As mentioned last week, the OLPC project has provided some 8.5GB of Creative Commons-licensed sound. Unfortunately, in an all-too-familiar scenario, the servers didn’t stand up to its instant popularity. Good news — most of the content is available now via torrent, with additional content on the Internet Archive.

We need a Few Good Seeds, so grab that torrent and seed it! (I am…)

Official OLPC sound samples page

Internet Archive links

olpc-sound-samples on Mininova (should be on other trackers, as well)

And previously…

8.5 GB of Free, CC-Licensed Samples from the OLPC Project, and OLPC Music Tools

Oh, yeah, and no one need feel guilty about using the samples. That was kind of the idea. (Not to mention, this could be a good sample source for working on projects for the OLPC.)

It seems Warner exec Jim Griffin was unprepared for the rancor of the Interwebs, because he’s backpedaling on a proposal to create a blanket fee for ISPs on music. All of that was just part of a “dynamic conversation,” says Griffin in a statement, and “It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space.”

Yes, indeed — it’d be unfortunate if a discussion of a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders were derailed by the fact that it was a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders.

See some excellent coverage and analysis from CNet News.com’s Greg Sandoval.

And as Sandoval notes, “What happens is that people hear the word “tax” and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.” That lack of objectivity is what frustrated me yesterday, even without being a specialist on the legal details

Of course, I disagree with Griffin about what happens to the “dynamic conversation” when people bring out the pitchforks. He says people lose the opportunity to “consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice.” I say they lose the opportunity to consider just how out of touch with reality his proposal is.

I’ll never fully understand technology bloggers when it comes to music policy. Here’s an obviously stupid idea: Warner Brothers, the label, comes up with a scheme to add a surcharge to ISP bills to allow, supposedly, “legal” use of music file sharing services. Stupid, yes.

Here’s the response from Michael Arrington (Techcrunch): “It’s clearly good for the music labels, who are facing their imminent extinction.” He claims that this is the plan the “labels” (actually one label) don’t want you to know (except that they’re sitting down for long interviews with Conde Nast Portfolio).

Gizmodo’s Matt Buchanan just regurgitates and further oversimplifies Arrington’s argument, and adds a picture of a kitten at gunpoint, concluding: “And as Arrington points out, it would basically freeze innovation in the industry, meaning labels would be able to ream them that much harder. Not to mention, thanks to the fine print, we’d probably no longer own our music. But that’s the whole point.”

Apparently, “imminent extinction” means multi-billion dollar industry. (In fairness, the industry often — inexplicably — argues the same thing. I wish I were part of an “extinct” multi-billion dollar industry.) And apparently you can’t even talk about the issue of how music will be distributed and paid for without focusing on the desire of said industry to destroy your life and the fact that it’s still completely doomed.

And we’ve already seen Arringtonisms like recordings are worth nothing, and musicians should really owe websites cash for promotion (the Web 2.0 Payola plan, evidently).

But what happened to the obviously stupid idea? I agree with these sites that the plan is bad — I just think, ironically, it’s bad for even more reasons than they think. I’m not actually sure anyone read the original source — I think they were too busy being enraged, or looking for appropriate kitty pictures:

Fee for All: Jim Griffin will lead Warner Music’s fight to tame the Web’s lawless music frontier.

Forget about artists. Forget about copyright holders. Screw the musicians. This is ridiculously stupid even for the labels, partly because they’re unlikely to agree on the idea — meaning the idea is extinct on arrival. “Freeze innovation”? I guess — if the labels actually pursue this. But the blogosphere has become so rabidly anti-label, it’s fighting them instead of pointing out the planet-sized holes in the logic we’re being fed:

Discussions about music distribution, sales, and piracy often return to that time-worn theme of “supporting artists.” Of course, what usually gets left out is what actually supports the artists. Sure, it’s lovely that the industry likes this theme — maybe you imagine an ingenious, talented songwriter lighting candles in her studio — and she’s super cute, too. And you’re stealing money from her. Or worse, you’re actually ripping the livelihood from a toothless guy with his guitar, who sleeps in the mud in rainstorms. (I’m only half joking … fair number of musicians who do actually fit just that description.) But, is the money even getting to them?

Well, artists/writers are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. Why not get that album up on the tracker sites, and be upfront with your listeners about how to have a real relationship that actually gets money directly from listener to audience, without getting hung up on the middleman? The idea’s anything but new, but it is gathering momentum.

This story from Releaselog exaggerates a little with the headline:

The Flashbulb Promotes Piracy

… in fact, the artist in question would still appreciate getting some funding; he (Benn Jordan) just argues that you should pay what you think is appropriate to the artist directly, not Apple, Amazon, or Best Buy. He also happens to be CEO of his label, Alphabasic Records, and wants the same treatment for all of them.

Oh, yeah, and The Flashbulb isn’t “pro-piracy” so much as he is anti-CD (as purchased from big retailers) and anti-iTunes — good reason, seeing as he’s not getting paid.

Short excerpt: