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!

• musicindustryreport.org
  

The freedom of any net-citizen might be at stake, because the French and EU president Sarkozy, tries to get his foot inbetween the door of any internaut in Europe by regulating it’s network based on his “three strikes and you’re out” without court order. This proposal is called the “Telecom Package “, which reforms the EU’s regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services with a view to completing the internal market for electronic communications.

“no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened where the ruling may be subsequent.” — Amendment 138 (24/09/08)

You might remember from the past, as soon as Sarkozy became president he soon became obsessed with the “graduated response” of “3 strikes and you’re out”. Some of these amendments were covertly introduced into this “Telecom Package” which would inflict the same “3 strikes and you’re out” rule through entire Europe; which is blocked by amendment 138 (supported by a huge cross-party majority of 88% of the members of the EU MEPs). Sarkozy requested to delete amendment 138 of the “Telecom Package” which was firmly refused by the EU.

Very ironically, CBC has reported the French president Nicolas Sarkozy has been approached by an independent band for copyright infringement . He admitted to use the bands song multiple times for a political campaign which goes beyond the scope of a normal license and offered to settle the case for a symbolic 1 euro! The band rejected the offer calling this insulting.

Does this mean a president can break his own rules for commercial reasons without permission or payment? Are these court-fines ambigiously high? Since a president can settle for 1€! It’s amazing the public just accepts such “zero tolerance” from the music industry while being nailed at the higher command “defending the common artist”.

The Commission considers the amendment to be important to the key legal principles of the Community legal order, especially because it’s the fundemental right of the citizens; in particular the right to respect for a private life, protect property, for effective remedies and freedom of expression and information. Basically, we cannot inject economic growth by installing surveillance and tracing, limiting our own lives and social development. In the past a campaign has been started to save amendment 138 and Internet Freedom from the Council of the EU.

“Think about the impact, the music industry has been pushing this in France; imagine yourself a neighbour with an open WIFI, go leech some music through P2P and see your neighbours being gradually kicked off the net! Fast Internet for you! Your neighbours would be unable to stop this, because their internet access would be closed without a fair trial at court!”

Nicolay Sarkozy personally wrote a letter to Jose Manual Barroso to ask him to remove amendment 138 because it “tends to exclude the possibility for Member States to implement a smart strategy of deterrence against piracy”. This law, currently active in France, is dangerous because of the earlier facts of acts upon flaky immaterial “evidence” of counterfeiting provided by the content industries; not to forget the ligitations by the same industry in the US.

Timeline

• 19/01/2009: The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) released his opinion on the current state of the Telecoms Package. His views include that if nothing is done, article 6.6(a) will allow any company to collect and process traffic data from any Internet user, for an undetermined period of time.
• 27/11/2008: Council of European Union adopts political agreement on Telecoms Package without am138 ((Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) nor am166 (GUE/NGL))
• 07/11/2008: European Commission amends proposal on telecoms package with am138 (Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) accepted in part or subject to rewording and am166 (GUE/NGL) not accepted.
• 30/10/2008: French Senate adopts unanimously 3-strikes Law.
• 06/10/2008: Spokesperson for European Commission DG Information Society announce that the Commission rejects Sarkozy’s request to reject am 138 (Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) on the Telecoms Package.
• 03/10/2008: Nicolas Sarkozy writes to the president of EU Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to reject am 138 (Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) on the Telecoms Package.
• 24/09/2008: Am 138 (Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) with oral amendment and am 166 (GUE/NGL) are adopted during plenary vote on the Telecoms Package.
• 24/09/2008: Rapporteur Catherine Trautmann tables an oral amendment to am 138 (Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) on the Telecoms Package.
• 17/09/2008: Am 138 (Bono-Cohn Bendit-Roithová) and am 133 & am 166 (GUE/NGL) are tabled for plenary vote on the Telecoms Package.
• 02/06/2008: Amendments Bono are rejected on Cultural Committee opinion report on the Telecoms Package.
• 10/04/2008: Amendment “Bono-Rocard-Fjellner” is adopted during plenary vote on the resolution on cultural industries in Europe.

End January 2009, the EU Parliament’s committee for legal affairs voted the Medina report on Copyright. This report seems to be the initial wet dream of the content industry. It contains the complete wishlist of the entertainment industry against the Internet and its users:

1. graduated response: recommending “three strikes and you’re out” against unauthorized file sharing for all Europe, including the full cooperation with ISP’s based on denunciations by the entertainment industries;
2. Internet content filtering: asking to deploy technologies to filter content “for identification and recognition [...] with a view to distinguish more easily between legal and pirated products” which contradicts the very nature and technology of the Internet!
3. Internet access providers liability: inviting “reflection on the responsibility of Internet access providers in the fight against piracy” which would make them liable for the content posted by their users.
4. Denial of copyright exceptions: its conclusion is anticiptated by the result of the public consultation launched by the EU Commission on “Copyright in the knowledge economy” by stating that any reform of the 2001 copyright Directive is undesirable; the existing regime for copyright exceptions is undesirable and that there is no need for new exceptions. This undermines creativity, interoperability and stiffens innovation.

The wheel hasn’t stopped spinning yet! At 29 february 2009, another official second reading will start about the “Telecoms Package” in the European Parliament. At that very moment, a political agreement might be reached after ongoing opaque negotiations between the rapporteurs, the Commission and the Council. Some amendments pushed by AT&T called “network management practices” could be used to discriminate which content, services and applications users can access and use. This could be an european threat towards user’s rights, freedoms which might put Internet innovation to a halt in the current economic crisis. This all as an exclusive part for the entertainment industry; how convenient .. not?

Links:

• Commission position on am.138 adopted by the European Parliament in plenary vote on 24/09
• Copyright dogmatism ridiculously strikes the EU Parliament
• Telecoms Package @ Laquadrature.net
• Story of Anti 3 Strikes Amendments
• EU data protection authority confirms privacy threat in the “Telecoms Package”
• Who wants Net Discrimination in Europe?

[More coming soon, check this article for updates!]

update 09/03/09: Added Youtube video “Telecoms Package explained”

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 ]