NIN

So, Nine Inch Nails is getting all the love these days. Nine Inch Nails offers it's latest album, Ghosts I-IV, under a Creative Commons license. The media reported, servers crashed, lavish "collector" copies of the album were scooped up by people with far too much disposable cash. NIN's site claims that the download is 36 tracks, but I only got 9. BoingBoing's; coverage suggests that all 36 tracks are available as remixes, and maybe they are, but not by clicking on "downloads" at NIN's site.

This is being heralded as a victory for "free music;" the mainstream media is glomming on to the idea that you can make a profit from giving your content away. JoCo would be turning over in his grave, only he's not dead. And Trent's not giving his content away. If you want to hear Ghosts II-IV, you've got to buy them. Or download them from someone else. But given the morose instrumental nature of Ghosts I (one BoingBoing commenter called it 'edgy elevator music'), why bother?

There are basically two things wrong with the Ghosts I-IV story. First, The nine tracks I've downloaded are only marginally ok at best, and if NIN were really embrasing the copyleft, why not make the entirety of the NIN catalog available? I could get into a free copy of Pretty Hate Machine. It's not like I didn't buy it once already anyway.
And secondly, by releasing Ghosts I-IV as CC-redistributable music, but not making himself the distributor (although there is evidence that NIN seeded the torrent themselves), people are going to be confused about the legality of grabbing a copy of the 36-track complete work off the torrents.

I'm happy for the increase in CC-awareness amongst Rock and Roll superstars, and, even though I've outgrown Nine Inch Nails, I want this venture to be successful for them.