Ghosts I-IV

[zerodivide1101]

Couple thoughts on Ghosts I-IV.

1. Disclaimer: I've listened to a few random tracks on the online player, but I haven't downloaded (or paid for) any of it.

2. Just to get it out of the way, track 24 is like Nitzer Ebb except really awesome.

3. I don't understand why they offer any kind of a free download. The album (albums?) is licensed under the

Comments

[theophile]

Trent Reznor has been biting my style since the late '80s. no one ever gives me the credit I deserve for writing "Head Like A Hole," for example.

re: 3, though. I think the idea is an attempt on Trent's part to encourage a paradigm shift. and I respect that a lot. by licensing the music so that it can be legally and freely distributed over any channels, he takes a step back from the punitive, legalistic stance that has pretty much dominated considerations of intellectual property since the internet made everything so topsy-turvy: the idea of, basically, "if you steal my music/movie/book I will fucking sue you." but by only making a limited amount of the material available free directly from him, he continues to communicate his preference: "please feel free to sample this, but if you want to hear this music I would like you to pay me for it."

I think, viewed as a response to RIAA tactics, the trial download + CreativeCommons licensing is a very ethical choice. and, hell, he convinced me, at least, to pay for something I could

[zerodivide1101]

I think it's a great choice, I just think that offering a free download on top of the CC license is an unnecessary step on the artist's part. The licensing says "here, you can have this for free," so I think leaving the burden on the listener to foot the bandwidth bill, whether by paying the artist directly or getting it from BT or wherever would have been incredibly reasonable.

[theophile]

yeah, I guess what I was getting at is that, by footing the bill for the free download, Trent can continue to communicate that they think you should pay if you want to hear the whole thing, even if you don't have to, and even if he cedes the right to sue you if you don't. it's a kind of complicated/ambivalent message, but it has to be for an artist who depends on music sales for his career but is coming to terms with the undeniable value of music sharing.

as far as I know, he's still the only real serious, professional musician to have come right out and admitted to using OiNK and thepiratebay, so overall he probably feels like he's going out on a limb somewhat here.