Franz Ferdinand Encourage Fans to Pirate New Track
Written by enigmax on August 20, 2007Franz Ferdinand have talked about downloading and piracy in the past. They have admitted to illegally copying music and expressed their support for file-sharing. Now they appear to have gone one step further by encouraging fans to pirate their latest track - a cover-version of a David Bowie song.
Franz Ferdinand are a band from Glasgow, Scotland and were created in 2001. Since then they’ve had many musical hits and unusually for rock stars, actually became a hit with file-sharers. Their pro-piracy stance even got them on the front page of Digg. They’ve also admitted to ripping CDs and copying them to an iPod - something which them and millions of others do but is actually illegal in the UK.
At the time, singer and guitarist Alex Kapranos said: “I like the idea that, because of downloading, people are going to buy songs only if they are good. I think that’s a positive thing. It means lazy bands aren’t going to get away with giving you one hit single and an album full of filler. We like the idea that every song should stand up in its own right so you don’t have to listen to a song in the context of an album to understand it. I suppose that’s why I’m sympathetic to the download environment.”
Now, in a move which is likely to make them even more popular with file-sharers, Franz Ferdinand appear to be encouraging their fans to download their latest track (a David Bowie cover) from file-sharing networks, rather than pay for it.
An announcement on the official site reads:
“Franz have covered David Bowie’s 1977 single Sound And Vision for a new compilation marking the 40th anniversary of BBC Radio 1. The album features contemporary artistzzzz covering a song from each year since the station’s first broadcast in 1967.
edit….The whole shabang doesn’t appear to be for charity so point your browsers towards Limewire soon, kiddies!”
Although Limewire would probably be an effective tool, i’m sure Franz wouldn’t mind if their fans used BitTorrent too.
I never really bothered listening to this band before but i’m going to make a point of listening to them now. After an offer like that, it’d be rude not to.
Previously: Usenet: The Next Target in the War on Piracy
Next: SuprNova: The Legend Returns Today
29 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Franz Ferdinand FTW, liked these guys b4 now i love them :p
Alex Krapanos has a very good point there, I remember buying an album just because I heard the single on the radio and being terribly disappointed by the rest of the songs.
Didn’t happen with Franz Ferdinand or for example Arctic Monkeys, I downloaded their albums, listen the rest of the tracks then I bought the album. You can’t afford the surprire when a record cost 20 euros, can you?
[quote]I like the idea that, because of downloading, people are going to [b]buy[/b] songs only if they are good. I think that’s a positive thing.[/quote]
That says to me they really don’t mean pirate they mean download it from iTunes after you have payed for it.
People were going to pirate their songs regardless of which stance they took. It was smart of them to side with file sharers.
I also think that bands nowadays cannot rely on selling albums (not like in the old days). If they want to sell their music it has to be available on a download per track basis. No longer can the music industry rip us off the way they once had.
Heh, download via Limewire, get a misnamed file and be sued because you downloaded some Britney Spears song. :D
Agreed with section8. They do not seem to be specifically referring to illegal downloading in that segment. In fact his statement would make no sense if it did: if somebody already has a downloaded version for free, they are not going to pay for another lesser quality and possibly DRM-ridden version. Apart perhaps from the odd few that claim to be supporting the artist.
The other point to make is that they might be encouraging limewire use simply because they are not making a penny off of the album, which is why they might have assumed it was for charity. Just a cheap way of taking a swipe at the BBC for misleading them, while building a bigger fan-base by appearing to be “pro-piracy”.
Do they as the artists, hold the copyright? If so it is neither piracy or illegal. Its their song the can do what the hell they like with it. Also, I get tired of people banding piracy and filesharing about as if it were the same thing, its not, and the sooner a clear distinction is made between the two, the better it will be for filesharers.
Don’t tell it me twice !
http://sumotorrent.com/search/franz+ferdinand
I agree that in this case it seems they are surprised the album is not for charity - guess they were misled slightly somewhere along the line.
I agree with the above comments on purchasing after download IF the album is good enough - the other issue I’ve had is with these dumb non-CD’s, which won’t play in my car - just come up as data CD and get spat out, nor on my PC’s. $17 for something I can’t play sucks, then I have to download and burn a copy anyhow.
