The RecordBrother was telling me about this phenomenon the other day and I didn't
really know what he was talking about, as I don't look at mp3 sharing
sites that much lately. But it seems like there's this whole new breed
of "Sharing" site that instead of sharing unavailable, never-been-on-cd
type rarities, are just putting up entire cd's of commercially
available music.
I just clicked through from Sonic Pollutions to this site Hanszunblog that's at least 80% (if not 100%) commercially available cd's that he's putting up for download. Like, entire Burt Bacharach Box Sets on Rhino! Whole Dusty Springfield cds.
How is this cool? I mean, I'm as anti DRM as the next guy. I don't think that ALL music needs to be paid for EVERY time it's listened to by everybody. I remember mixed tapes and all that. I've shared MP3's with friends of mine. But just giving away entire box sets on the internet? Rhino Records (who put out the Bacharach box) is an awesome label that puts out amazing rare stuff that otherwise no one would ever hear or see. Why fuck them over? Or Burt Bacharach and Hal David for that matter?
On this blog I've almost only ever put up MP3's of things that aren't commercially available (outtakes, rarities, deletions, radio commercials). The few times I've put up things from in-print cd's I only put up one song and I've always provided a link to buy products by that artist. I did it to promote the artist.
Blogs like this Hanszunblog (not to pick on him- I'm sure there are hundreds more) are going to be the death of music blogs and are going to bring the wrath of the RIAA down on ALL of us. I mean, you realize they sue 12 year old girls and disabled moms (even dead old ladies) over this stuff right? Do you really think they're never gonna crack down on bloggers? This is a hundred times worse than P2P sharing. Hanzun says "i love music, all kinds of music, I JUST LOVE MUSIC !!!". Too bad he doesn't love the musicians, songwriters and producers who made it (or their descendants) enough to care about them being compensated. I'm sure (I hope) he's a nice guy and I hope he (and the rest of the "New Breed") reconsider this new style of "sharing".
UPDATE: you can read this guys reply here. He's at least semi-full of shit, because the Mama's and Papa's Box and the Burt Bacharach box are still very much in print and available on Amazon (as are many of the other things on his site-I'll start cataloging it for him). Of course people LOVE your site. With those two box sets you are basically GIVING them stuff that would cost $120 if you bought 'em. I'm sure my traffic would increase if I paid everybody who comes here $120.
And I'm sure all of these "forgotten artists" he is promoting are psyched. I mean who heard of Hank Williams, Dusty Springfield, The Mama's & The Papa's, John Fogerty, & The Shangrilas before Hanzun "rediscovered" them? Thank you for rescuing them from utter obscurity. I mean Hank Williams, who the fuck is he? You are so cool for knowing about and promoting this ultra obscure artist. Dude, you are really doing a serious public service. I don't know what I was thinking when I criticised you. Carry on as you were.
Also I didn't accuse you of "single handedly ruining the record business". What I said is that people LIKE YOU were "going to be the death of MUSIC BLOGS and are going to bring the wrath of the RIAA down on ALL of us.". Kinda different don't you think? Why do you need to make up what I said to make your point seem more valid? I also said "not to pick on him- I'm sure there are hundreds more". So every part of the "quote" you attributed to me is basically a lie. Come up with better arguments if you wanna feel better about yourself and your blog, don't attribute stuff to me that I didn't say just so you can knock it down. Giving away shit that doesn't belong to you that is currently available for purchase just does not make you or your site that special. Sorry.
I'm not an absolutist about this as you can see by the stuff I post. I have bought, traded for and sold things that are considered "gray area" and aren't now or have never ever been commercially available. But what you are doing is crossing the line. If you took down all things that are currently commercially available on CD I would have no problem with your site.
All that Hank Williams stuff you're posting now is out too, by the way: The Complete Hank Williams
Took me seconds to figure that out. When I get a few minutes I'll go through your site and source out everything that's still available. Just so you can't pretend you didn't know.
UPDATE: One of my fans left this in the comments:
"Well, I've had some correspondence with Arthur Lee a bit in the past, and have his email address. We'll put your theory to the test and see if artists who's videos are not available mind if you distribute their work with no payout to them. I'm sure you'll here (sic) from somebody.
You pushed a good friend of mine just a little too far."
Ouch. WIth that I think I'll close the comments. I don't really have the time for this. These people are touchier than Republicans.
MP3 bloggers are slowly becoming a promotional platform to reckon with, at least for the independent music industry.
The ability to side step Clear Channel is promising enough that labels are becoming willing to loosen their licensing up somewhat in hopes that bloggers can help them get the word out. (See http://tablesturned.com for more info.)
