Backlash as EMI Hunts Down the Grey Album

An anonymous reader writes "DJ Danger Mouse's The Grey Album, a remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles White Album has become a online music sensation, even getting reviewed in Rolling Stone though only 3,000 CDs were ever made. Now EMI, which controls the Beatles copyright, is trying to shut the album down. They've sent cease and desist letters to Danger Mouse, a handful of record stores, and websites that have hosted the songs. Wired News is reporting on the backlash that has ensued, led by anti-music industry group Downhill Battle, who insists that the major record labels are stifling creativity."

Comments

Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[LinuxBSDNotSCO]

I think that the freedom to edit and reproduce music is important but i think that it is a corny idea in the first place. But none the less I feel i must stick up for the albums right to express freedom. Long die the DMCIA

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

"I feel i (sic) must stick up for the albums (sic) right"

The album has rights? That's interesting. Do you think rocks and lamps have rights as well?

Ah, how silly of me - I forgot about the great Tupperware Rights Act of 1978. That act will go down as Jimmy Carter's legacy.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[turnstyle]

Isn't part of what makes Jay Z's decision to release vocal-only tracks for remixing cool that he actually made the decision?

In other words, if we're going to encourage musicians to similarly release their works for stuff like this, then don't we also have to respect decisions by musicians who choose otherwise?

And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

" I think that the freedom to edit and reproduce music is important but i think that it is a corny idea in the first place. But none the less I feel i must stick up for the albums right to express freedom."

So if I decide I don't like the terms of the GPL, I can just take their software and violate their copyright?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[88NoSoup4U88]

I'm not to known in 'the scene' : but as far as i know, in rap / hiphop it's common to release either the voice recordings, or the music, alone, so people can fudge about with it.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that someone putting out a measely 3,000 copies of the CD is going to take away money from Jay-Z and his 2,000,000 Black Album CDs that he'll probably sell?

And do you think that the umpteen bajillion dolalrs and half bajillion CDs that the beatles have always and do sell (half of the beatles now being dead) are goign to be put out over a measely 3,000 remix CDs that some dude gives out or sells?

Besides, I dont' care for Jay-Z and I dislike the beatles (but I do like John Lennon's stuff) -- but the Gray Album sounds DAMN GOOD. Easily far better than the shitty Black Album rap crap.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[PepsiProgrammer]

Holy shit, those are the most horrible travestys of music ive ever heard.

Im gonna get modded down for this, but that albumn sounds like complete and udder shit, Im not a big fan of rap period, I am a big beatles fan, but holy shit is that horrible. horrible.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[turnstyle]

"Do you really think that someone putting out a measely 3,000 copies of the CD is going to take away money from Jay-Z and his 2,000,000 Black Album CDs that he'll probably sell?"

And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?

Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?

"Besides, I dont' care for Jay-Z and I dislike the beatles (but I do like John Lennon's stuff) -- but the Gray Album sounds DAMN GOOD. Easily far better than the shitty Black Album rap crap."

And as for me, I think this Gray Album is a fun idea, but a pretty boring listen.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[dr.badass]

So if I decide I don't like the terms of the GPL, I can just take their software and violate their copyright?

That's completely incomparable. If something is GPLed, you can take it and combine it with other GPLed code, without violating anything. As it fucking should be.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[tepples]

Except if you have one party unwilling to license code under the GPL and another party unwilling to license code under anything but the GPL. Here it looks like EMI was unwilling to license the Beatles samples for use in "The Grey Album" at any price short of the billions required for a hostile takeover.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like someone who hasn't heard the damn thing...btw it is incredible.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Myopic]

i love freedom, and i'm always happy when someone chooses freedom over oppression (using a bit of hyperbole here). nevertheless, no i don't have to *respect* the *choice* of someone who *chooses* oppression.

if i think that choosing freedom is good, then it follows that i think choosing oppression is bad; and that people who choose oppression are bad.

this case is actually a pretty good example of copyright oppression: the use of copyright to directly destroy a new form of artistic expression.

not that i think all copyright protection is oppression, only some of it, in some cases, like this one.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[0racle]

As it fucking should be

Who are you to say that a creator of a work doesn't have the right to have a say in how his work is used. If I make something and dont want it in a commercial product, or used by people I dont like or aggree with, I should, and do, have the right to stipulate that.

Freedom according to RMS, ie the GPL, doesn't let me control my hard work beyond no commercial useage, and it doesn't let me profit from the sale of my work. With the GPL I can't say that rapists, or assholes or 'crazy people that tell me how to do things' arn't allowed to use my software or whatever it is I'm producing.

The only way that s right, or as was so eloquently put, "As it fucking should be" is a author or creator of a work can decide how and where their work can and can't be used.

ya I know its off topic, but for anyone to think that the way they believe things should be done is the ONLY way is not only egotistical, its also stupid and limiting.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's right.

