Who says music can’t be free while creating value? Think twice, because NiN’s CC-Licensed album, Ghosts I-IV, has been one of the best selling albums of 2008! This while this album could be freely downloaded as Creative Commons release. This is clearly the evidence Creative Commons can cooperate perfectly together with other licensing; while NiN fans could have turned to any file sharing network to download the entire CC-BY-SA album legally.

Ghosts I-IV

Release timetable:

• 2 march 2008: Released without any advertisement or notice
• 4 march 2008: Extra servers were needed to handle the downloads
• 1 week later: 750,000 download and purchase transactions have been reported
• hitting #1 on Billboard’s electronic charts
• 8 april 2008: Physical albums available through double CD & 4 LP set
• 1 may 2008: Deluxe & Ultra Deluxe Limited Editions released

Release differences:

• Ghosts I: free, containing the first 9 tracks (official website | BitTorrent)
• Digital Release (Halo 26): $5, direct download, 40 page PDF book, digital extras, DRM free format.
• Double CD (Halo 26 CD): $10, two audio cd’s and 16 page booklet with access to the Digital Release.
• Vinyl release (Halo 26 V): $39, 4-LP vinyl set (heavy duty vinyl).
• Deluxe Edition (Halo 26 DE): $75, Includes 2 audio cd’s, data DVD with multitrack files, Blu-ray disk with albums in 96khz stereo, slideshow, 48-page hardcover photobook and access to the Digital Release.
• Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition (Halo 26 LE): $300, Includes everything from the Deluxe Edition including the 4-LP set and 2 exclusive limited edition Giclee prints. Limited to 2500 pieces, signed by Trent Reznor. (sold out!)

One of the reasons is that fans understood that purchasing MP3s would directly support the artists they like. Another reason for those sales is because of the extensive features added to the pack. I’ve always been a firm believer the contents create the setting; which they sure did by releasing 4 different physical packages ranging from $10 to $300 for the Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition which is a box with about eight exclusive additional features including two audio cd’s, a data DVD with multitrack files, Blu-ray disk with albums in 96khz, slideshows, 48-page hardcover photobook, direct access to the Digital Release, two limited Giclee prints and signed by the one and only Trent Reznor…

It has generated over $1.6 million in revenue in its first week and has received the critical acclaim and two Grammy nominations; so next time you’ll think Creative Commons hurts sales, think again about NiN! They’ve chosen an alternative distribution method which fits more to the common people, adapting to the new age of digital distribution. Maybe this could be the exact reason the music industry is afraid, of loosing control of the distribution market; because artists are still having troubles combining CC-licensing with draconian exclusive membership deals through their agency.

Thom Yorke, advices in the article about the Real Value of Music, “you don’t sign a huge record contract that strips you of all your digital rights, so that when you sell something on iTunes you get absolutely zero. That would be the first priority. If you’re an emerging artist, it must be frightening at the moment. Then again, I don’t see a downside at all to big record companies not having access to new artists, because they have no idea what to do with them now anyway.” When or how the music industry is going to understand this advice is another task, since the emerging digital distribution market has brought the cat out of the bag, how much our common sense really wants to pay for music…

Reznor explained his move by saying “It’s a stance we’re taking that we feel is appropriate … with digital technology, and outdated copyright laws, and all the nonsense that’s going on these days”. Jim Guerinot, the manager of NiN explained as “a reaction to what doesn’t exist today … It’s more just like, Hey, in a vacuum I can do whatever I want to do.”

NiN has reached two goals, reach those who weren’t familiar with the group by offering an open environment to get in touch with their works and give a reason to those who like the album and like to have more, supporting the artists directly. The Internet Distribution market has opened the last year as like we’ve experienced the .com age before! Aggregrators aid artists getting their album online through Amazon, iTunes, Amiestreet and other major music stores. Using CC-Licensing gave NiN the opportunity to increase the sales of their release.

It would be the ultimate question if this model could work for all, or those who already have their basic fundations set; although; Radiohead did a similar experiment with free downloads in October 2007. Their album, called “In Rainbows” was distributed as DRM free 160kbit MP3 format. Upon purchase, the fan could specify the desired price to buy the album directly through the website. At 3 december 2007 a limited discbox was available through pre-order and on 10 December 2007 the official digital download was no longer available at inrainbows.com. It was Radiohead’s first album available for download through the digital distribution market while it reached no.1 in the first Official U.K. Albums chart of 2008 at billboard. NME reported that “In Rainbows” created more money than their previous album “Hail to the Thief” while a further analysis of this report is available through enough cowbell.

Online distribution is a form of promotion and exposure. The physical distribution market is not alone anymore, forcing the music industry to walk other paths. Create a bling production with all the artworks, inlays, photo’s and other extra’s your fans crave and it will get sold. That’s one of the major reasons, I’ve been releasing my own productions in a similar way, through extra’s complementing the final product; because direct sales support the artist directly! Creative Commons is sure an aid in exposing any (new) artist around the block!

