digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at torrentfreak.com

Pirated by iTunes, Artist Turns to BitTorrent

torrentfreak.com — The Flashbulb, aka Benn Jordan, became so outraged when he discovered that iTunes was effectively pirating his music, that he uploaded copies of his latest album to BitTorrent. TorrentFreak caught up with Benn to learn more about the decision to stop distributors and 'coked-up label reps' from getting all the cash.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • evanstapler, on 02/06/2008, -8/+80Here is the torrent of his album "Soundtrack To A Vacant Life" referenced in the article: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4006823/The_Flashbulb_ ...
    • Goose31, on 02/06/2008, -1/+34http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4011889/The_Flashbulb_ ...

      FLAC version. The above is a V0.
      • nospinhere, on 02/06/2008, -12/+7Apple and itunes are raping artists and ruining the music industry as much as the RIAA.
    • clickmyface, on 02/06/2008, -34/+18I won't be downloading it. He cam across as a huge douche to me.

      This article reeked of *****.

      He "investigated the numbers" and found out that retailers make more than artists and labels off CD sales? No, they really, truly don't. Really.

      He's blaming iTunes for everything? Guess what, you don't own your music! You signed it away and you need to own that fact. Clearly your label thinks you are retarded and is ignoring your request to remove the content (as is entirely logical from their perspective). You don't own the content, you just have rights to profit from it. Your label controls where it goes e.g. iTunes and how long it stays there. It sounds a lot like his label is making profits off iTunes sales and not sharing it.

      This is the equivalent of going into a Best Buy or the Fred Meyers electronics department and bitching at the sales clerk and asking them to remove his album from the shelves. Simply stupid.
      • worthone, on 02/06/2008, -5/+28Guess what!

        "I currently release music with one record label, my own. I own 100% of it and I own 100% of the mechanical, publishing, and performance rights to my music. The same goes for any other album I’ve released in the past, I’ve reacquired all rights back from the labels. As it is possible that some 3rd party had uploaded my music to iTunes, they are still lacking any sort of competence in establishing communications with their artists. If you buy my album on iTunes, there is simply no route in which that money can ever get to me."

        Source: http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/. Try reading it, you might wisen up.
        • djbon2112, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3You're at 7 diggs here, but down the page people saying the exact same thing are getting dugg down. Anyone else see something weird with that?
          • spyrochaete, on 02/06/2008, -2/+7The unspoken rule of Digg is to ignore the number of diggs you get and just focus on the comments. Humans discuss, monkeys gesture with their thumbs.
          • djbon2112, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1It's hard to ignore collective stupidity. Myself, and others, are in negative diggs for saying the EXACT SAME THING, but wirthone here is dugg up. Digg makes no sense sometimes!
          • RpgActioN, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I was going to digg spyro up but then I felt an overwhelming wave of irony blocking my path.
        • punkcat, on 02/06/2008, -2/+5dude he made his own label AFTER all that happened, ever not skim an article?
      • weareglass, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7From the article:
        "When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”."
        So, is he pleading with himself to let it be?

        This guy is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I'm sure he got screwed and that sucks for him, but the culprit is whatever person signed a distribution deal with iTunes, not some large corporation.
        • dunk71, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7I dug this article so that I could make the very same point. I worked for an indie label for over 5 years, and had some contact with Sublight actually,.. This article reads, to someone who's been involved with the industry, like Benn doesn't really understand the finer points of finance and contracts involved in manufacturing and distributing music. Even his comment about the 50/50 deal: 2000 sales is pretty low and I wouldn't really expect the label to make much money from that few sales when you take into account the expense of promoting an artist and releases. He'll do much better financially if he does all the work himself but he'll no longer have the expertise or assistance that the label can offer... That's the trade off.
    • Mike89, on 02/06/2008, -2/+13Sorry to comment jack, but a lot of people posting in here seem to be missing this (quoted from "Read First", it came with the torrent):
      "So, now what?
      Like the album? About to go "support the artist" on iTunes?
      Well, don't.
      Alphabasic is currently in a legal battle against Apple because NONE of our material (Sublight Records included) receives a dime of royalty from the vast amount of sales iTunes has generated using our material."
      It's not a miscommunication with his record label.. Aplle aren't paying the record label at all!
      • djbon2112, on 02/06/2008, -6/+1A record label HE OWNS, it must be added.
        • MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4"So I started investigating the numbers from the label, which led me to some shocking revelations about how little the artist and label was getting in comparison to the retailers. When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”. Everyone else made an extraordinary effort to ignore my calls and emails."

          Doesn't sound like it. "the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to 'leave it be'".
          • djbon2112, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2"1. I currently release music with one record label, my own. I own 100% of it and I own 100% of the mechanical, publishing, and performance rights to my music. The same goes for any other album I’ve released in the past, I’ve reacquired all rights back from the labels. "

            He's CEO, not necessarily the owner of the company per se. But that doesn't change the fact that he still owns his music! Reading comprehension FTW.
          • MWeather, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2He left the label and started his own. Reading comprehension, indeed.
          • MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2@djbon2112
            "I’ve reacquired all rights back from the labels." read your own quotes FTW.

            Just because he bought back all the rights to his music, does not nullify previous contracts between him and the label, and the label and Apple.
    • griz, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Pay the man!! Well, not THE man, but this man.
    • SumguyTwentyOne, on 02/06/2008, -1/+11Eh, I'll post the response he gave on his blog.

      I came home from a night of bowling to find a hundred Myspace messages about all the torrent-uploading-hoopla. A few of them were really nasty and accusatory, but I realize that some of these accusations are due to the Torrentfreak.com interview, which I didn’t really elaborate certain things all that much… (my bad, the write-up is really well done compared to how quickly the interview was done)

      1. I currently release music with one record label, my own. I own 100% of it and I own 100% of the mechanical, publishing, and performance rights to my music. The same goes for any other album I’ve released in the past, I’ve reacquired all rights back from the labels. As it is possible that some 3rd party had uploaded my music to iTunes, they are still lacking any sort of competence in establishing communications with their artists. If you buy my album on iTunes, there is simply no route in which that money can ever get to me.

      2. This all started from a private tracker putting freeleech status on my album after I uploaded it. Within 48 hours it became the most grabbed album on the site. Then the word started spreading outside of the network. While I’m extraordinarily grateful for it, please understand that there is no way I could’ve orchestrated this publicity.

      After all these years of being a musician/composer, I’ve slowly learned how the spread of mainstream information works. It seems like when you’re dealing with a controversial story, people don’t learn all that much. The unknown information becomes assumed facts and it just gets spun into whatever directions supports their previous opinions. For example, any of these headlines could fit this situation (and while not verbatim, you can do a quick search to find actual similar blog and article posts):

      -THE FLASHBULB PROMOTES STEALING MUSIC, THINKS MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE

      -DUE TO PIRACY LOSSES, ARTIST RESORTS TO BEGGING FOR TIPS INSIDE ILLEGAL DOWNLOAD FILE

      -THE FLASHBULB RELEASES NEW ALBUM FOR FREE

      All of these are true, in their own weird spin. At the same time they’re all misleading to support the writer’s opinion. You’ve heard my opinion in the interview and on this blog. I simply like the idea of NOT ignoring or criminalizing the percentage of my listeners that pirate my music. While they don’t literally buy my CDs, they certainly do help a lot by spreading the word about songs they like and coming out to shows. This is common sense, and I’m embarrassed that I’m even typing it. The only reason I’m typing it is because some labels and artists can’t seem to grasp the concept.