But you're right - this kind of sharing really is theft. And it will hurt the whole community, the whole phenomenon. It's good of you to call them out. They should pull down that box set immediately.
Posted by: Marcus | January 22, 2006 at 05:52 PM
"MP3 bloggers are slowly becoming a promotional platform to reckon with, at least for the independent music industry."
Yeah, my best friend & producer Adam Lasus produced that "Clap Your Hands Say Yeah!" record so I know what you're saying.
Posted by: Cookie | January 22, 2006 at 06:19 PM
I'm totally against these blogs putting up entire box sets, it is going to kill the whole vinyl sharity scene. I just found out about vinyl sharity a week ago and I can't believe whats being uploaded. Its great to be able to download a psych album that went for $500 on ebay. I mean its not the same as having the vinyl but at least you can hear it which you couldn't before if you didn't buy it. I think we should all start sending emails to the guys that are uploading to much commercially available music, it would suck if all these sites start getting shut down. I bought about ten cd's at the WFMU record fair, mostly from Norton and I have seen almost every one of them for share, I couldn't believe it. Ok, enuf said.
Lori Rogers
trek222@verizon.net
Posted by: Lori Rogers | January 22, 2006 at 07:22 PM
i emailed one of these sites privately and here is his lame defence. he didn't want to get into a discussion about this as you can see so i didn't write back but there's no way around the immorality of this kind of theft and I do think it'll give legitimate sites a bad name so I address it when I see it
"Not too often do I receive complaints. However, I have received email from artists thanking me for exposing their music. There are literally thousands of mp3 blogs besides mine that offer the same services.
Moreover, I do not upload or host any of the music. It is all submitted by the reading audience.
All of my advertisers through Blogads know of thenature of my site. I have had Weezer, The Red Thread, and Gretchen Siren (among many other artists) buy advertising specifically for CD promotion. Moreover, I had been in contact with Nick Zimmer (Yeah Yeah Yeahs)
and promoted his book on my site.
These "rules" you speak of? The purpose of the internet is freedom of speech and expression. I have also gained support from many respected bloggers. Immoral? Stealing music? Hardly, in my opinion. I have
fans everyday email me and thank me for exposing them to new bands that they never heard of due to the mainstream.
How is this is the artists best interests? People will continue to find new ways to "steal" music. Its inevitable that mp3 and newer technology will allow music to become even more accessible than it is.
Rather than live in the past, why not deal with the
present? How is this different from people who copied vinyl to cassettes and cd to cds via burners? People who have a love for the artist will support the artist. Those who don't will continue to find ways to
take/copy/etc. Also, get your facts straight. See EXACTLY what an artist receives on a CD sales and what the record company gets. Then compare it to a live concert. Look at Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.. sold 20,000+ INDEPENDENT copies and THANKED me for sharing
them back in July.
Finally, if you're not a fan of what I do, then why bother to take the time and read/use my blog? I don't ask for readers who don't appreciate it to stay. In my opinion, I am doing these artists justice and exposing
a whole new league of fans to their existance. But we could go back and forth with our arguements and your
"morals" and ideas of "rules" for several emails. Why not leave it at this, as there is no need to reply. I am sorry if you find this "morally" wrong and "giving you a bad name".
I'm sure many BLOGS that offer pre-releases and advanced copies of music might be more worthy of your
arguments. Thanks for your time."
Posted by: craig | January 22, 2006 at 07:31 PM
Cookie, you make some great points. In fact, you have me worried about the limited amount of sound and video files I have at my blog. I definitely don't suggest or encourage people who visit the blog to steal such files, but I don't do anything to discourage them.
Posted by: Chris | January 22, 2006 at 08:32 PM
I just cannot read any of this shit ! All looks very interesting to me, but I just have to pass. Think a larger font might be an option ?
Posted by: Eddy | January 23, 2006 at 03:06 AM
"I just cannot read any of this shit ! All looks very interesting to me, but I just have to pass. Think a larger font might be an option ?"
I'd suggest making the text larger in your browser. If your browser won't let you, use a different browser. I have no problem making the text larger using Firefox using a simple key command.
Posted by: Cookie | January 23, 2006 at 03:33 AM
Just because a label buys ad space on your blog does not make you less of a target for the RIAA. If you think for a second that a label endorsement is a "get out of jail free" card, consider the fact that the same labels that went after P2P users actually monitor their activity (using services such as Big Champagne) to better figure out their target markets. They don't give a shit about you.