[quote comment="149804"]Do they as the artists, hold the copyright? If so it is neither piracy or illegal. Its their song the can do what the hell they like with it. Also, I get tired of people banding piracy and filesharing about as if it were the same thing, its not, and the sooner a clear distinction is made between the two, the better it will be for filesharers.[/quote]
There is a extremely fine line between pirates and filesharers that it would be some crazy number like 10 million to 1, pirates to filesharers. Thats if you consider a pirate of anyone that has EVER downloaded copyrighted content of any kind
[quote comment="149905"][quote comment="149804"]Do they as the artists, hold the copyright? If so it is neither piracy or illegal. Its their song the can do what the hell they like with it. Also, I get tired of people banding piracy and filesharing about as if it were the same thing, its not, and the sooner a clear distinction is made between the two, the better it will be for filesharers.[/quote]
There is a extremely fine line between pirates and filesharers that it would be some crazy number like 10 million to 1, pirates to filesharers. Thats if you consider a pirate of anyone that has EVER downloaded copyrighted content of any kind[/quote]
We are sharing files from our computer to others all over the world free of charge… well partly free… we still have to pay the cable or dsl internet every month… unless someone knows something that Im being left out on.
What ever happen to freedom to learn and having the right to aquire knowlage without permission? We pay these outragous prices for internet to cover a “small” portion of what we download for the most part. But others… ehh.. Ither way, even if they do draw that almost invisible line lots of people are still going to be called pirates because they are attempting to “give” things way with no profit to the goverments.
Keep in mind… its the goverments that are doing this… they are not getting their “50cents” for every song program game and movie that we are downloading so now they are waiting to see who bribes them with the most money to side with them… at this point with so many torrent sites shutting down… looks like the Anti-Piracy groups are paying the most. Mabby we should keep downloading but instead of paying for these things we send a small portion to a Pro-Piracy group to bribe the goverment… who knows we might be able to shut these anti-piracy fuckers down.
Random babble..
You are absolutely right, just wait unit after next couple of elections in the U.S. its only going to get worse for us.
isn’t limewire dead?
[quote comment="149928"][quote comment="149905"][quote comment="149804"]Do they as the artists, hold the copyright? If so it is neither piracy or illegal. Its their song the can do what the hell they like with it. Also, I get tired of people banding piracy and filesharing about as if it were the same thing, its not, and the sooner a clear distinction is made between the two, the better it will be for filesharers.[/quote]
There is a extremely fine line between pirates and filesharers that it would be some crazy number like 10 million to 1, pirates to filesharers. Thats if you consider a pirate of anyone that has EVER downloaded copyrighted content of any kind[/quote]
We are sharing files from our computer to others all over the world free of charge… well partly free… we still have to pay the cable or dsl internet every month… unless someone knows something that Im being left out on.
What ever happen to freedom to learn and having the right to aquire knowlage without permission? We pay these outragous prices for internet to cover a “small” portion of what we download for the most part. But others… ehh.. Ither way, even if they do draw that almost invisible line lots of people are still going to be called pirates because they are attempting to “give” things way with no profit to the goverments.
Keep in mind… its the goverments that are doing this… they are not getting their “50cents” for every song program game and movie that we are downloading so now they are waiting to see who bribes them with the most money to side with them… at this point with so many torrent sites shutting down… looks like the Anti-Piracy groups are paying the most. Mabby we should keep downloading but instead of paying for these things we send a small portion to a Pro-Piracy group to bribe the goverment… who knows we might be able to shut these anti-piracy fuckers down.
Random babble..[/quote]
I think you missed my point mate. Im no where near anti-pirate pro-filesharer. I personally haven’t bought anything besides my Internet connection and burnable DVD’s for a good solid year now
Filesharer in my view are doing it by the law and dont break any civil or otherwise
testing for ernest0
it works dude 2 mins countdown
edit2: hehehe 1:30 mins sorry :P
edit3: I Love Edit :P
[quote comment="149762"][quote]I like the idea that, because of downloading, people are going to [b]buy[/b] songs only if they are good. I think that’s a positive thing.[/quote]
That says to me they really don’t mean pirate they mean download it from iTunes after you have payed for it.[/quote]
Says to me they mean pirate it and then buy it if you liked it, try before you buy
Very nice! Very nice! Bands promoting piracy. The RIAA and MPAA dont stand a chance against P2P, the people are the majority, not the government. The MPAA continues to run on the hamster wheel they call progress. They make me laugh.
Nope, they’re not promoting piracy. It’s their song. They promote the downloading of their work through channels not affiliated with their record label. This can only be piracy if they signed a contract prohibiting them from doing so.
Somehow I doubt that they would risk their record deal by doing that.
Anyway, it’s cool that it gets people thinking about the alternative way to view copyright.
[quote comment="149720"]Alex Krapanos has a very good point there, I remember buying an album just because I heard the single on the radio and being terribly disappointed by the rest of the songs.
Didn’t happen with Franz Ferdinand or for example Arctic Monkeys, I downloaded their albums, listen the rest of the tracks then I bought the album. You can’t afford the surprire when a record cost 20 euros, can you?[/quote]
Strange..most parties offer samples of the tracks. Otherwise first go to http://daz.com and check the samples overthere…
6 references to this post
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Add your response