See how much of a jackass he is?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[RdsArts]

But I can't combine it with BSDed code. Or any other open code license. So by your logic, since the GPL is a propriety license now and impeeds my and the code's freedom, I'm free to include/distribute it as BSDed or public domain software, yes?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[LauraScudder]

I have mod points, but I don't see a "Factually Inaccurate" option, so I'll just have to reply.

I have friends who are really into the hip hop scene, and they regularly get sent tracks of just the beats to songs from the artists themselves. Most of the time, the artist is hoping it'll get passed around and used and heard by multiple people for the publicity. Just because you can't buy it at Best Buy doesn't mean the artists don't release them.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[iminplaya]

If corporations have rights, why not albums? or rocks and dirt for that matter? Everything except humans.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[commodoresloat]

One thing has nothing to do with the other, and you know it. The GPL encourages people to incorporate and add to the works of others. It is a license, not a copyright law. If you don't like the GPL, normal copyright terms apply. The GPL is about the source being open (so that others can read/modify/incorporate/add to it), not about stifling creativity. If you want to add GPL to a closed source project and keep the source closed, you have an odd view of stifling creativity, because you equate your creativity with your ability to stifle or otherwise control the creativity of others.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Rick Zeman]

So if I decide I don't like the terms of the GPL, I can just take their software and violate their copyright?
That's completely incomparable. If something is GPLed, you can take it and combine it with other GPLed code, without violating anything. As it fucking should be.

Yeah, so what if want to take it and stick with something that's not GPL'd and say "fuck you, I'm a code artist, I can do whatever I want. Fuck you and the license you rode in on." That is the analogue of this musical situation.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[AstroDrabb]

I have mod points, but I needed to reply to this trash.

the GPL, doesn't let me control my hard work beyond no commercial useage

Do you smoke crack? The GPL DOES allow commercial usage. The GPL just requires the SOURCE CODE to be provided. MySQL is licensed under the GPL with full access to the source. You can also BUY it under another license if you want to make a non-GPLed application.

and it doesn't let me profit from the sale of my work.

That must be some good crack you are smokin'. You can sell your GPLed work for whatever amount you want. You just also have to provide the SOURCE code. Again, look at MySQL as an example. They provide the source code under GPL or a non-GPLed license for a fee. Red Hat sells GPLed software, SuSE sells GPLed software, Mandrake sells GPLed software...

The _whole_ point of copyright is to move works into the public domain. A copyright is not some all powerful ownership that you have. Copyright was setup as an agreement between "The People" and the copyright holder, and after a _limited_ time, that work would be part of the public domain. Big businesses have been trying to destroy that part of the agreement by making large bribes^H^H^H^H donations to congress critters and they have managed to get copyrights extended well beyond the _limited_ time that our Founding Fathers had in mind.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[ePhil_One]

It is a license, not a copyright law. If you don't like the GPL, normal copyright terms apply.

Dude, I think you're trying to contradict yourself, but doing a bad job of it.

The GPL is a license to use copyrighted works. If you accept that license, then you may use that copyrighted work in creating your own work, so long as you also use that same license for your own work, and release the source (there are caveats, etc.) The only thing it encourages is other folks to release their copyrighted works under the GPL, hence the phrase "viral licensing", once some GPL code enters your project, your project becomes GPL'ed (unless you quarantine it as the provisions allow.)

If you accept the original posters assertion that copyright law can be bypassed for cool results, then the GPL becomes toothless, MS steals everybody's code, cats and dogs start sleeping together...

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The album has rights? That's interesting. Do you think rocks and lamps have rights as well?

Shit, if a corporation can have rights, why not rocks and lamps, even freaking rutabagas ought to have rights.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you to say that a creator of a work doesn't have the right to have a say in how his work is used. If I make something and dont want it in a commercial product, or used by people I dont like or aggree with, I should, and do, have the right to stipulate that.

Who are you to decree which rights a creator should and should not have?

ya I know its off topic, but for anyone to think that the way they believe things should be done is the ONLY way is not only egotistical, its also stupid and limiting.

indeed

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Sunnan]

And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?

I'm one of those poor young fools who believe it should all be free, that there is no "choice". (It's a complicated issue and I've got no grudges against those who think otherwise.)

So no, me-and-my-friends-copying-the-record-wise, it does no difference.

But if someone actually goes and says "please, give copies to your friends" (or the same, more formally, by using a free license), then I know that that person is aware of the situation. (I also think that this is a person at least partly sharing my view on a topic, which is always cool.)

If someone, believing (unlike me) that Intellectual Property is valid, and spends money on a record intended as an investment depending on copyright enforcement, then it's a rude awakening to that artist to find out that her or his record is being copied essentially against her will. That's only a small, not really consequential argument against copying the record, but it certainly makes it less fun.