      Finally, Apple is a sociopathic, greedy, deceitful, environmentally-unfriendly corporation. You know how I know this? Because they’re a corporation…a really giant one. It doesn’t matter what their ad-campaigning or hip president has to say, if they do anything other than make the most shareholder profit as they possibly can, it is ILLEGAL. That includes leading you into a crappy cellphone contract, refusing to replace your defective 1-month old battery, or hiring representatives to deal with artist issues that are competent and paid a living wage.

      Apple has one goal, to make their shareholders money. If you’re so dedicated to this computer company that this information hurts you, then remember that Microsoft and Ikea and every other public corporation in the world is the exact same sociopathic entity. My quest isn’t about bashing Apple, it is about exploring and testing the music industry in an attempt to find a place where both the artists and listeners are happy. It doesn’t go any further than that.

      Anyways, most importantly, I’d like to thank all of those who have spread the word and sent their support. I’m so very happy that this is getting publicity, because it is steering other artists into this direction. Speaking of, Braindance legend and my good friend Cylob has released his new EP under the same “Buy it if you like it” distribution plan. And more ahead, I’ve been having meetings with other artists, labels, and even site admins about furthering this movement!
      • daborg, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2"It seems like when you’re dealing with a controversial story, people don’t learn all that much. The unknown information becomes assumed facts and it just gets spun into whatever directions supports their previous opinions."

        Wow, sounds like Digg.
  • say592, on 02/06/2008, -103/+223Yet another reason why Apple is evil.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 02/06/2008, -18/+30I was a total Apple fanboy until they charged me for a firmware update for my Touch. The apps were already developed for the iPhone so they decided to tap early adopters for more money.
      • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -13/+9Part of the rationale is that iPhone sw development is subsidized by the subscription fees they collect from ATT every month.

        At least you know the fee is contributing to them being able to justify continued development? If $20 was really that much of an issue you could have waited for the apps to get put on Installer.app and jailbroken the thing.
        • DarkDx, on 02/06/2008, -7/+5Wow.... just wow.
        • UltraMegaFilms, on 02/06/2008, -5/+11@ centerblack: will you stop blindly defending apple for $20?
          • centerblack, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Sure! Do you want my paypal address?
        • punkcat, on 02/06/2008, -3/+6no doubt, its not like the new touch is $20 more now either. the hardwork you spoke is now "free" for everyone else.
        • centerblack, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1@Punkcat & UltraMegaFilms
          I'm not blindly defending Apple.

          These aren't bug fixes. You bought the iPod Touch without these applications. If the apps aren't worth $20 to you then don't buy 'em.

          What else can I say? New Macs come with Leopard, do you want that for free too?
      • acomj, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9Actually they do it due to some obscure new accounting rule. My friend whos an accountant tried to explain it to me, but it has to do with costs associated with ongoing maintenance for revenue they're already booked or some such thing. They have to charge enough to pay for the development or they've "deceived" in there previous financial statements about revenue (or some such thing), especially since it adds functionality. I think apple got bit by a lawsuit before, other companies will probably start doing the same.

        Its stupid, but it is what it is.

        Computer business accounting is wierd.
        • ndelc, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Yes, you are exactly right. I forget what it's called but they'll get into big trouble if they don't. It's ridiculous, but Congress says it must be so.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1You're referring to SO which states if the product gets an addition that could add potential revenue, they must charge for it for shareholders. The thing is, when the Wii releases a new channel, Nintendo doesn't charge anyone. This is BS and pure corporate greed by Apple. I miss the days where customer service was #1 and you used to get bottled water upon entering an Apple store.
          • centerblack, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1I doubt anyone is going to go out and buy a Wii because it got the "Everybody Votes" channel..

            Mail on the iTouch on the other hand? Yea, that will sell.
    • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -8/+53His label had to give Apple permission to put the material up, so it's his //label// he should be arguing with. He needs to get a lawyer and sort out his contract. Apple isn't going to start pulling labels down at the behest of artists when their contract was negotiated with the label (which is probably negotiated on an annual basis and that's why it "can't be taken down for a year").

      Besides, if he has a label, and he's selling his music, he doesn't REALLY want it off of iTunes. He just wants to get properly compensated for it. Trying to pull it off iTunes himself is just his attempt at saying "***** you" to his label. That didn't work so he made a torrent of it.

      His label is in the wrong, not Apple. If they took the music down, they'd be breaking their contract w/ the label. Better to just let this guy and his label work it out instead of getting in the middle of it IMO.
      • tobias1482, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8Yeah I agree. It just sounds like a bad contract. I have several friends in signed bands and a couple of them have gotten really good national exposer in the past. They all thought that they had good contracts, but were all amazed at the little details that they missed later on. The contracts in general were far from being even in the end.

      • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Meant to say "Apple isn't going to start pulling _albums_ down at the behest of ..." btw.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 02/06/2008, -24/+4HE OWNS HIS LABEL. READ. YOU DUMB *****. ***** YOUR APPLE.
        • djbon2112, on 02/06/2008, -11/+3Don't dig this guy down because your collective reading comprehension sucks, people.
        • weareglass, on 02/06/2008, -1/+9From the article:
          "When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”."
          In another place he suggests he owns all of his recordings (a common situation with artists on the roster of an indie label), but he does not own his label, nor would he be the one to negotiate with Apple, Amazon, eMusic or Microsoft.
        • punkcat, on 02/06/2008, -3/+9god u *****, stop skimming FFS, this is what made him create his own label.
      • worthone, on 02/06/2008, -7/+8UltraMegaFilms is probably one of the few visible people who has done their ***** homework. At least some people do background checking here. See here, this is an excerpt from his blog: "I really hate the word/title “CEO”, especially for a company that hires less than 5 people. I guess, when dealing with something that will be inevitably looked at by other businesses, I just sign my name with what the State of Illinois has titled me."

        Or how about this subtle hint of label ownership: "I currently release music with one record label, my own. I own 100% of it and I own 100% of the mechanical, publishing, and performance rights to my music. The same goes for any other album I’ve released in the past, I’ve reacquired all rights back from the labels. As it is possible that some 3rd party had uploaded my music to iTunes, they are still lacking any sort of competence in establishing communications with their artists. If you buy my album on iTunes, there is simply no route in which that money can ever get to me."

