I hear they're releasing some lipstick under creative commons.

Re:Metallica? (4, Funny)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618692)

They said "music" !

PS - I listen to them too :-)

DRM free Metallica (5, Interesting)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618886)

Metallica are selling FLACs of their live concerts here [livemetallica.com] . In their FAQ they acknowledge that they know they aren't DRM protected and can be shared.

The main problem with this is Slashdot itself. When I discovered this at least six months ago I thought this was pretty major news as Metallica were one of the main, vocal opponents of DRM free music, which of course means it easily can be distributed via P2P file sharing. Do you think my Slashdot submission was noticed ? I don't ever remember seeing it.

Maybe Slashdot has secretly been taken over by RIAA, and don't want Metallica's change of heart to be known about by anti-DRM proponents.

Amazing (3, Insightful)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618566)

The evolution of The Beastie Boys' consciousness is truly amazing, almost unbelievable. Their last album silently installed DRM code [slashdot.org] and now it is released under a Creative Commons Licence for everyone to share! Isn't it wonderful that there are people who really can listen to our community and adapt to the information era instead of trying to halt the progress like the RIAA? This CD will be a perfect Christmas gift for anyone who doesn't realize that not every rights are "reserved" and that copying and sharing is not inherently illegal. Anyone got a torrent link?

Re:Amazing (2)

bob_dinosaur (544930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618600)

It's about bloody time, given that their career has been built on sampling other people's tracks [moire.com] .

TROLL: PANTYHOSE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618651)

n/t

Re:Amazing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618669)

Every time you mod up one of his posts, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens.

Re:Amazing (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618769)

I'm guessing that the DRM'ed CD went over like a Led-Zeppelin, and they're trying to get back some of the (former) fans that they pissed off with a willfully damaged CD.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618842)

> The evolution of The Beastie Boys' consciousness is truly amazing, almost unbelievable.

Yeah, into total liberal flakes. They used to be fun, now they're just lameasses.

How can I get it internationally? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618588)

Is it possible to order only that one issue of Wired internationally instead of subscribing for 12 months? I would like to get few copies of that CD for Xmas gifts for my DJ friends for sampling but I don't want to buy like ten subscriptions for $700! :( Any way to get only this one issue to central Europe before Xmas? Thanks!

Re:How can I get it internationally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618625)

You don't need to buy a copy! According the article, they're legal to share!

Re:How can I get it internationally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618659)

Yes I know, but the point is that I don't want to give CDRs as gifts. I want to give them real pressed CDs with printed surface etc. - something which is usually 'all rights reserved, copying prohibited!' - and tell them that I didn't buy it because I had to but because I wanted to, and it a great gift because they can sample it, remix it, resell it and do whatever they want - *legally*. My friends are hip-hop DJs and such a gift would be great. But giving CDRs would be not that great. They would get lost in the piles of hudreds of other CDRs. Well, thanks anyway.

Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618697)

This is good point. How can I order one issue of Wired?

Re:Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618726)

Buy it off a shop?

Duh!

Re:Mod parent up! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618871)

> Buy it off a shop?
>
> Duh!

Very funny. And what if I live in the Czech Republic? Duh?

Lysol GoatTV (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618605)

Check out the article on Meatbox about the Lysol GoatTV [meatbox.net] service.. its an intersting twist of independent and alternative art and writings.. neato

Re:Lysol GoatTV (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618627)

Meatbox = nickname for Penis
Lysol = GNAA member
GoatTV = similar to Goatse

therefore -
Link = Very Suspicious

Re:Lysol GoatTV (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618643)

suspicious, but an interesting use of the goatse image. have you ever seen the goatse man *ON A TV*? if not, click that link. it's just the goatse arsehole, but on a crusty old tv.

hilarity ensues!

High Quality... (-1, Flamebait)

B2382F29 (742174) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618639)

From TFA:

Return to this site after November 9, and you'll be able to download high quality versions of the songs.

I hope they serve them as high quality Ogg/Vorbis and not some shitty MP3 or WMA.

Re:High Quality... (1)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618722)

I'd rather have high quality FLAC and encode my own damn Vorbii. :-)

Re:High Quality... (3, Informative)

808140 (808140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618892)

"Vorbii" is not the correct plural of "Vorbis". You see, Vorbis is not a second declension masculine noun as is often assumed, but rather a rare 4th declension neutre. In extant literature it was only used in its singular form -- obviously in the glory days of Rome Vorbis could not have been associated with a popular digital music format, and rather described the feeling that one has when one hears a pleasant sound. Understandably, this noun was uncountable and as such was never seen in the plural.