Some artists, like Bran Van 3000, informally but rather explicitly say "sure, give copies of the album to your friends, even though our record company might not legally allow it, but if you can afford it, also buy the CD or otherwise support us". Of course that makes me feel much better digging them as compared to a band that says/wishes something like "don't reproduce our lyrics, people should buy the CD". It doesn't change anything in practice, since the music is still being (in some cases illegally, post EUCD) reproduced, but it does change how we feel about the artists, and it changes how they feel about us.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You absolutely can combine it with BSD code, and code using a lot of other Open Source licenses as long as the result is licensed under the GPL. So, by your logic, you are tilting at windmills.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think rocks and lamps have rights as well?

Why would that be strange? At least rocks and lamps have a physical presence. Corporations sure have rights, their rights are very often favored over those of real people, but corporations don't even have a fuckin' nose you can punch!

Capitalism would be a much, much stronger thing if corporations had zero rights. CEOs would have rights, shareholders would have rights, and employees would have rights, but these artificial legal constructs we call corporations would themselves own nothing. No more Enrons. No more pointless mergers. No more vacuous bubbles of meta-business shenanigans ten layers removed from anything that has to do with actual products and commerce. Think about it.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[0racle]

First, your right, I should have been more clear, by commercial usage I meant inclusion in a commercial product, other then my own, and yes I know about dual licencing, but in most cases if I wanted to allow that, why choose th GPL in the first place

As regards your attempt to say I can make money just like Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSE yada yada yada, they do not make money selling the GPL sotware. Mandrake makes money on support or selling disks, mainly support. Red Hat ans SuSE don't even have free downloads of their products, and make money on the incluseion of Non-gpl software and once again, support. MySQL only makes money by selling a NON-GPL product for you to do things otherwise considered wrong by the GPL.

Lets put it this way, I make this really great peice of software, it fills some niche market that no one else has, and I GPL it, my own fault i know but it wouldn't be much of an example if i didn't. Some one buys it, so of course, they get the source, AND ALL RIGHTS TO THE PRODUCT, except including it in a closed environment, including to freely distribute it to anyone whom they wish. I spent ALL that time creating this product, to sell one copy, and now all I can do is charge for support, and even then, I cant charge too much, because someone else, riding on my coat tails, can offer the same support but cheaper bc they also undercut who knows who else as well.

The GPL has its place and it is usefull, all I was saying is that the person i was originally responding to is being extreemly short sighted in declaring that everything and anything should be given away.

As far as what was intended in the law originally, laws change, get over it. Remember prohibition, should we go back to that? Or perhaps that First Amendment thing, that wasn't in the original agreement between "The People" and the powers at be, perhaps it should never have been created, because obviously if it wasnt in the original document, The Founding Fathers must not have had it in mind.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are mistaking freedom for "Give me everything I want whether you want to or not".

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never bought a CD with vocals on it. I think the Label takes liberties with their artists products, but I would doubt the artist just offer this up.

It's not on the CDs, it's on the 12" (vinyl). So if you're DJing, you can play it over some other record, or scratch with it, etc.

You often also get the vocal-free version, too, for the same reason.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Jim Starx]

Isn't part of what makes Jay Z's decision to release vocal-only tracks for remixing cool that he actually made the decision?

Everyone seems to be going at this from the Jay-Z angle. But unless I read the story wrong EMI owns the copyrights to the Beatles work. I didn't read anything about how the Jay-Z camp felt about this.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Kierthos]

Yeah, I'd feel sorry for the record companies if they didn't regularly take songs that they've already paid for once, overlaid a "dance track" and released it either as a 'dance single' or stick it on a compilation album of 'dance hits'.

I'd feel sorry for the record companies if they actually used proper accounting techniques so the artists (you know, the people who actually create the works?) are compensated for what they do instead of generally being hung out to dry.

Frankly, the record companies complaining about this is kettle->black territory.

Furthemore, it's hardly diluting the trademark of the Beatles or Jay-Z. It's 3000 albums. More pirated albums of Jay-Z get sold on street corners of New York in one day then this.

Kierthos

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Damn!! I knew I should have checked to see if another member of the slashdot hive-mind had already said what I wanted to say.

But at least the rutabagas were original.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[timeOday]

So if I decide I don't like the terms of the GPL, I can just take their software and violate their copyright?

Some laws are good, some are bad and should be stricken down. Some copyright claims are good, some are bad and should not be upheld. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[RdsArts]

I can't release it under the GPL. I am releasing BSD code.

As such, your code is closed, and I must release it under a BSD license. Because it must be free.

Or, in other words, take the copyright owner's work, and release it in a way that they don't want that I deem to be free. This was your logic, yes?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[dubiousmike]

Though many artists release vocal only tracks for guys like this to do remixing, I am not sure what all of the hub bub is about.

I downloaded some of said tracks and while its fairly tight, nothing I have heard (after 6 songs or so) really impressed me. I love remixes, but frankly, I think the originals are much better and I'm not necessarily a huge Jay-Z fan.

You want to hear unbelievable Jay-Z tracks? Listen to those where he plays with the Roots. They play behind him live and *they* are so tight, it makes tears come to your eyes. They make Jay-Z sound unreal and that's why he brings them on tour at times.