Don't believe me check it out:
http://www.bigchampagne.com/
I do agree that full-album downloads are a poor practice. If you troll the mp3 blogosphere, most blogs have disclaimers that specify the mp3s posted are for the express purpose of promoting an artist, and many have active links to sites where you can purchase the music. At least pretend to show compassion by limiting mp3 posts to a song or 2.
I love being exposed to new/unheard music through mp3 blogs, I would hate to see it end just because some mp3 bloggers couldn't post anything less than a full album.
Posted by: julalmint | January 23, 2006 at 04:04 PM
My policy is you shouldn`t give away too much. So I`m with you Spike. Giving away whole (inprint!) LP`s is not cool.
Posted by: mark | January 23, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Get over your self righteousness. Do you think you're personally being more moralistic because your copyright infringement is based on artists who are no longer in print? Is there some kind of caveat in your system of behavior where the fact that it isn't commercially available makes you right and them wrong? Stop whining for a second and look at what you're doing.
None of us has any rightful expectations that we can continue to keep downloading and sharing as we have. What we are ALL doing is not exactly moral. That goes for you, the people who are sharing in print and available material, out of print material and myself included.
You don't think they already don't know what we're doing? For gos sakes, if a bunch of dorky hipster geeks can find your site like me, don't you think the RIAA people can?
Just enjoy what we have now, cause if history is any indication, it's not going to last. Just as Napster, Kazza and apparently now, Bit Torrent.
I see this as a armored car with a door that just blasted open. you'd better grab what you can now, cause the door is certainly going to close and eventually lock.
Posted by: Up Yours | January 23, 2006 at 06:35 PM
i am a fan of both this site and hanzunblog. i find this whole thing ridiculous. whether or not you agree with this full album sharing it will continue to thrive within a system of music buying the way it is. rhinohandmade hardly seems smart to bring up. limited edition copies in runs of 5000 should come with instructions on how to copy and distribute on the internet. how's that any different than albums that are posted that are not available on cd? seems kinda like a weak point. just kinda a shallow argument all around i'd say. i mean just enjoy it or don't support it, but don't get all high & mighty about it. i wonder how many people got turn on to hanzunblog becuz you made a stink over it. check the archives they might even have something you like. worth a click or two.
Posted by: andrew | January 23, 2006 at 06:50 PM
"Get over your self righteousness. Do you think you're personally being more moralistic because your copyright infringement is based on artists who are no longer in print?"
yes. I think there is a difference between sharing stuff that one would not be able to get otherwise and stealing stuff that is in print and giving it away to all takers. Hanzun doesn't even have links to buy the CD's he's supposedly promoting.
Posted by: Cookie | January 23, 2006 at 06:57 PM
Well there goes Sharity blogs:-( Once arguments start like this it's usually the end. I've seen this SAME EXACT thing happen in the Napster and Audio Galaxy days. Once the debate and arguing heated up over what type of music was right or wrong to post and got loud enough, the RIAA discovered what was going on came in and closed EVERYTHING down! Now with Universal music announcing they're going to be releasing older out of print stuff, you can bet they're going to be hunting and closing down the "pirate" sites (translation: competition) if they hear the ruckus by threatening blogspot, rapidshare or even the individual blogs themselves. Sure it may be a "grey area" but I can almost GUARANTEE blogspot or Rapid Share isn't going to stand up and fight, rather avoid lengthy court battles and attorney fees and give in and shut things down to maintian the status quo. I may be wrong but this is what's been happening in simmilar situations. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying If we get loud enough it'll be the end of a great thing for ALL of us, legal or illegal, released or unreleased. So let's just all try to sit back, take a chill pill and (try to) remain in obscurity.
Posted by: Phil Satterley (progrockTV) | January 23, 2006 at 06:58 PM
"rhinohandmade hardly seems smart to bring up. limited edition copies in runs of 5000 should come with instructions on how to copy and distribute on the internet. how's that any different than albums that are posted that are not available on cd?"
The Bacharach Box is an unlimited edition set. It's not on Handmade. You can go buy it right this second brand new.
My point was that they put alot of time and money into their releases and they invest their money in putting out these limited edition things that would not be coming out otherwise.
None of the items on Hanzunblog are Rhino handmade releases are they?
Posted by: Cookie | January 23, 2006 at 07:01 PM
"yes. I think there is a difference between sharing stuff that one would not be able to get otherwise and stealing stuff that is in print and giving it away to all takers. Hanzun doesn't even have links to buy the CD's he's supposedly promoting."
Irrelevant! Copyright infringement isnt dependant on availability. Try re-recording any unavailable material for commercial gain and see how far your theories go.