Therefore, when constructing the plural for this noun, you should use the widely accepted English plural, namely, "Vorbises".

Just wanted to clear that up. Vorbii is a pet peeve of mine.

nice chance to listen to something new (1)

Dr.Opveter (806649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618661)

These kind of cds are what started my cd collection some 10 years ago. It's a great way of discovery new music you hadn't heard of before. Like half the bands on this cd i don't know and it's a great opportunity for them to get me interested in buying their latest and greatest.

Legal to share? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618666)

If they're legal to share, they should also put up links for us to download the songs.

Get paid :) (-1, Offtopic)

AM7 (719911) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618707)

Get paid to recieve sms messeges. Just click on the link below and register, then tell your fiends and get them to do it too, and you will make a mint, i'm on $700 a month and its growing by the day. Please don't bid on this auction as this information is free This is effectively free money, just go to:

http://www.smspays.com/reg_country.asp?refer=22060 4 [smspays.com]

looks good but, (1)

sakura the mc (795726) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618755)

i see the creative commons as good protection if you intend on distributing your material over different mediums.. net, print, cds included with magazines etc. however it doesnt help you if you are trying to make money from your creations. you still need secure your works with a regular copyright. now having to maintain and defend your rights on two fronts?? forget that, until someone can blend both worlds into ONE method, ill stick with plain old copyright laws.

Re:looks good but, (5, Insightful)

Zoolander (590897) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618845)

Well, before the phonograph, musicians had to *gasp* PERFORM to make money. Then came a sort of golden age, where you could theoretically make a few records, then sit on your ass and watch the money roll in.
Now it seems like that golden age is coming to an end, forcing artists who can't perform live out of business. A good development, IMHO.

Morpheus supports Creative Commons (5, Informative)

fcrick (465682) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618806)

The file sharing client Morpheus supports Creative Commons, and properly tagged mp3s are recognized in search results in the client. Creative Commons will soon begin tagging all their mp3 files in the Copyright id3 tag. On Morpheus, you can even search 'cc:sampling' and 'cc:sharing', and you'll find and be able to download all properly tagged Creative Commons content.

(Obligatory) OGGs would be better (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618894)

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Morpheus supports Creative Commons (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618899)

That's a Good Thing. Sadly, I'm afraid certain people will be tagging actually illegal-to-share content as legal-to-share. When caught, they will claim "it said it was legal to share".

Another (not so) unique thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618831)

is that the artists are flaming liberals.

Re:Another (not so) unique thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618932)

As opposed to good kneejerk fascists such as yourself?

mod 04 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10618863)

but it's not a dFaster, cheaper, And suggesting very sick and its design approach. As of *BSD asswipes

What I want to know is... (3, Informative)

marktaw.com (816752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10618927)

Who sanctioned this CD? Most artists when they're signed to a label aren't allowed to perform for anyone else without the label's permission. That's why on every Garbage CD it says "Shirley Manson appears courtesy of..." - She's licensed to Garbage by her record label (or something like that).

So this means that all of these artists are appearing here with the permission of the record labels, though there may be a few exceptions.

An artist like the Beastie Boys can negotiate a favorable record contract with a smaller label. David Bowie does this. He sold the future royalties to all of his songs (it's amazing that he had them in the first place), and now only works with smaller record labels that are happy to have him because he's gauranteed sales, and in exchange they give him complete creative control. It's just a small step to negotiating ownership of your music as well.

An artist like Zap Mama (an excellent group, by the way) may, by virtue of being small, be able to negotiate a favorable contract because they may be able to generate income from things like touring, giving lessons and workshops and so forth, so having a record contract is just a matter of distribution more than promotion... I'm not saying this is the case for Zap Mama, they're actually fairly big, especially outside of the United States, but *perhaps* they could do this kind of thing.

But.... odds are it didn't happen this way. Odds are the record company *owns* the rights to all of these songs, and *the record company* decided to release these songs under creative commons. As ar as they're concerned, the artists may not even have needed to be asked do this.

The question then becomes - why would they do something like this? Are they being foward thinking? Didn't Apple just come out with an ipod pre-loaded with U2 songs? Could it be that the record labels are finally attempting new channels of distribution and figuring out new ways of making money in the digital age?

Another poster praised the Beasty Boys for their ability to change, and surely the Beasty Boys had *some* input into what went on their CD, and some input over the release of their songs under Creative Commons. What I want to know is - how much? And how much was the label.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?