Frankly, this guy is doing nothing new. Diggable Planets were sampling their label's old music 12 years ago, legally.

I will give him props for spending what must have taken a long time to sample and arrainge these songs.

But at what point are you not really adding anything to the music? Much of the Beatles samples seem a little out of place. Yes, the Beatles were ahead of their time, but (comming from someone who listens to more hip hop and rap than anything else) so far all of DJ Danger Mouse's versions just aren't that good.

You want to hear examples of producers who REALLY accentuate an artist (in the hip hop genre), look for Dr. Dre, Timberland and Pharrell. They are absolutely nasty and have the ability to create music as well as sample.

I'm not sure how this guy has contributed more than his ear for music and his time to slice samples. This is nothing new. People have done this for 15 years now.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[dr.badass]

Yeah, so what if want to take it and stick with something that's not GPL'd and say "fuck you, I'm a code artist, I can do whatever I want. Fuck you and the license you rode in on." That is the analogue of this musical situation.

I wasn't making an analogy. But you are, and you're wrong. Just like the guy before you.

What I meant when I emphasised "as it fucking should be" was that the GPL, and more generally, open source, and even more generally, public domain works, Creative Commons licenses, etc. are better for mankind than things like software patents, DRM, and absurdly long copyright terms that serve more to protect corporate profits (EMI) than artists (the poor, starving, Beatles).

If The White Album had become part of the public domain X number of years ago (as I feel it should have), this wouldn't be an issue. Danger Mouse would be able to make his artistic contribution and the folks at EMI would have to do something more productive than milk every last dime out of a 35-year old record.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[dr.badass]

But I can't combine it with BSDed code.

True.

Or any other open code license.

Not at all true. There are a number of GPL-compatable licenses.

So by your logic, since the GPL is a propriety license now and impeeds my and the code's freedom, I'm free to include/distribute it as BSDed or public domain software, yes?

I don't know whose logic that is, but it's certaintly not mine. I didn't say that at all. Not even close. That's what the poster I was responding to said, and I pointed out that "That's completely incomparable.".

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[bleak sky]

And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?

Well, considering it's a corporation rather than a musician choosing to restrict the use of the Beatles stuff... In any case, it ought to be public domain by now. This is just one reason that copyright was never meant to be perpetual--there's hardly any more money to be made from the old Beatles records, most of the artists involved are dead or have been very well compensated, and now this DJ Danger Mouse character has brought new life into the music, more enjoyable material, and it's being suppressed by a corporation.

And we have Disney, et al, to thank.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Endive4Ever]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that your 'pick and choose' ambivalent attitude is frightening?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[dr.badass]

I'll admit that I should have elaborated in more detail, as apparently everyone that's read my three-sentence post has misunderstood it.

I wasn't implying that the GPL is the only way, so much as Free Software/Open Source/Creative Commons/public domain, and reasonable-length copyrights are "as it should be". I used the GPL as an example only because I thought the parent poster drew a deeply flawed analogy with it.

I fully agree with the notion that the creator of a work should be able to control how their work is used. That's why we have copyright, and software licenses, in the first place.

But, I think it's a horrifying thing that a faceless corporate entity can excersize this control over a recording of which there are millions upon millions of copies of, 35 years after it was produced, when half of it's creators are already dead.

There comes a point where copyright protection stops being used by the artist to protect his or her rights, and starts being used by a corporation to protect it's profits.

Does EMI speak for The Beatles, or does EMI speak for EMI?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[presidentnixon]

I don't know if any of you realize it, but it isn't Jay-Z's interests that Capitol/EMI is "protecting", since he's not even on their label. Capitol/EMI is calling foul for DJ DangerMouse's failure to secure the rights to sample the works of the Beatles. DJ DM acknowledges this in the Rolling Stone blurb from last week (RS #492; which incidentally is what likely brought this to Capitol/EMI's attention. It was probably only included due to its relevance to the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' Ed Sullivan appearance). His hope was that the project would be well recieved by the source artists, and that if it wasn't (for one reason or another), then he'd recall the CD's.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[NichG]

In an ideal world, I'd agree with that.

That is, if you held yourself to the same logical standards as you're trying to hold others, then you would not prevent other people from doing what they wanted with the code you took from GPL software. Which is the point of the above.

On the other hand, if you say that you can take code, but other people then can't take it from you, then you're being a hypocrite.

The GPL and other 'free' licenses are currently necessary because people are hypocrites. That is, corporations would have no problem taking freely available code, incorporating it into some closed program, and then complaining when other people copy, reverse engineer, etc that program.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[cypherz]

> Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?

Yes! :)

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

Frightening?

You're easily scared, aren't you? Are you of a nervous disposition?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[jrockway]

I think my sig provides some real-world insight into this situation:

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

It is frightening, scary, even terrifying, - but that is life - it is not supposed to be fair, (who ever said life was fair?*) completely safe, or lack things that can scare.