Posted by: Up Yours | January 23, 2006 at 07:17 PM
"Irrelevant! Copyright infringement isnt dependant on availability. Try re-recording any unavailable material for commercial gain and see how far your theories go."
Your original post asked "Do you think you're personally being more moralistic" You didn't say anything about "laws". You were talking about "morals". I stand by my reply. Maybe by law the two are equivalent but I don't think morally they are.
Posted by: Cookie | January 23, 2006 at 07:28 PM
None of the items on Hanzunblog are Rhino handmade releases are they?
one cd a compilation is on rhinohandmade. and i see your point on the bacharach set completely. ideally it would be available as just single cds so a buyer wasn't in a large committment. i was commenting more on the fact that you linked to rhinohandmade. i like a lot of rhinohandmade it just seems shitty to put out a live performance by captain beefheart in such a limited run. but the whole arguement against any of this is beyond your judgment don't you think. also painting hanzunblog so negatively seems shortsighted. they put up mostly unavailables which you say are okay. maybe just say to each their own and be done with the worry of it.
Posted by: andrew | January 23, 2006 at 07:29 PM
OK, then how do you justify your perceived superior morals?
Keep in mind that its an assumption that we are taking profits from businesses, I have a freind that owns a large indie label (never mind who). He and I share the same opinion where the people who are downloadng aren't likely going to buy in the 1st place. I have about 20k in music and another 15 in software. Would I have bought those titles had I not downloaded them? No, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by: Up Yours | January 23, 2006 at 07:43 PM
"also painting hanzunblog so negatively seems shortsighted."
If you go back and read the post I say
"not to pick on him- I'm sure there are hundreds more"
"and
"I'm sure (I hope) he's a nice guy".
I'm sure there are worse offenders than him and I'm sorry that he seems to be taking it so personally, his was just the first one of this type I came across. It's not a personal thing. I just think that anybody that runs a blog blog like that is kinda lame.
"it just seems shitty to put out a live performance by captain beefheart in such a limited run."
I'm not sure exactly why they do it that way but I always assumed they released stuff on Handmade that would have a relatively small audience, not that they are trying to create "collectibles".
Here's what the site says "At Rhino Handmade, we focus on material that is either out of print or that has never before been released, stuff deemed too esoteric for conventional distribution outlets"
Posted by: Cookie | January 23, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Thanks Cookie for bravely being the one to mention the 800 pound elephant in the room thought about this quite a bit since yesterday. I agree with the person above who said let's not make to much noise with this as it might/can attract those who regardless of the guidelines we use when posting would like to shut down any and every party regardless of intent
That being said certainly there is a distinction between those who simply rip a whole cd and post it (with or without commentary) and those who put a couple of songs from a cd up with an interesting enough commentary to inspire further discovery of that artist or style of music.
Then there are those who take the time to research making damn sure it’s not available for purchase and in most cases even posted elsewhere then encoding the vinyl Lp clean it up and posting it (with or without commentary) there is a huge difference between these 3 styles of music blogging perhaps not in the eyes of Authority but in our own sense of what is and what is not correct and just.
Authority has throughout history thrust itself where it need not be and condoned behavior in it’s name that is immoral and repugnant to most human beings. Authority has also often been wrong.
Again bro thanks for bring up the topic, sure it’s gonna get even thicker as more and more people get into fun and joy of blogging a few ground rules/guidelines couldn’t hurt and no rules could bring it all to an end if it’s not already reaching it’s final moments in this incarnation.
Posted by: Record Brother | January 23, 2006 at 09:40 PM
Well, I've had some correspondence with Arthur Lee a bit in the past, and have his email address. We'll put your theory to the test and see if artists who's videos are not available mind if you distribute their work with no payout to them. I'm sure you'll here from somebody.
You pushed a good friend of mine just a little too far.
Posted by: Up Yours | January 23, 2006 at 10:29 PM
"Well, I've had some correspondence with Arthur Lee a bit in the past, and have his email address. We'll put your theory to the test and see if artists who's videos are not available mind if you distribute their work with no payout to them. I'm sure you'll here from somebody."
Good luck with that.
"You pushed a good friend of mine just a little too far."
What are you talking about? Who did I "push too far"? And how? By having an opinion about something?
Look, i didn't try to shut somebody down like you're suggesting or report anybody to anyone about anything. I just made a comment on my blog about a particular type of music blog using this Hanzunblog as an example. And now it's all this. Get over it.
Posted by: Cookie | January 23, 2006 at 10:57 PM