        Next time, investigate more.
        • weareglass, on 02/06/2008, -1/+11Alright, so I investigated more, which suggests you need to take your own advice.
          Simply cruise on down to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flashbulb and you will see he *CURRENTLY* releases music on Alphabasic, which is most likely his own label, but in the past, the majority of his albums were released on Sublight Records, the label with which the offenses seem to be committed.
          Further researching, we can find that both his albums on iTunes were released by Bohnerwachs Tontraeger ( http://www.discogs.com/label/Bohnerwachs+Tontraege ... ), a label based out of Germany. So, pretty effing unlikely that the German-based label is his own since he's based in America.
          • dunk71, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Could be licensed for different territories through different labels. Artists are rarely succinct when explaining the technicalities of business.
        • dunk71, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5If Benn "reacquired" the rights from the labels he previously worked with it may be that iTunes had a deal with one of those former labels, or even the label's distributors, which is where the money will be going. Benn's argument, although not helped by Apple's stance, should be with whoever is continuing that contract with Apple.
    • borez, on 02/06/2008, -4/+13I agree with centrblack, his label had every right to put his music up on Itunes.

      FYI: As a UK artist I formed a my own shell record label and when I finish a tune I use this company ( this is not spam by the way )

      http://state51.com/

      Who basically upload my track to virtually every digital site going. Therefore any label who I sign tracks to will basically do the same thing without actually knowing the track is already up there ( It usually appears on the labels specific page, away from my own uploads anyway ) So a search for my track will usually go to me, not them. Because I do this before signing to the label, it's perfectly legal ( i.e. their problem for not doing the research )

      I get most of the money, I've never been caught yet.

      Either swim fast, or get eaten by sharks in the music industry.
      • Mike89, on 02/06/2008, -6/+3(quoted from "Read First", it came with the torrent):
        "So, now what?
        Like the album? About to go "support the artist" on iTunes?
        Well, don't.
        Alphabasic is currently in a legal battle against Apple because NONE of our material (Sublight Records included) receives a dime of royalty from the vast amount of sales iTunes has generated using our material."
        It's not a miscommunication with his record label.. Aplle aren't paying the record label at all!
        • weareglass, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5No it's the wrong label, the records were released on iTunes by his German distributor. See above.
    • dsmx, on 02/06/2008, -7/+3Whats worse is there trying to reduce the royalties even further to 4 cents on itunes, you might as well pirate it at that level the artist gets next to nothing anyway.
  • ChefGroovy, on 02/06/2008, -52/+86apple is teh suck
    • lamprey187, on 02/06/2008, -10/+1this is some underground pirate sh%thttp://digg.com/television/Zip_Up_You_Fly_NBC_airs ...
      • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4Not really. The label is in the wrong. They entered into an agreement with Apple to distribute the album on iTunes. If they are violating their agreement with their client by doing so, then they are the ones who need to sort out this mess.

        It really only makes sense for Apple to let the artist and the label sort it out.
        • worthone, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3So what if the label is owned by the artist and the artist hasn't approved any of this? (Read: http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/)
          • MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3The label isn't owned by the artist, that's misinformation.

            "So I started investigating the numbers from the label, which led me to some shocking revelations about how little the artist and label was getting in comparison to the retailers. When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”. Everyone else made an extraordinary effort to ignore my calls and emails."

            Key phrase: "the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to 'leave it be'".
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 02/06/2008, -12/+1Its funny that you don't hear people talking about how great their macs are when their wonderful company ***** over artists.
      • mannypdesign, on 02/06/2008, -3/+6Speaking of Apple, I love my new Mac Pro--it's a dream to use and migrating my user folder was a snap. What a great computer.

        ...

        Sorry... you were saying?
      • bbardlbradd, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4It's funny that you don't hear people talking about how great their Macs are when it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
  • Cronikeys, on 02/06/2008, -28/+55I am a huge fan of Apple... but that reply email he got is embarrassing.
    • megaton, on 02/06/2008, -22/+26And so was the contract he signed authorizing his distributor to use Apple as a hub. Oh, wait, let's blindly hate for a minute...
      • megaton, on 02/06/2008, -19/+12Please! Digg me down more! Let's show your blind adheration toward the fact THE GUY SIGNED A ***** CONTRACT AND CAN'T BACK OUT OF IT, DESPITE HIS DEEPEST AND MOST PENETRATING DESIRES!!

        I stand against a torrent and I'm bound to get drowned... *patiently waits for the ignorance to overwhelm*
        • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -3/+10Nah you're right. Everyone wants to cry foul about Apple but they entered into an agreement with the label. If the label is breaking their contract with the artist, then they should be the ones paying him damages IMO.

          He needs to sort this out with his label. Then his label can figure out how they're either going to compensate him or exit their agreement with Apple.
        • Jenadae, on 02/06/2008, -7/+9Your right, but i dugg you down because you're an asshat.
          • megaton, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Well, in all fairness, I was dugg down about -20 at the time I wrote the reply-to-my-reply, so I'm only a desperate asshat. ^_^
        • spyrochaete, on 02/06/2008, -9/+3Was it in his contract that he get a ***** reply email from Apple?
        • NinjaJoey, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Hmm, you might be right, but as Jenadae said, you're a dumbass.
    • prophetpimp, on 02/06/2008, -31/+11If you are a fan of apple you are a *****. If you like their products then its good but that company is far far far more worse then MS.
      • behemothaur, on 02/06/2008, -9/+11Ditto - what kind of a ***** is a huge fan of a company? Maybe be a fan of the few people who work there with genuine skill and talent, or even better be a fan of an artist.

        Being a company fanboy is just wrong.
      • AntzNZ, on 02/06/2008, -3/+15A *****? Really?
    • pintomp3, on 02/06/2008, -7/+17wendy should have included "We also feel you are getting paid too much for the music you create. You should only get 4%"
      • ndelc, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4More "Diggnorance". A digital distribution organization that deals with Apple, along with about 30 other companies, believes that the songwriter/publisher cut should be 4%. Apple didn't say that.
  • gavin422, on 02/06/2008, -7/+43What.cd even got behind his decision by posting his article on their front page and making his album free leech. I'm glad to see this new alliance between artists and trackers, and I hope it leads to a better future for the music industry.

    Oh, and if you like the album or the cause behind it, you can drop him a donation at his site here: http://www.alphabasic.com/index2.htm
    • smacksaw, on 02/06/2008, -4/+2I'll donate to him when he sends me a What.cd invite
    • gharding, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2It's up to about 3,000 snatches (V0 + FLAC). Pretty impressive. I plan on donating once I'm at my computer and somewhat sober.
      • Haloark, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1I'm seeing over 6,500 total. Not bad!
        • lcmatt, on 02/06/2008, -2/+6Downloaded his album but it wasn't my type of music. Sent him a donation though just to say thanks.
      • NinjaJoey, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1I got a ton of upload credit off that guy. Donation, here we come.
    • xlneoMAXlx, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1When the pirate bay torrent was at 50% for all leechers I seeded the one I got on what.cd... And when all the leechers hit 100% the ***** stopped their torrents. >:[
    • postalblowfish7, on 02/06/2008, -0/+21) Make an album
      2) Give it away over BitTorrent
      3) ????
      4) Profit!
  • cdawzrd, on 02/06/2008, -11/+56***** THE RIAA
    ...er...
  • retral, on 02/06/2008, -7/+107RIAA needs to end. Only giving 13% of sales to the artists themselves, using extortionist tactics on poor college students, suing people for money they don't have for pirating stuff that they (the RIAA) overvalue 10,000%.. obligatory "***** the RIAA!"
    • fkr3, on 02/06/2008, -3/+413% of the sales go to the artists..... how is that any different from you, me and everyone else drawing a wage? You think we get paid anywhere near what the companies we work for charges for our work?