Although, quite frankly, I am much more terrified of living in a nation where I can be searched and sued at any time on someones whim to see if I can prove that I obtained all of my creative works legally, than I could ever be of living in a world where some people break stupid laws that are largely victimless.**

*purely retorical.

**The argument that they lost some 'economic gain' is lame, they lost what the government tried to take away from everyone else and give to them. Once this had a point, now there is much less need for it, and it has been twisted into something that threatens our liberty.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

I love freedom too. And I would have a bit more respect for DJ Danger Mouse (or whatever his name is) if he had really exercised his creative freedom to write his own songs, record them, and release his own CD of his own material. Something tells me it wouldn't be so popular, however, because he probably can't write, sing or play. Is what he's done a new form of artistic expression? Sure. But I suppose just playing a CD is too, by those standards.

As for the "people who choose oppression" being bad part--in addition to sounding like the kind of insipid crap that would dribble from the mouth of a college sophomore, that's just a stupid thing to say. Who do you suppose chooses oppression? I can anticipate your response: artists affilliated with RIAA labels. Well who defines that as oppression? You? Who the hell are you? And what do you know about their lives? Their decisions? Their work? Their businesses? Oh yeah, you're a person with a computer, an internet connection, and an opinion. Which makes you, well, nobody.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that he was trying to say that...

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Melantha_Bacchae]

If it was a musician or the family of a deceased musician saying: "Don't use my work for this." I would agree whole heartedly.

But it is not a musician or artist saying this. It is not a surviving Beetle or even the family member of a deceased Beetle. It is a greedy corporate monster shark, who holds the rights long ago taken from the Beetles, saying this.

The US Constitution gives the creator of a copyrighted work a monopoly on copying it for a short period as a way of rewarding creators for contributing to their society. After that, the work is to return to the public domain. Once in the public domain, anyone can copy, redistribute, or make derivative works (Grey Album) from the work. The Constitution basically agrees with the ancient ideal: the music belongs to the artist and to the people.

The greedy sharks that are the big labels used a monopoly on recording technology they once had to force a kind of contracted slavery on artists. They and other corporations pushed Congress to extend copyright periods obscenely, stealing from the people and their public domain, and ruthlessly suppressing the creativity that can come from derivative works. They have used contracts, and more recently, a work-for-hire law to take copyrights from the artists. They sell the artists, again and again, at every performance, and on every CD. And they have the unmitigated gall to claim the artist's work as *their* intellectual property, and to persecute anyone from little girls in projects to grandparents for "pirating" something that should belong to the artists or the public domain!

The shark's day is done! The very technology that once gave them their power has now turned against them, enabling a new music industry to arise. In this new industry, free and independent artists have the power, and other companies (music making equipment, CD distribution, etc.) are arising to serve the artists. It will be the people, not the sharks' label execs, who decide whether an artist is hot or not.

As for the sharks, I suspect they will be too busy trying to grab the cane from somebody's grandpa to see the bullet coming that was fired at them by Justice herself.

"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Myopic]

i can tell you haven't listened to the material in question, or you would have no trouble understanding that Danger Mouse did indeed write his own songs.

as for who am i? i am, at least, a citizen of a democratic country. doesn't that qualify me to have an opinion on the laws and institutions that govern me? really, i'm pretty surprised you would even argue with the merits of democratic involvement.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

get yourself some choking victim. all rights have been pissed away, and they gladly tell you to give a copy to a musically challenged (or deprived) friend. word up.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[AstroDrabb]

If you take away that GPLed software, Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE have no business anymore.

I work at a fortune 500 company. The cost of software is nothing. Most IT companies make their money on the SUPPORT, not the software. MySQL sells a non-GPLed version for customers that want to make a proprietary application that is not covered by the GPL. Again, the money in IT is hardware and support. We run tons of enterprise class applications, the initial cost of the software is squat compared to the annual 24x7 support. Look at IBM. They are a massive IT company. Guess where they make tons of money? From their Global Services division. Selling enterprise support is where the money is, not selling the software. MS makes their tons of cash not by selling you a $99 dollar copy of MS XP Home, but from the corporate support contracts that they get.

There are plenty of other Open Source licenses out there if the GPL does not fit you. Though most of the other Open Source licenses give away full rights to the software such as BSD which would allow your software to be consumed into a proprietary closed source product. If the GPL does not fit your business model, then don't use it. It is that simple.

