King Crimson videos and MP3s no longer allowed !

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Well, with the advent of websites like last.fm, myspace.com and youtube.com the situation has changed a lot compared to two years ago. For every major band - and most recent small/obscure bands - you can access high quality samples, there's no need for the archives to provide them. Of course I know why they're still here - to attract visitors and boost ad revenue.

Last FM have been told to remove KC tracks as well.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it must be Mr. Fripp himself then ... he can join the club of internet-hating musicians, along with Metallica and Prince.

I read his blog. He also stopped further production of the "Inside Story" DVD about KC.

At the end of the day he's protecting and maximising his earnings. Good for him.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Fripp would be a whiny bitch, musicians from the '70s don't seem to understand the internet at all, especially considering some of the odd, egocentric stuff that he's pulled in the past (like going on tour with every player but him illuminated). Oh well, just another reason to dislike KC. ;-)

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ well, he's not maximising his earnings by the crappy selection of live recordings available on their myspace page ...

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Maybe KC should request all stores and online retailers pull their CDs as well.  Then they can ask those of us with CDs to destroy them.  Once all the King Crimson music in the world has been destroyed, it can't possibly be pirated!  Take that freeloaders!  

Am I the only one who's totally on Fripp's side here? To be frank I don't understand why any artist would allow these "free" MP3's and "free" videos. If you take a look at Youtube, for example, there's a huge amount of video clips, full movies even, that the guy who posted them has absolutely no rights to distribute. I believe Youtube is meant for videos that you've made yourself (out of copyright-free material), and it makes no sense to me that the administrators of the site won't remove an illegally uploaded video when they see one (and if they ever visit their site they must see thousands of them). What's the difference of uploading a piece of film and giving away free copies of it on the street?

The same goes for MP3's. Do Progarchives, for example, have a permission from all these artists to have their songs available here? If not, I think they really should have. Sure, the MP3's are here for demonstration purposes, but isn't it the artist who should have the right to decide whether he wants to give his music away for demonstration purposes or not? I understand it's nice to have an opportunity to listen to an album before buying it, but is it really so much more troublesome to listen to it at the store where you're going to buy it?

I love fripp music, but he is not promoting his works well, in this case.

I really don't see how having free streaming MP3s on progarchives or last.fm is going to affect him in any way. KC's discography still sells quite well. I've seen almost all of their albums in every Best Buy or Borders that I've walked into plus many tons of their work sold in used stores too. Almost every show on the 40th anniversary tour was soldout and I'm sure Fripp brings in enough revenue for the many collaborations he's done.

Prog may not be a mainstream genre anymore but it has a very dedicated fanbase who is willing to shell out the money for the music.

Fripp does have the right to say where KC's music is played even if many of us do not agree with it. I personally think he's taken it a bit too far but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If I were in his shoes I would just be happy that people are enjoying my music in general.

I guess this purge of free MP3s doesn't extend to live recordings because there are a few live King Crimson shows available to be streamed over on Wolfgang's Vault.

Vompatti wrote: Am I the only one who's totally on Fripp's side here? To be frank I don't understand why any artist would allow these "free" MP3's and "free" videos. If you take a look at Youtube, for example, there's a huge amount of video clips, full movies even, that the guy who posted them has absolutely no rights to distribute. I believe Youtube is meant for videos that you've made yourself (out of copyright-free material), and it makes no sense to me that the administrators of the site won't remove an illegally uploaded video when they see one (and if they ever visit their site they must see thousands of them). What's the difference of uploading a piece of film and giving away free copies of it on the street? The same goes for MP3's. Do Progarchives, for example, have a permission from all these artists to have their songs available here? If not, I think they really should have. Sure, the MP3's are here for demonstration purposes, but isn't it the artist who should have the right to decide whether he wants to give his music away for demonstration purposes or not? I understand it's nice to have an opportunity to listen to an album before buying it, but is it really so much more troublesome to listen to it at the store where you're going to buy it?

Vompatti wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Vompatti wrote: Am I the only one who's totally on Fripp's side here? To be frank I don't understand why any artist would allow these "free" MP3's and "free" videos. If you take a look at Youtube, for example, there's a huge amount of video clips, full movies even, that the guy who posted them has absolutely no rights to distribute. I believe Youtube is meant for videos that you've made yourself (out of copyright-free material), and it makes no sense to me that the administrators of the site won't remove an illegally uploaded video when they see one (and if they ever visit their site they must see thousands of them). What's the difference of uploading a piece of film and giving away free copies of it on the street? The same goes for MP3's. Do Progarchives, for example, have a permission from all these artists to have their songs available here? If not, I think they really should have. Sure, the MP3's are here for demonstration purposes, but isn't it the artist who should have the right to decide whether he wants to give his music away for demonstration purposes or not? I understand it's nice to have an opportunity to listen to an album before buying it, but is it really so much more troublesome to listen to it at the store where you're going to buy it? They do have permission, for most of them at least.   How can you listen to at the store? Do you really not understand why any artist would have more than 30 second samples freely available? I meant the kind of stores that you walk into, take the album in your hand and say to the person behind the counter that you want to hear it. Then he takes the record out of the sleeve and puts it on this device they call the "record player", and then it starts to spin and while it spins it makes a sound.