      Extortionist tactics is debatable... the college kids pirated the stuff on a network where they're exceptionally accountable for their actions. It's every biy as stupid as using your workstation at work to pirate stuff... after you sign in. Their tactics are heavy-handed but let's not make excuses for stupidity meeting consequences.

      The 10,000% overvaluation is ridiculous... really... you think a song is only worth somewhere between a nickel and a dime?
      • ToadLeg, on 02/06/2008, -4/+5Not all of us are happy being slaves, or as you put it, "drawing a wage".

        "the college kids" - Who's college kids? Your college kids? My college kids? Her college kids? Those college kids over there? Make an absurd generalization as a premise and everything else that follows is *****.

        Yes, I would say a song is worth somewhere around a nickel or dime. At that price, you could fill an Ipod with 1000-2000 songs for $100. They sure as hell would sell a lot more music at that price, especially if they sold non-DRM FLACs.
        • fkr3, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4"Not all of us are happy being slaves, or as you put it, "drawing a wage"."
          True, doesn't change the fundamental fact that signed artists are essentially employees, and that ultimately they do have a choice (although circumstances generally guarantee the outcome of that choice for most of us).

          "Make an absurd generalization as a premise and everything else that follows is *****."
          The post I replied to specifically mentioned extortionist tactics against poor college students. If you're stupid enough to pirate media on a network where you are absolutely identifiable then you're an idiot regardless of the tactics the RIAA uses.

          "Yes, I would say a song is worth somewhere around a nickel or dime."
          Then your perspective is broken. Albums cost significant amounts of time and money to produce and these days they're sold for significantly less than most other things. What else can you buy for $1 and consume over and over again? You can't even get a cup of coffee on the way to work for that much. But a song you can listen to every day on the way to work, for the rest of your life if you want, is worth a dime lol.
          • ToadLeg, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2An album costs a computer 400 nanoseconds to produce at Itunes, and an other 4 seconds to ship over the internet. The cost to Apple is about $0.000001, and everything else is profit, excepr for the royalties they...oh, right.

            BTW your perspective is broken - "what else can you buy for $1". What if they only sold half a song for $1? Or a quarter of a song? At what point does several moments of DRM restricted, destructively compressed sound become worth less than $1? What if you could buy 10 songs for $1? How much does it cost to fill a 40GB Ipod?
          • fkr3, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4So songs should be cheap just because storage has gotten bigger and you therefore want more? Food doesn't get cheaper when you upgade to a bigger fridge. Chairs don't get cheaper as your ass gets bigger. Rent doesn't get cheaper when you get a bigger house too. There's no real justification for wanting more for even less than the reasonable rates Amazon, iTunes etc charge other than greed.
          • retral, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1"The 10,000% overvaluation is ridiculous... really... you think a song is only worth somewhere between a nickel and a dime?"

            I was referring to the fact that RIAA sues for like $1,000 or more per song infringed or something stupid like that.
      • spyrochaete, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4"you think a song is only worth somewhere between a nickel and a dime?"
        An album is worth as much as someone will pay for it. Musicians are lucky if anyone is willing to pay anything for some bits.
    • skribble, on 02/06/2008, -1/+0Hmmm... 13% isn't bad... Seriously let's look at this.
      Slightly less then 50% of an album's SRP generally goes to retail... The retailers, generally discount this (nobody pays SRP for anything unless they are stupid). So retailers profits are generally 20-30%... not bad, but in a traditional Brick and Mortar store there is lot's of overhead, warehousing and inventory costs, not to mention paying employees.
      The 50% that goes to the record company (which is what royalties are based on... this is important, artists don't get paid a % of what you pay retail, they get paid a % of the $ the record co receives wholesale). So of the 50% the record company gets "13%" goes to the artist, and the rest goes to cover the raw costs of manufacturing, development ... oh yea... most artists "loose" money for the record companies, so if you happen to be successful some of you money goes to cover that too. What gets musicians screwed over is almost entirely there own doing. They effectively barrow hugh sums of money from the record company up front in the form of advances, studio rental, crazy touring budgets, etc (all things they agree too in there contracts) and then complain when they are asked to pay it back. Many many many major label artists have done quite well by resisting this up front infusion, and living within there means. They come out of the deal doing what they love and making a living at it.
      Also 99% of the people working for the major labels are just normal people working there jobs to put food on their tables and pay rent just like the rest of us.
      Am I saying that a record company never screwed an artist? Hell no... they do it, and do it often, but this only happens when the artist themselves are either stupid, or greedy.
  • AppleGeorge, on 02/06/2008, -22/+6They called What.cd the "OiNK Replacement", but they didn't bother to mention Waffles? What.cd is run by a bunch of 16 year old kids who have no idea how to run a website.
    • SadBeef, on 02/06/2008, -5/+4im very impressed so far with what.cd

      i'm not a member of waffles, but then again, something tells me you don't have a what.cd account.
    • fool13, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2I'm a member of both and they are both great sites. I don't see why you have any problem with what, it's a great site just as waffles is. The artist chose to mention what because he spoke with what.cd admins to get the album distributed, I did not hear anything like that concerning waffles. If you are so unhappy with how what.cd is run delete your account so we can invite someone else who will appreciate it.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3You're an all grown up big boy of nineteen; clearly in the last three years you learned everything about web design that those "16 year old kids" are clueless about.
    • NinjaJoey, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure what has more torrents. It doesn't matter though. PU of either site get an obligatory invite. From all the feedback I've heard, most people like the what.cd community much better.
  • casual7y, on 02/06/2008, -5/+8everyone's doing it.
  • 37prime, on 02/06/2008, -1/+23His Publishers should have some answer, no matter how lame it could be.
  • TheAtomicMoose, on 02/06/2008, -24/+25God damn, I love Apple's products... and up until recently I loved the company. But, seriously, what the *****? Get your act together, Apple, or prepare to lose your faithful.
    • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -8/+19The label entered into an agreement with Apple to distribute the album on iTunes for 1 year. If they are breaking a contract with their client by doing so, then it's the labels responsibility to either compensate the artist properly as per their contract or to negotiate a withdrawal from their agreement with Apple.

      Trying to involve Apple in this is senseless. The label may be at fault, or this guy just signed a ***** contract. Either way, it's not Apples problem or business until he sorts it out with the label.
      • ronaldinho, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3I think what happened was that he signed the contract way before iTunes become the norm today, so he never had a chance to brace himself for the labels leeching off him when iTunes came aboard. The label simply took advantage of the loophole here, which is that the presence of iTunes was never accounted for, so technically it is not wrong for the labels to use it. Now I'm not sure what the exact language of the contract is, but I'm guessing that's what happening.