How in the world can you compare freedom of speech with some greedy corporations trying for perpetual copyrights? Again, copyright was setup to MOVE WORKS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. If that is not the goal anymore, then it is not a copyright, and copyright should be done away with IMO for something else. Greedy corporations giving bribes to congress to continually extend copyrights is wrong IMO. It breaks the original purpose and agreement of copyright. Why should some greedy copyright holder have a right to get out of the copyright contract? If a person violates the copyright of a copyright holder, people start to screem, yet it is OK for the copyright holder to drop their end of the deal by giving money to congress critters to extend the terms of a copyright to practically be a perpetual copyright?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Kaboom13]

Wrong. Do you think getting rid of corporations will magically make all businessmen honest? Corruption and secret dealings have been going on in business as long business has been around. A corporation isn't inherently evil, if the law was actually applied it would be a useful construct. A corporation allows investors to invest in a company without opening themselves to liability. But shouldn't investors be liable for what their money does? Probably, but in reality noone would invest in large companies they cannot control as individuals if they were liable for all it's actions. For that reason the shareholder's nominate executives. The executives get paid handsomly for taking responsibility for the company. Instead of throwing away corporations, period, just make executives criminally liable for the actions of their company. If they are doing their job they should know everything that company does. If executives were dragged to prison when a corporation did something illegal, they would think twice about using shady business practices and would have to earn their inflated salaries.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

Corporations are legal persons, and they have rights and even abilities.

However, what we REALLY need to do is get laws in place to shut this sort of thing down. I'm off to vote electronically....what do you mean my vote is invalid?

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[jovlinger]

While granting corporations rights as persons (I'm sure legal students have a more precise word for it) was probably the one innovation which rocketed North America from being "the former colonies" to the position of dominant world power in less than 200 years, it came at an untold cost to human rights:

Courts only really make sense when two parties are roughly at parity wrt funds and power. It is silly to expect an individual to field a team of lawyers of equal caliber as that of a corporation. If you try to take on a corporation, they'll merely appeal 'til you're broke.

Unfortunately, I can't quite figure out how to fix the situation; it is merely another facet of the rich getting richer. While the effect is repugnant, the conditions which enable it are emminently desirable.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Ohreally_factor]

He probably listens to too much meddle.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[hesiod]

> And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?

That is a bit too simplified. A DJ (well, a good one, anyway) will take those recordings & change them. A lot. Therefore, it has a similarity, but it is still a different song.

It takes a lot less work to remix a song than to write one from scratch, but it still takes work. For it to come out right & sound good, it takes a lot of work and more importantly, a lot of talent. Puff Daddy, P-Diddy, whatever does not have talent. He just plays a good old song that people love and raps badly (uh... uh huh... yeah, *repeat*) over it. "Every Step You Take" was a blatant ripoff, he barely changed it, and probably took him 5 minutes -- not to mention, it sucked. What's worse is that stupid kids think he's brilliant for writing the music ("The Police?" What's that?). Regardless, I still don't consider it illegal.

> Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?

Yes.

Something else that strikes me about P-Dippy. What would that fat guy think when his best friend writes a song for him after his death -- and it isn't even slightly original. Man, I'd be pissed off & lobbying God to keep him out. Well, B.I.G. may not have much pull in heaven.

Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place

[Sunnan]

They seem to have broken up but thanks for the tip. Seems like a band I would like.

How stupid

[jrl2]

Why don't EMI sign the guy, or at least come to some kind of arrangement to get commission from the sales?
From the reviews (and prices on eBay) the albums been getting they could certainly make a good profit.

Seems these days the first response is always intimidation rather than considering other possibilities.

Re:How stupid

[LostCluster]

The interesting thing here is that he pressed 3000 copies for his friends and family as gifts, he likely still has a supply leftover at this point, and he never sold it. They're not going to be able to get much money as damages in court from that.

Any further sales or downloads are not Danger Mouse's problem... that's somebody else doing that. EMI's going to have to go after a few hundred people to grab that money.

Clearly, the path that leads to the most money for EMI would be a deal that leads to the legal release of the record. But, guess what, that's going to take Danger Mouse's approval in order to do that. If Danger Mouse is not willing to license his share of the project at any price, then this is dead on arrival. (And who's to say DM didn't reach out to EMI before and they refused to contribute their part at any price?) This could set up the ultimate irony... big money in front of a major record company that is just out of its reach.

If anything, Danger Mouse is getting his name out, and it'll likely lead to future work for him...

Re:How stupid

[Monkelectric]

And once again a big corporation forgets the primary rule of the internet -- I had never heard of this thing, and probably wouldn't be interested in it until EMI made a big deal of trying to destroy it. Now I fucking want it

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!

Re:How stupid

[gradji]

Why don't EMI sign the guy, or at least come to some kind of arrangement to get commission from the sales?
From the reviews (and prices on eBay) the albums been getting they could certainly make a good profit.

In the same spirit, Danger Mouse could have approached EMI after he created the remix but before he released it to the general public.

Granted, I think this is yet another example of the knee-jerk reaction created by our "modern" litigous society. But given that there are copyrights (I, like many, believe that copyright on 'artistic work' is counterproductive), it's not necessarily fair for Danger Mouse to negotiate with EMI after he released his music to the public.

Let me make the point obvious: suppose some unscrupulous advertiser decided he wanted the Beatles 'Let it Be' used for his commercial. He releases the commercial before getting permission and gets rave reviews/consumer reaction. Even though the band/EMI may not have wanted the song used to promote that particular product (say a political ad), they are in a bind: they can no longer prevent the action, only haggle over the appropriate 'payment.'

