0 ...

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:33:52 +0100

FTP File downloads Good Trent Reznor Http://file.noocle.com - japanfunny

...

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:18:44 +0100

come on - if people don't think all the work Trent put into this project, along with Atticus, Allesandro and Rob - the 3 main people other than Trent involved - isn't worth $5 - what is to become of music. I personally find the low price tag kind of insulting to the level of genious and work that was put into this project. Just because Trent's rich doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be compensated for his work - and Rob, Atticus and Allesandro sure aren't rich. You can't even buy a beer in a club for $5, and there are people who are unwilling to pay $5 for 36 full songs. I don't think he licensed it under cc so cheap assholes can avoid paying $5 - it's so some 14 year old can make a remix or do a youtube video and not have to worry about the music industry making an example of them and sueing their 14 year old ass. What Trent's doing makes me love and respect him even more - JC

...

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:21:49 +0100

I fully support the rebranding of a high bitrate DRM free Mp3 Albums at $5, I'd probably buy more instead of the nothing I buy now because CDs are way overpriced. - Jason

...

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:12:17 +0100

Whether or not to pay for Ghosts if you indeed do listen to it regularly, is more of a ethical and moral issue than a legal issue. The decent thing to do if you listen to and enjoy his record, is to buy it. Most of us can afford the 5 bucks. Most of us can afford to pay even more than 5 bucks -- especially when the value delivered is higher than for a traditional CD. Having a "taste" should be free: you listen to it, and if you don't like it, you don't buy it. Simple as that. If you do like it you can choose to support the band to ensure they can make a living creating what you enjoy listening to. Now, the creative commons license, in my opinion, serves a slightly different purpose. I view it as removing the usual obstacles of creating derivative works. To create a derivative work of some piece of music is fraught with legal risks and substantial cost: if you sample a piece of music and use it in your own work, you need to license it. Even if you do not intend to charge money for your derivative work. These fees tend to be exorbitant. What Trent Reznor has done is to make it a lot simpler for fans to create derivative works that can be distributed under certain conditions WITHOUT the risk of being slapped with a lawsuit that can bankrupt you. - F

...

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:33:32 +0100

If it's released under CC, then the author intended for people to be able to get it for free. Taking them up on it isn't being an asshole. Maybe they won't like it, why should they pay 5 bucks for it? Obviously plenty of folks did feel it was worth paying for, and reportedly the artist made a fairly substantial windfall. What's to be upset about? - Adam H

...

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:11:20 +0100

I think the biggest selling point on the deluxe edition is that he included the digital files he used to make the music, with all the individual instrument tracks. To a homemade remix artist, this is a gold mine. - DebtOn

...

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:50:29 +0100

Or you could not be an asshole and pay the fucking 5 bucks for the album (and this is a 36 track album, not the usual 14 tracks or so for 30$) - so

...

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:12:54 +0100

Although the NIN website only made the first 9 tracks of the album free to download, all 36 songs are licensed under a Creative Commons License which means that Reznor has made the entire album free to copy, download, distribute and modify. If you wish to download the entire album in CD quality, simply go into google and type "Ghosts flac" and you can download the entire album (via Bittorrent) in .flac format. Although much filesharing is technically "illegal", downloading the NIN album in such a way is NOT illegal in any way or form. - One Salient Oversight