        For those hating on Apple, let me tell you that Apple deals directly with the labels and not the artists, so the money flows from them to the labels in regards to iTunes, and the labels should be compensating the artists. Sensationalist title, should have read "pirated by his label". And since we are on how labels are raping their own artists, I say.....***** the RIAA
    • yabos, on 02/06/2008, -5/+5Apple signs contracts with the labels. If the labels said Apple can have the music then they put the music on iTMS. This guy should get his label to pull it if he doesn't want it on there, it's not up to Apple to deal with the individual musicians.
      • Murdats, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2he is his label, he owns his music, the point is even though he has the rights, he cant get it pulled and neither him nor his previous label are getting any money from the sales, apple is keeping 100%
        • MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2"When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to 'leave it be'."

          He wasn't the label when it was published, he reacquired the rights to his music after the fact, his old label Sublight Records probably has a contract with Apple, hence they can't pull the music without being in breach of contract.
    • Kakcoo, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2Drama queen.
  • bobartig, on 02/06/2008, -8/+50What the hell is up with Wendy from Apple?

    "Dear Benn,
    I understand that you are writing to the iTunes Store because you are upset about finding your own album “The Flashlight” and some of your other album as well on the iTunes Store, and that you feel that you are [b]owned[/b]
    royalties for this music that [b]his[/b] being purchased. I am sorry that you [b]have to[/b] found this upsetting. My name is Wendy, and I would be happy to link you [b]to right people[/b] to talk to about this issue"

    ...for great justice?
    • fkr3, on 02/06/2008, -2/+23I find that a bit suspicious.... I've traded emails with iTunes' support a number of times over the years and they've always been literate and much more prone to resolving an issue.
      • tobias1482, on 02/06/2008, -4/+1but have you been a third party individual who is upset about a bad contract and their music label? Legalese...

      • playmusic, on 02/06/2008, -2/+7I agree. I think this guy is full of ***** trying to promote his album.
      • jackcrack7, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1You've been lucky. I've never been able to get a coherent response from iTunes support. Everytime I got an e-mail response i'd have to call in to find out what in the hell they were trying to say.
    • mstump, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2You missed a few.
    • NinjaJoey, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Take off every zig...?
    • Testiculese, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Typical Apple person, that 'i' stands for Idiot.
  • Mytzylplyx, on 02/06/2008, -41/+66This guy is a hack and always has been. He is an Aphex Twin rip off through and through. That quoted email was most likely written by him. Who at Apple would send an email about potential legal matters in regards to iTunes with so many errors and misspellings? Further, this is completely one sided seeing as we havent heard the response from his record labels. So whos to say hes not lying about the whole thing?
    • signal15, on 02/06/2008, -0/+45I don't know about that. My friend's dad has over 20 albums out since the 70's, and they are being sold on iTunes and he is NOT being compensated for it. I believe he has hired legal counsel.

      Artists ARE being screwed, but I don't think it's iTunes that's doing the screwing (at least in most cases). iTunes should be giving money from sales to the labels, who should be paying the artists. But the labels are not paying the artists citing that royalties from internet downloads are not listed in their contracts (many of which were written before anyone even knew what the internet was).
      • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10Exactly. It sucks, but the labels entered into an agreement with Apple/iTunes to distribute the album(s). Apple is just upholding their part of the bargain. People need to hire lawyers and get their contracts re-negotiated or get their labels to properly compensate them.
      • ElectroBot, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6Shouldn't the contract forbid the labels to distribute the songs on iTunes b/c it wasn't specifically stated in the contract?
        • RetlawST, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Yes, thus the need to contact a lawyer to stop them from doing it. Contract law is sticky though, because oftentimes artists will sign away rights to music in order to get produced. It's a slimey business model but the music industry has been doing it for years.
      • skribble, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Most contract are written to cover things like this in the favor of the company. A certain number of computer book publishing companies were once owned by a large media company that begins with "V" and the contracts not only included digital right but theme park rights (just in case they wanted to build a roller coster based on "HTML for Idiots" or something).
    • herrstabby, on 02/06/2008, -8/+23Simply put, the Flashbulb is good music. ***** you. Besides, we're getting to a point where we don't need the music industry. Down with the middlemen!
      • skribble, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1When musicians feel they don't need the industry then the will stop signing contracts and the industry will... "transform" (not disappear just change). But as long as there are "artists" lured by the idea of being on a major label that wont happen.
    • DeathJux, on 02/06/2008, -6/+11If you think he's a hack, and an Aphex Twin rip off, you haven't listened to him, or you're ignorant. His work takes what Aphex started and makes it so ***** awesome.

      Aphex is very hit or miss for me, whereas the Flashbulb is non-stop ***** incredible music. He's seriously my favorite artist of all time, and I listen to and enjoy a *lot* of different music.
    • stereoa, on 02/06/2008, -4/+10I've never listened to flashbulb, but saying he's a 'Aphex Twin ripoff' is silly. You're stupid and I am not going to provide facts for my argument.
    • playmusic, on 02/06/2008, -6/+8Yes, I call ***** on this article. My band makes a lot of money from iTunes. This guy is trying to promote himself by stirring up a crap story.
  • Butterbean, on 02/06/2008, -14/+70who the hell is The Flashbulb...
    • DivisibleByZero, on 02/06/2008, -18/+25A guy who made up a story about iTunes stealing his music (or probably just didn't read his contract well enough) so he could drive up publicity.
    • hookback, on 02/06/2008, -16/+5Go listen to your Britney spears albums and shut up, ok?
    • DeathJux, on 02/06/2008, -5/+14The Flashbulb is, simply put, the best electronic artist that I've ever heard, and my favorite artist of all-time. His music is in the same vein as Aphex Twin/Squarepusher/Venetian Snares (drill and bass type stuff) but there's a thread of consistency through all of his songs.

      I can't stand a lot of songs by the aforementioned artists, due to the chaos, but The Flashbulb's stuff wraps that chaos around a consistent thread of order, taking it to heights I've never before experienced.
    • Nutt3rz, on 02/06/2008, -6/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flashbulb
      This should help if you're really interested. Though, DeathJux pretty much sums it up.
      Also, to everyone who says he is a rip-off of Aphex Twin, listen to Aphex Twin then listen to Benn's.
      Compare their styles, or maybe just read this and compare:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphex_Twin
    • alz0rz, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1The FLASH.. ZIP ZIP ZAMMM
  • 400zone, on 02/06/2008, -30/+42I love how Apple fans think that the company is so pro-creativity and "different" from the mainstream when its obviously devolved into being another faceless corporate entity. Mind you, I have no problem with big business, but Apple fans seem to think that their unique because Apple is so hip and artsy and cares about its users.

    Examples like this and the botched iPhone launch (bricking, rebate fiasco, etc.) show that Apple is nothing like its purveyors want it to be. Its slowly turned into the being that it was trying to separate itself from. In an ironic twist, Apple is the new Microsoft; where suspect tactics are employed to become the leader in the market.
    • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -3/+10If this story is true, then the label had to enter into an agreement with Apple/iTunes. If that agreement breaks a prior contract/agreement they had with a client, then it's the // labels // responsibility to sort this out with Apple or start properly compensating their client.

