Don't Download This Song

tessaigapants · Post by **tessaigapants** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:20 am

When you play the DDTS video backwards, there's a scene where the kid uses the force to pluck a CD-R outta the trash to burn himself some hot dancing cheerleader action.

But no snakes. They've "flown" the coop, or you see them when you play the video forewards.

WeirdSolo · Post by **WeirdSolo** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:05 am

Just browsing the web and noticed Al got a mention on IGN Music. He has a spot on the front page too.

http://music.ign.com/articles/727/727108p1.html

Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:52 pm

I think it's hilarious that some reviews think the song is anti-downloading and some think it's anti-RIAA. Keep 'em guessing, Al!

Me, I think they're both right. You can be opposed to people taking for free, without permission, the work that the artist hoped would, like, pay for the groceries, and still think that the RIAA and the music corporations have taken a ridiculously ham-handed approach to the problem.

Post by **Diva** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:17 pm

Mystik Tomato @ Aug 25 2006, 06:39 PM wrote: Wait, you mean Al's new song isn't "Don't Download This Bong"?

Oh, I've been makin' an idiot of myself!

Mystik, you just made my day.

Cheers, Diva
who is giving a twice-postponed talk this week to the LA region state parole mental health providers on "Public Policy Barriers to Providing Addiction Treatment" [AKA "It's Naptime!]

Website · Post by **Teh Dingo** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:33 pm

Orthography Enthusiast @ Aug 26 2006, 12:52 PM wrote: I think it's hilarious that some reviews think the song is anti-downloading and some think it's anti-RIAA. Keep 'em guessing, Al!

Me, I think they're both right. You can be opposed to people taking for free, without permission, the work that the artist hoped would, like, pay for the groceries, and still think that the RIAA and the music corporations have taken a ridiculously ham-handed approach to the problem.

Saying this song has a moral about downloading is like saying Grapefruit Diet has a moral about vegetarianism. Doesn't hold much weight at all.

I find it incredible all the "anti-download" press Al gets. While I'm sure he does respectable with hooligans (If you can call hooliganism respectable

), Al's biggest problem online has been that half the songs he supposedly did aren't by him!

As an artist, he certainly has different (If not strong) views on the subject, but at the end of the day DDTS isn't coming down on anyone (Or if it is, it's coming down on both sides like OE says).

I don't know how many times I've said it on this board in the last couple weeks "Every major label artist gets screwed by ITunes". It's not an Al exclusive (I guess if royalties are even attached to it, it's a little worse for Al, but that's the kind of thing that's happened to Al ever since his career started really)

Oh well. Any publicity is good publicity after all. And our boy always proves that

Post by **Mystik Tomato** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:54 am

Diva @ Aug 27 2006, 03:17 AM wrote: Mystik, you just made my day.

BathTub · Post by **BathTub** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:02 pm

spacedingo @ Aug 27 2006, 07:33 AM wrote: I don't know how many times I've said it on this board in the last couple weeks "Every major label artist gets screwed by ITunes".

Do you really think iTunes taking 29 of the 99 cents per track is screwing the artist? Really?

Post by **weirdojace** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:05 pm

It's also the fact that whatever is left of that 99 cents, half of it goes to the record label.

iTunes is great for unsigned artists though. I've made a lot of money from it!

BathTub · Post by **BathTub** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:05 pm

Signed artists would be over the moon if the label took half. The Artist usually gets a few cents, someone will probably have the link to how much Al gets, it's a pittance.

buff · Post by **buff** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:00 pm

Yeah, signed artists usually don't get more than 10 cents. Unsigned artists get 70 cents. W00t!