That said, EMI should go after the people who explicitly profit-ed from the "sale" of the remix. If all Danger Mouse did was release the music to the public (presumably for free), then he should be afforded the same protection as garage "cover" bands performing at the local bar (for free) and student artists practicing by recreating past masterpieces.

[ Yes, I know, Beatles songs get used for commercials all the time even though the living Beatles members hate the practice ... that's what you get for letting Michael Jackson outbid you for the catalog ... given Micahel's legal and financial woes ... maybe Paul can buy it back? ]

Re:How stupid

[oolon]

So clearly big money should sign it first then "appear" to destroy it then have it released on a seconary label and watch the lemmings come buy.

James

Re:How stupid

[Myopic]

me, too. i'm listening to it right now. it's good. the samples are the best part -- i'm not a Jay Z fan. maybe i should say, i wasn't a Jay Z fan until i started listening to this album.

Re:How stupid

[dr.badass]

In the same spirit, Danger Mouse could have approached EMI after he created the remix but before he released it to the general public.

A run of 3000 is not much of a public release, but it's about average for that class of underground record. You have to remember that this is basically a guy in his bedroom with a sampler, not someone whose record your going to find at the mall.

If he went to EMI, they might say something like "We want $100k and 15%.", he'd be fucked, because it'd only cost him $3000 to get CDs pressed. Where he might be expecting to pay rent for a few months, or get a new bit of gear from the profits, it's not even worth EMI's time to talk to him if he can't come up with some big money.

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

From the reviews (and prices on eBay) the albums been getting they could certainly make a good profit.

EMI is paying its fleet of lawyers more per hour than DM would make in a month selling this record.

Prices on eBay are the result of bastards who care more about profit (just like EMI) than art. Like record shops that let guys walk out with 20 copies of the CD.

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly...If it weren't for EMI I wouldnt be downloading it right now...Maybe this is secretly a marketing conspiracy

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear how it sounds... See how it reads in lights...

Mozart - Beethoveen - Rachmaninoff - Lennon - McCartney - DANGER MOUSE

BRB - I gotta go HURL...

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

it'll likely lead to future work for him...

Cleaning restrooms in the IRT.

Re:How stupid

[hugzz]

Why don't EMI sign the guy, or at least come to some kind of arrangement to get commission from the sales?

I cant see his hapening. To do so would tell the public "illegallity steal our copyright, it's a great way to get a contract and make money!"

Re:How stupid

[eraserewind]

I, like many, believe that copyright on 'artistic work' is counterproductive

Without copyright, The Beatles' White Album would probably have been released to a few friends and family of he artists in a limited pressing of 3000.

Re:How stupid

[wishlish]

Clearly, the path that leads to the most money for EMI would be a deal that leads to the legal release of the record.

Not necessarily. I've heard the Grey Album, and it's more clever than good. Encore is the best of the songs, sampling Glass Onion and Savoy Truffle, but that's as close as you get to a really good song. Nothing horrible here, but nothing as good as, say, Jay-Z's Unplugged album with The Roots (which was REALLY good).

It's certainyl a neat experiment, but there's a big difference between that and good music.

Then again, a certain subset of Beatles fans would buy it, and that's a large audience, so I could be wrong.

Re:How stupid

[Moofie]

Wow. That's a hell of a conclusion to draw from curiousity about some new DJ.

You're an ass.

Re:How stupid

[Monkelectric]

This moron has an engineering degree, and is a talented musician, infact I think there is just one moron here, and it aint me :)

Re:How stupid

[Alan Partridge]

Oh no, I've been hanging around here for AGES and I can confidently assure you that there are THOUSANDS of morons here.

Some would say I'm one of them.

I'm glad that you're so "talented", though. Modest. too. I wonder if Stevie Wonder ever referred to himself as a "talented musician"...

Re:How stupid

[aeryn_sunn]

(I, like many, believe that copyright on 'artistic work' is counterproductive)

Now, who are these "many" you are referring to? I am sure if you ask those artists who hold copyrights and make a living off of their creations to support themselves and their families...I am sure those artists would vehemently disagree with you. Just because you and the rest of those "many" people do not respect nor like copyrights, does not mean that those whose livelihoods depend on their works think copyrights are counterproductive..

Copyrights are far from counterproductive. They do serve a function and serve it well.

And for your information, that garage coverband performing at the local bar is not exactly completely free either. The bar should have already paid for some sort of small performance license through ASCAP or BMI...at least to be legal, they should have done this, so the songwriters who actually created whatever the cover band is playing are getting compensated

Artists that create should be able to control the distribution and profit from their work if they so choose. That is why we have copyrights.

Re:How stupid

[Beek]

Danger Mouse is white.

Re:How stupid

[nolife]

I do not agree with preventing or removing copyright but I feel that good music would still be readily available even without the profit motive[1]. People would still create music and others with similar interests would find it and enjoy it. Linux and GNU is a good example.
I doubt a majority of stuff played on the radio today would be considered "popular" if the RIAA did not control almost the entire path and price from artist to store and radio.