      You can't expect Apple to respond to this persons claims that his album shouldn't be up, because they don't have access to his contract with his label, and because they are contractually obligated to distribute the album for one year.

      Why do you think it's Apples responsibility to provide legal resources for this artist to resolve his dispute with his label !??!
    • spyrochaete, on 02/06/2008, -7/+7My favourite was when Apple recently charged users $2 for an 802.11 firmware update that enabled N wireless or something. They argued that they were legally forbidden from releasing the driver for free. Now those are some nickel and dime greedy bastards.
    • doshindude, on 02/06/2008, -5/+6Reminds me of the movie Antitrust...except it's happening with Apple.
    • yabos, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3Yeah you're right. It's so obvious Apple just went to LimeWire or The Pirate bay, downloaded his music and is now selling it on iTunes. Give me a break. The labels sold it to Apple. If the labels aren't allowed to sell it then that's the problem between the label and the artist.
  • zepoldesign, on 02/06/2008, -4/+125Seems like his issue is with his label and the contract he signed which probably gave them rights to distribute his music including digital services. Any money owed from iTunes should be coming from his label anyways and not directly from Apple. Factor in that he may have been given an advance for his recordings and digital sales could be essentially paying the label back. I'm not against the artist or saying the label is in the right but you never really know what is going on in these situations because you are getting only one side of the story. Saying he is being pirated by iTunes is sensationalist at best but it will definitely result in a major spike in traffic for his blog and some great PR (which never hurts). I had never heard of this guy until this popped up on Digg. Artists should really just stay away from labels and diy.
    • daihard, on 02/06/2008, -1/+11Your explanations sound most sensible of all the comments I've read here so far. :)
      • doctordbx, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3Yes and I surprised doubly it is not being dugg down by the Digg Dugg Crowd.
    • sgxyay, on 02/06/2008, -1/+9Yeah, something happened - he either wasn't paying attention to his record contract or his label did something really shifty on him. It does suck that Apple isn't very active in changing or removing content....but the record label would be the one to take it up with iTunes, not the artist....he's not in charge of distribution at all once he signs that deal.

      This guy says he's all up on digital music on the web, but somehow he didn't ask about digital distro when they were inking the record deal?
    • thailand1972, on 02/06/2008, -3/+6The guy sounds like he's simply promoting himself - I bet most people hadn't heard of him til he "decided"* iTunes is to blame for the contract HE signed himself

      *it's just a publicity stunt
    • pfromg, on 02/06/2008, -7/+2well your are about as pessimistic as anyone can possibly get.Maybe you should get some help?Or talk to your family about what happened in your past causing you to see nothing but negative.
      How about the wild thought that hes not just doing a publicity stunt here and he is really is an artist that isn't getting a cent from itunes sales.
      I see him as an innocent until one of you knuckleheads can prove otherwise.

    • deadcrickets, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3Agreed. And if he falsified the email he could very well be hit with a slander suit from Apple in the future. I would suggest for his sake that he be certain that the email he provided and his comments be correct. Otherwise it sucks to be him. Steve Jobs is not one who takes this kind of stuff sitting down.
    • cassaffousth, on 02/06/2008, -3/+1You should know that 'his label' is owned by himself, so he has no contract, no misunderstandings. http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/
      • MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3"When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”."

        It may be now, but it wasn't always. He reacquired the rights to his music, but that doesn't nullify existing contracts between his old label and Apple.
        • cassaffousth, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1" yet I’ve never signed any sort of agreement allowing iTunes to host my music, and I’ve certainly never seen a dime of money for my albums hosted there". Did you read the hole story?
  • jetcombo15, on 02/06/2008, -3/+16I'm glad he supports BitTorrent, all the albums I have from from him came from OiNK.
  • ulaelable, on 02/06/2008, -12/+5I'll give him money for this.
  • NihilistZealot, on 02/06/2008, -12/+5I love seeing the dark side of what companies do come to attention.
    Definitely something apple fans should see, so they can demand it be changed.
    (and until it is changed, go download music for free)
    • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Yea, the dark side of fulfilling your contractual obligations?

      If the label negotiated a deal to distribute the albums on iTunes, it's their responsibility to figure out wether that breaks the contract they have with their client. This has nothing to do with Apple. They aren't part of the contract between this artist and his label. They don't have access to it. They have no contract with the artist.

      This guy needs to re-read his contract and either get a lawyer or demand a re-negotiation with his label.
      • Haloark, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2In his blog he points out that he owns all of the rights to all of his music. He's actually a really smart chap when it comes to business.
        • MikeSD34, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2"When I got around to asking about iTunes, the owner of Sublight Records pleaded with me to “leave it be”."

          It may be now, but it wasn't always. He reacquired the rights to his music, but that doesn't nullify existing contracts between his old label and Apple.
      • MrBlackthorne, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1He can't be that smart if he has so little clue about how his music got on iTunes that he actually has to ask Apple about it. Apple can't put music on iTunes without a contract. One exists somewhere. If he truly owns the rights to his tunes, then he needs to talk to the company that signed the contract with Apple. As long as there is a legally binding contract, Apple has all the right to sell that music.
  • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -12/+25I love how he thinks he owns his music. Not just that he thinks he is legally able to upload it to bit torrent sites, but that "if someone gets caught, I won't press charages."
    If he feels that way, he should give back every single penny that his record label spent on making his CD.
    • jmg703, on 02/06/2008, -2/+5Do you know FOR A FACT that he does not own his masters?
      • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -6/+5Nope...but I am using logic and common sense, a trait foreign to most diggers. Apple is a big ***** company. they are NOT going torisk a big copyright lawsuit just to sell someone's music. ESPECIALLY a guy that no one knows about. Do you HONESTLY think that someone in Apple heard this guy's music and just decided to sell it without any authorization? And if that was hte case, this guy would not be posting it online. His LAWYER would be handling things.
        • jmg703, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1So you DON'T KNOW therefore you are assuming, and apple is always in the right because they are a big ***** company. Thank you for clarifying.
    • MalDON, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4I think he said he owns his label...
    • ja9ae, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Does any one ever read the article before commenting?
      Of the 2 CDs referred to, one was produced wholly by the his own label which he says he owns 100% and the other his label purchased all rights back from the original company. Giving your own product away for free is not illegal!
    • mimehater, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2Benn owns and operates Alphabasic, the label on which the album was released. He knows his *****. He wouldn't publically give away his ***** in the most sensational manner possible unless he knew it was legal.
  • moudig, on 02/06/2008, -14/+48The dude is pissed on Apple because he was duped by _his_ label. What a moron...
    • DivisibleByZero, on 02/06/2008, -11/+10And he's publicly admitting to copyright infringement. I hope the RIAA sues him over it.
    • pfromg, on 02/06/2008, -7/+6yea ! lets root for those multi billion $ super corporations !
      F*ck the little guys eh , who needs them.Hes just pissed cos apple are earning on him and hes not.What an idiot eh !

