What has cilvaringz done that is noteworthy?
Nah that was meh to me.
I would go with this, or In Name of Allah.
What has cilvaringz done that is noteworthy?
but rza and them still keeps the rights to the album. they're not allowed to sell copies.
but then that's like selling it to a label. you might be right but i thought selling one copy for mills and them keeping the rights was the point.I seriously doubt they'd keep the rights, there's no way in hell anybody would bid that much on it.
If someone is offering $5 mill it's not just for 1 copy of the album, it has to be for full rights to distribute it (or not) as they see fit.
Fred.

but then that's like selling it to a label. you might be right but i thought selling one copy for mills and them keeping the rights was the point.
but keeping the rights to make sure it doesn't get copied and sold would be part of the gimmick imo. like i said, i might be wrong but that's the way i understood it.I seriously doubt they care who they sell it to. $5 mill is $5 mill.
Besides, what's the point of keeping the rights or masters if there's only 1 copy of it in existence? They can't make any more money off it, the whole gimmick is there's only 1 copy. You get what I'm saying?
Fred.
but rza and them still keeps the rights to the album. they're not allowed to sell copies.
but keeping the rights to make sure it doesn't get copied and sold would be part of the gimmick imo. like i said, i might be wrong but that's the way i understood it.
Once the album completes its excursion, Wu-Tang will make it available for purchase for a price “in the millions.” Suitors could include brands willing to shell out for cool points and free publicity (just as Samsung spent $5 million to buy copies of Jay Z’s latest album for its users) or major record labels hoping to launch the album through the usual channels (they’re used to paying top acts seven-figure advances).
if i go to the store and buy an album, i own a copy of the album. i don't own the rights to it. i thought the whole point of their thing was that they sell one copy to one person and that person is not allowed to make copies. if they sell the rights to it as well, i don't see why they didn't just sell it to a label and be done with it. again, i could be wrong and i'm not even trying to start a debate on this.Where you getting that from? Nobody never said that. If dude pays to own the album he owns the album. That's what selling means...
Whoever buys the album, whether it be a rich person, record label will own the rights to the album to sell and distribute as they wish, only after the album goes on its tour and is sold to said rich person/music label.if i go to the store and buy an album, i own a copy of the album. i don't own the rights to it. i thought the whole point of their thing was that they sell one copy to one person and that person is not allowed to make copies. if they sell the rights to it as well, i don't see why they didn't just sell it to a label and be done with it. again, i could be wrong and i'm not even trying to start a debate on this.