Wired Releases an "Open Source" Music CD
November's Wired magazine will feature a CD with songs released under the Creative Commons license, which means you get some limited rights over the music.
A few days ago the RIAA announced that music sales are up for the first time in years. Perhaps this is validation of their "sue the world into submission" policy, and people who would be downloading are now buying again. Those who are against the RIAA's policies, criticize them for changing slowly and not seeing the writing on the wall - traditional distribution chains are going away. Embrace the Internet.
But maybe the RIAA is embracing the internet.
U2's latest album and a 400 track "digital box set" of every U2 album and 25 unreleased tracks comes pre-loaded on a limited edition black U2 iPod that just costs $350, about the price of a regular iPod, and now a mix CD is being released under an "open source" license called Creative Commons. Perhaps the artists are leading the charge, but perhaps the music industry is catching up to the Napster generation. Their primary talent, after all, is taking our own culture and regurgitating it back to us.
What I want to know is 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), and if you look at the song list, each artist "appears courtesy of" some record label.
An artist like the Beastie Boys (courtesy of Beasty Boys and Capitol Records) 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 (courtesy of Louka Bop Records, and an excellent group) 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 (or allow to be released) these songs under creative commons.
The question then becomes - why would they do something like this? Are they being foward thinking? 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?
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.
Update: How I Learned to Love Larry by Hilary Rosen (Wired.com) and the Slashdot discussion.
- The WIRED CD: Rip. Sample. Mash. Share. | Creative Commons
- Sampling | Creative Commons
- Apple - iPod U2 Special Edition
page first created on Tuesday, October 26, 2004
© Mark Wieczorek