      A sickening mentality you have there.I hope you and your like get f*cked up by a mega corp one day.However I doubt that will ever happen as insignificant people don't make good targets.
  • eridius, on 02/06/2008, -18/+77This is outrageous, the artist is trying to profit by slamming Apple even though the evil guy here is the record label that went behind his back and set up distribution on iTunes without telling him. For some reason, it's now "cool" to claim Apple's being evil even though Apple did absolutely nothing wrong here. But if he tried to get publicity by claiming his label was evil, everybody would just say "yeah, we already know that" and move on.

    Stop blaming Apple for someone else's *****. It's pathetic.

    And no, I'm not a blind Mac zealot, I'm just someone who's pissed off about misplaced blame.
    • pfromg, on 02/06/2008, -13/+1>I'm not a blind Mac zealot
      are you sure ?
    • domness, on 02/06/2008, -1/+12I agree with you here. It is actually the labels who distribute the artists music to other things such as iTunes.
    • soapko, on 02/06/2008, -4/+2But didn't you get the memo? It's always cool to be jaded and indignant over what's currently cool.
      See what I did there? I'm being cool right now!
    • slickrick2k, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2If you read the article closely you will find that this guy owns his own label. You said "the record label that went behind his back and set up distribution on iTunes without telling him"... How can he go behind his own back and set up distribution rights without telling himself? The point of the article is that iTunes is selling his music without consent of the copyright owner (him as he owns the label that owns the rights). Not only is Applie/iTunes selling his music without consent, they aren't giving him a dime.

      You are right that this is outrageous, it is outrageous that Applie/iTunes are plainly committing copyright infringement of the worst kind as this isn't some college kids sharing music, this is an international corporation pirating his music commercially.
      • MrBlackthorne, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Apple can't sell music without a contract. Someone/some company had to have signed a contract with Apple to have his music sold, whether it was behind his back or not. The fact that he's not making money on his digital recordings probably has more to do with his inability to read the fine print. As much as people here want to vilify Apple for "piracy," if this artist was truly independent, he would have been aware that he could have put his music on iTunes using TuneCore or CDBaby and made $.70 per song. Any musician with actual experience in the independent music industry could tell you that.

        What iTunes has done for independent music is phenomenal. It gives independent artists a medium to sell their music in a major forum, in a professional way, with nearly no overhead and make a good bit of money doing so. Compare that with trying to get your CD in any of the major CD shops... It's nearly impossible.

        I know it's fashionable to jump on Apple for headlines, these days, but this is just ridiculous.
        • ehalasey, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Here's what I want to know: How hard is it to have a lawyer present when signing a contract? It's good business practice, but for this guy, apparently too hard in a pinch. This is like that elementary school aphorism where, when you point at someone else, there's three fingers pointing back at you.
          I know people who've gotten screwed over by their labels and had their music handed over to Apple without any permission, and here this is certainly not the case. Clearly, this guy doesn't know how to run business and should not be running a label.
  • heystoopid, on 02/06/2008, -20/+7Atypical Apple always forever screwing their customers since first brought out Lisa !
  • ZeDJS, on 02/06/2008, -3/+13if anything, here's some free advertisement =)
  • Portezbie, on 02/06/2008, -13/+6This is a pretty amazing story, and a pretty unique perspective on the whole piracy issue.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 02/06/2008, -4/+3I love the engrish response from Apple's overseas support people. Sounds like the guy needs to hire a better lawyer though, as the best his seems to be able to accomplish is to fill out the feedback form on Apple's web site.
  • neio, on 02/06/2008, -0/+10Did he name his label in the piece or did he singly out Apple for being the bad apple (sorry about the pun) in the bunch?
    • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8He singled out Apple who is fulfilling their contractual obligation to the label (to distribute the album). This guy needs to re-read his contract and either get a lawyer and sue for just compensation, or he needs to demand a re-negotiation of his contract that gets rid of the digital loophole in his ***** contract.

      Seriously this is like someone blaming Tower Records/Walmart/SomeRetailer for carrying a CD their label had packaged and shipped out for distribution. lol.
    • hookback, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2His did mention Sublight Records but that label went out of business in the end of 2007.
      • starf, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Unless he purchased the rights from them, they would have passed to someone else.
        Checking iTunes, he has two albums on there (not the latest one), and they are both copyright Bohnerwachs Tontraeger
  • Niightwitch, on 02/06/2008, -5/+16I think he's being hypocritical....it was fine him downloading music and someone else losing money, but now that iTunes is selling his music and it's him losing money, it becomes a problem for him.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 02/06/2008, -2/+7It's the illusion that money changing hands somehow makes it worse. If apple was "sharing" his music he'd be fine with that; but once they turn a profit, they're the devil. Not like his torrent site makes any money off all those ads...
    • jmg703, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4It's called principle. Look it up.
    • Haloark, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3What is wrong with you? He thinks people should be able to test out albums without being sued, but he doesn't think people (Apple) should be able to sell his music without his permission.
  • ripstuntz, on 02/06/2008, -6/+4Good for him! Although, I'm afraid iTunes isn't making you any cash BitTorrent isn't going to make you much either.
    Music isn't all about the money, it's about free trade of tunes that fit your lifestyle!!!!
    • dadioflex, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3The argument is that by widening his exposure on BT he'll sell more CDs. Obviously he ***** up his digital rights when he signed his contract so he makes some money from CDs and apparently nothing from downloads. I think Weird Al threw a similar hissy fit when he realised he'd signed a disadvantageous contract.
  • MackPrime, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2he looks like Chas Licciardello
  • colincornaby, on 02/06/2008, -6/+22"When I finally got a hold of the digital distributor (I must note that “digital distributor” is the most pathetic job title I’ve ever heard), I was told that once the files are in the iTunes system, it literally couldn’t be removed or taken down for a year. So, either Apple has created a self-aware doomsday machine that cannot be stopped or reasoned with, or everyone involved is just enjoying the gravy train of ripping off artists like myself and using Apple’s backbone of attorneys as an intimidation factor."
    This isn't true. I've had Apple email me when I redownload music from iTunes telling me that they can't let me redownload certain tracks because they're no longer available. Also, NBC pulled all their content from iTunes.
    • centerblack, on 02/06/2008, -2/+11IMO:
      His label may have negotiated a deal to distribute the album for a year. Apple can't take it down while they are contractually obligated to distribute it.

      Anyway, his beef is with the label, not apple.
    • yabos, on 02/06/2008, -1/+7NBC did not renew their contract with iTunes, they didn't pull all their stuff off the site when the contract was still in effect.
  • deviouskoopa, on 02/06/2008, -12/+2"So, who’s the pirate I should go after? A kid who downloads my album because it isn’t available in non-DRM format and costs $30 on Amazon? Or a huge multi-billion dollar corporation that has been selling thousands of dollars worth of my music and not even acknowledging it?"