So, Music Industry, especially those who like to be in charge; smell the coffee, wake up! Artists are waiting for alternative ways to promote and distribute their music; getting in the billboard lists; without signing our lives away through exclusive contracts! Where is our support for alternative licensing schemes? It’s 2009 and we want our creative rights back!

Linked by:

• musicindustryreport.org
  

I’ve been DJ, dedicated music collector and producing loops, now for over 15 years; but the real deal started in early 2008, when my studio was finally returned back into fully working production state.

I’ve started finishing my older productions and released them as lower quality 128kbit mp3’s with Creative Commons+ license through my website.

The idea, is pretty simple, those lower quality files can be shared with anyone, but whenever you needed cd-quality with added bonuses or money would be involved, I’d need my cut of the share in this.

This was made possible through Creative Commons using CC+ licensing, which allows you to license any work for commercial gain through the use of the normal Creative Commons official deed.

It can be considered the “direct link” between consumer and artist; making more for less money. In the future I’m even planning to offer my own platform to other artists which is already in test for some time by myself as we speak…

The direct link is often not the best and only link but it adds up to the total of the artist, while, there are also quite a few different types of music available on this planet.

1. The most known is the commercial music, known from radio and TV which gets pushed by only a few of the major labels in the top charts …
2. Indie music, not in the top charts but quite often with quality music , mostly even better than the real commercial top music…
3. Non-commercial music, experimental or not commercial enough, adored by music lovers.
4. The unreleased music, special releases and also bootlegs, with really quite some good stuff in it!

Indie bands are growing like mushrooms out of the ground because creating music is not that expensive as it used to be in the eighties. Electronic devices have gotten a lot smaller, sometimes easier but for sure more functional; personally, I prefer my old midi rig above a PC controlled patchbay!

Creative Commons could bridge the Artist-Consumer problem of finding less or non-commercial music on the net by getting quality in return by supporting the artist. Artists would then be able to, for example, send a CD of their latest productions, still in line with a license protecting their works.

This, of’course, could not be the major income of an artist; since it’s based on rather new ideas & technologies and that’s where mechanical rights and perhaps the more commercial music could come in mind.

“Any artist should be able next to his ideals, to create their own productions, even for commercial gain.. Right? .. ”

I’m not sure that’s really true in Belgium or in Europe!

Like any artist would do, I’ve joined the major Belgian author associations like Simim, Uradex and Imagia but I’ve failed of joining Sabam simply because of one thing: Trust!

It seems to be unable to register as an author and create free music. As soon as you join Sabam you’ve got to sign away all your rights for now and for the future; all your music will belong to them! When Sabam sees a song with your name in it, they will collect, even if the work is based on a Creative Commons license!

Their reasoning seems to be towards being unable to spot the differences, although, I’ve been proposing to add a CC+ tag to all of my CC productions but that wasn’t accepted. I’ve proposed if I could create my Creative Commons+ files under another nickname which I’d not register with Sabam but alas, that would be too good to be true…

“Whenever you join Sabam as author or composer, it will be for all music you’re author or co-author of. It’s not possible to collect for some songs through Sabam and collect through another. With Creative Commons licenses you’ve always got the risk Sabam will collect money anyways…”

Their own (translated) response is “Whenever you join Sabam as author or composer, it will be for all music you’re author or co-author of. It’s not possible to collect for some songs through Sabam and collect through another. With Creative Commons licenses you’ve always got the risk Sabam will collect money anyways…”

What kind of monopoly is this? Supported by the government ran through exclusivity contracts?

Isn’t Sabam created in purpose to support the common artist?

Not only this is a small problem, imagine the next one!

Once you’d need to publish any CD, a non-intervention statement needs to be signed by Sabam, allowing the CD manufacturer to start pressing that particular CD.

No non-intervention statement is no press! As cherry on top, you cannot demand a non-intervention when you are member of this agency which would allow them to collect royalties; even on a cd with only Creative Commons works. I’ve had to create a letter stating “I would not be joining in the near future”, this only because I wanted PERMISSION (in limited amounts) to release my own CD, which I’ve got 9 months later!

It’s one vicious circle because as soon as you want to earn on those Mechanical Rights; you’ve got to be member of them, loosing any artistic freedom to create music for other purposes than collecting money!

Our Dutch equivalent is currently pilot-testing a program with Creative Commons works; although anything released under the original artist name would be collected upon. This restricts the artist to only release music commercially -or- under a creative commons license but not both.

What if authors join forces combining their music giving away free CC samples for example? Belgium has not been touching this while CC is getting a full grown internet phenomenon.

This raises a few questions …

How could Sabam be even allowed such power to limit creativity at it’s best? Industrial lobbying at it’s best?

How could I ever create free art if they force me to copyright my works to their agency?

Where does that money go to from wrongly collected works?

How would you feel, You’ve got a killer voice and you’d like to sing a song free for the world, but Sabam would limit that because you are member?

Probably the same as how I feel now with this superficial legal limits opposed by Sabam!

I hope something gets done for the common artist!

I am feeling this is a tax to limit “creativity”, a word which sure isn’t licensed in their repertoire only!

Thank you for listening, tuning out!

[Please give your reactions here, this article will be forwarded towards the proper authorities ]