    I love this guy... based solely on the 5 minutes it took to read this interview.
  • shark72, on 02/06/2008, -6/+18So the secret is:

    1. Get a record label to fund the recording and production of your music
    2. Distribute it for free and collect donations. Keep the money for yourself.
    3. Steal underpants.
    4. Profit!
    • Haloark, on 02/06/2008, -6/+2or maybe it is:
      1. Read an article really really fast without actually understanding it.
      2. Drink 6 cups of coffee so you can jump to conclusions easier.
      3. Post a comment on Digg.
    • doshindude, on 02/06/2008, -2/+6there's a reason we keep #3. ???
  • b00m83, on 02/06/2008, -9/+2BIT TORRENT rulz!! i really love it and a big UUURRRRAAAAAHH to those that keep up the good work!!!
  • digitalcamo7, on 07/31/2008, -11/+28This guy is lame... this isn't news. Apple isn't to blame. Do you really think that a multi-billion dollar company thinks to itself, "we have sold BILLIONS of songs, but maybe we could make more money by ripping off this guys that no body knows or cares about!" He has a crappy record label- its that simple. I hope he fades into oblivion just because he is trying to get attention. P.S.- He never said anything about what happened after he got in touch with Wendy at Apple. My guess is that the story becomes a whole lot less juicy.
    • Haloark, on 02/06/2008, -7/+1Uh yeah. Why would a multi-billion dollar corporation have any intention of making more money?
  • kowalzki, on 02/06/2008, -12/+13something's fishy here. and it's not apple.
  • evlcookie, on 02/06/2008, -8/+7"Many people that i’d meet at my shows would say that they bought my music on iTunes"
    ........
    So without iTunes how many people would actually know you exist and turn upto your shows? This guy sounds bloody greedy.
  • drcreek, on 02/06/2008, -10/+5The only ***** is fishbulb guy here. He really should read what is is signing or avoid having a label. He seems to have got how to advertise sorted strait out.

    Apple is only following their part of a contract from the label. You make it sound like they are all sitting in skull chairs cackling like skeletor while steve jobs waves a scepter of blood at this poor boy and his plight. Now his label. I imagine to be a fair few bastards in there.
  • Rockarollr, on 02/06/2008, -11/+6Apple and Steve Jobs are EVIL...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpUowy06NLo
  • HappyScrappy, on 02/06/2008, -4/+24*****. He says that "literally a file cannot be removed from iTunes for a year". Bring a legit lawsuit and you'll see those files disappear in under a day.

    And if Apple put his files up, it's because they think they have a legit contract with his label to put them up. If this guy really thinks otherwise, why didn't he respond when Apple's lawyers wanted to discuss it with him?

    He's just playing this ***** for publicity.
  • joeyslugs, on 02/06/2008, -9/+2Crazy... I hung out with this guy back in high school
    • joeyslugs, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1what i meant by that is that i know him and he's full of *****. always has been.
  • 1town, on 02/06/2008, -11/+11Ugh, lame attempt at getting some publicity for some ***** music no one would listen to.
  • Incarnadinosaur, on 02/06/2008, -6/+11Seems Benn's talent flies over a lot of digger's heads. No surprise here, but don't say he's ripping off Aphex Twin or Squarepusher till you've heard more than just Lawn Wake or the usual stuff you find floating around on torrent sites, with the exception of OiNK.
    • DeathJux, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1A co-worker gave me several of his albums, and I didn't listen to them until an overseas flight to the UK. I listened to nothing but him for the next two months, and have since completely fallen in love with his work. He's now my favorite artist of all-time, along with Aesop Rock and Infected Mushroom.
  • tomzer1, on 02/06/2008, -9/+11Waaah waaaah...Fight the Man!...Suits Suck...etc....He's blaming the store, not his label and management for lost royalties. Artists don't crab at Wal Mart over lost profits, since a store is not responsible for his pay. His management is. They negotiated the distribution contract independent of his control when he signed up with a label to manage his music. He needs to get a clue about business if he wants to continue a career in music. By going to BitTorrent, he just blew a hole in any potential profits he might have received. Let's hope his music is so good that at least 10% of the downloaders feel like paying him something. Labels get about 70% of the sales cash at the iTunes store. It's his fault for not being aware of or negotiating for a slice of the digital distribution pie with his management. This guy is just naive.

    Oh well. Have fun locking yourself out of one of the world's largest music stores, Mr. Jordan. I'll be sure to flip a nickel into your guitar case when I walk by on the street.
    • Slovenian6474, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Isn't Itunes wanted to change that % to 4% (and RIAA 8%)? That makes the 10% of downloaders paying sound like a better deal.
  • FahadXero, on 02/06/2008, -11/+7Damn Steve Jobs, if sucking up everyone's money with monopoly isn't enough, now Apple is stealing music. Great Assholes
    • astrotrain, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Steve Jobs makes like s circus seal when it comes to money and power. No backbone to stand up to what is right and what is criminally wrong (such as pulling as you own the music once you purchase it from iTunes).

      Now to see Apple trying to sell whats being given away for free by the artist, is just a new low for Apple.
    • knightboat, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly
  • uhohzombies, on 02/06/2008, -2/+24The Flashbulb has been around for a looooong time (over 10 years) and just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he's a hack or out for publicity. He's been doing just fine until now. As for the Aphex Twin ripoff comments, ok, everyone that makes IDM is ripping off Aphex Twin and everyone who makes pop music is ripping off The Beatles? Actually listen to the album he's giving out for *free* and you'll notice that he has a lot more in common with Amon Tobin and Cinematic Orchestra. But hey, I guess Amon Tobin is ripping off R.D. James too, right?
    • roflbrothel, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2I wasn't even going to listen to his stuff until you said Amon Tobin and Cinematic Orchestra. Also, your point is valid. Dugg.
  • P5ycHo, on 02/06/2008, -5/+5I bet you you can get in trouble with the RIAA for downloading his album via p2p.
    Even if he published his own album.
    • Sandurz, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6You can.

      Because the RIAA literally believes they own the rights to all recorded music ever.

      They collect royalties "on behalf" of artists who have nothing to do with any RIAA label and hold them until the artists comes and asks.
      • astrotrain, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3RIAA reminds me of the gangsters of the 30's where they offered protection to small mom & pop stores... even if they if they refused. If they refused, there was trouble.... The RIAA has to be stopped.
  • wazzat, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1I don't get it. It seems like it's his label that's ripping him off, not itunes. I'm an independent musician and I sell my work through itunes, emusic, rhapsody and napster and I get everything after they take their cut. It sounds like he signed a dumb agreement with his label and is taking it out on apple. This is why labels suck.
  • Haloark, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8Looks like there's a lot of assumptions in these comments, he elaborates a little better in this blog post:
    http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=40
    I've actually attended a lecture of his on "making a living as musician" and I thought it was one of the most honest and straight forward opinions I've ever heard. He talked about musicians using piracy as an anchor for word of mouth publicity, then making most of their income from television and advertising licensing. Whether you like his music or agree with him or not, you have to give him props for genuinely trying to improve small-artist's situations.
  • thailand1972, on 02/06/2008, -7/+8Wow, Digg is such an easy ride for free publicity:-

    1. Just say you got ripped off by The Man
    2. Ding ding ding, it's Pavlov's bell, Digg crowd!
    3. Watch the Digg crowd misdirect themselves away from the fact it's a publicity stunt
    4. Profit from the publicity
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.