[1]You can still maintain full copyright of a work you create and allow others to use and modify it without charging a fee.

Re:How stupid

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Bah. "Sampling" isn't art, it's theft(ish). Danger Mouse hasn't the talent to learn to play an actual instrument, so he uses sound bits from actual talented musicians to make his music.

It's just the same as using clip-art, folks. If you're really so talent-free as to need to use other people's work to make a piece of art, PAY THE FUCKING LICENSE FEE, The person that made what you're using is better than you. They made something people actually want to listen to. If you can't without riding their coattails, then don't bitch about the cost.

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say you're one of them.

Re:How stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Re:How stupid

[dipipanone]

Without copyright, The Beatles' White Album would probably have been released to a few friends and family of he artists in a limited pressing of 3000.

That's OK. Like Dangermouse, they could have distributed it on Kazaa and Bittorrent and still reached an audience of millions. They might not have gotten so rich and stupid so fast, but it seems unlikely to me that they would have stopped making music.

And didn't Paul McCartney sample Little Richard's trademark scream in most of his early songs? Because the technology was so poor in those days, he had to use his throat rather than a sampler, but I don't see how the creative impulse is any different.

And I'm not even going to bother with My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine...

Re:How stupid

[dipipanone]

I am sure if you ask those artists who hold copyrights and make a living off of their creations to support themselves and their families...I am sure those artists would vehemently disagree with you.

Just as if you ask Bill Gates whether he thinks Microsoft is a monopoly, or whether monopolies should be broken up, he's not likely to agree with you either.

This idea might sound somewhat outlandish to an American but it's fairly common currency in most of the rest of the world: sometimes, those people with vested financial interests aren't the best people to decide on matters of public policy.

Re:How stupid

[Monkelectric]

well moron or not atleast you had the balls to reply with your real account. Nothing worse then some 15 year old posting AC :)

Re:How stupid

[Alan Partridge]

Cool!

If you log in you can make me a foe, you know.

Kinda mediocre

[turnstyle]

I dunno, I listened and I didn't think it was all that great. The idea of matching Black against White is interesting, but -- and this is just one subjective opinion -- I didn't think the music itself deserves the hype.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't get is where is the "creative" part in all of this. You take one album and remove the background music (in the case of Jay-Z you don't even have to do that, he did it for you), take another one and remove the lyrics. Combine.

Where on earth is there any creativity in that?

Re:Kinda mediocre

[turnstyle]

"Where on earth is there any creativity in that?"

Well, there's obviously an art to matching samples to the vocal track, and a good mash-up can be a remarkable thing.

But given all the hype, when I gave it a listen I just didn't think it was all that great.

As always, when it comes to art, mileage may vary...

Re:Kinda mediocre

[cymen]

That isn't what they did. They took samples from the White Album. Some samples are long chunks, some are just drum beats. Then they synced Jay-Z's vocals with the samples.

It's not A + B.

BitTorrent rocks.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[notsoclever]

A good mash-up takes a lot of skill. But this one sounded like it was just A+B, and like any idiot could have done it just as well using Acid or Garageband (which does all the beatmatching for you).

I mean, for the most part, it was just some 3-second clip from a White Album song, repeated over the course of the entire rap, sometimes with a "clever" cut-out gap which didn't even make any sort of aesthetic sense. And MAYBE it would change to a different sample halfway through.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[cymen]

I disagree. I'm not going to judge the music as I just don't feel like it but I don't think it is A+B. All the beats are sampled from the album, not just the 3-second chunks. There are a lot of beats.

In my opinion, A+B would simply the vocals laid over the White Album.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[glesga_kiss]

I've been a fan of bootleg mash-ups for many years (1999 according to some file datestamps), and I agree. This isn't all that great as an album, I was quite disappointed given the hype.

What is interesting however is the reaction to it. I've been anticipating this for a while now; ever since "2 Many DJs" became popular, bootleg remixes have pretty much entered mainstream music. Here in the UK there are radio stations who promote it, and MTV even has a show now called MTV Mash. Note that the latter has to limit itself to licensed tracks, kinda ignoring the "dirty, unauthorised" appeal of some mashes.

When 2 Many DJs released their album "As Heard on Radio Soulwax Part 2", they had to cut out half of the tracks due to license restrictions. Since then, parts 1-8 of the series have appeared on-line, without restriction. The style is really an extension to hip-hop turntablism, but created entirely digitally. Tools like Acid allow you to pull loops from songs, reorder them, remix them and resequence them into something entirely different. Mainstream music has been doing this for years, a listen to the "Sampled" album collection shows some interesting sampling loops done years ago in well-known tracks you'd never think were based around a few samples. You could actually do this years ago on machines like the Atari ST, but the software now is incredible.

Tech is also entering the turntable world. "Final Scratch" puts PCM encoded vinyl onto standard decks, allowing a Linux PC to play mp3 as if it were on the disk. Entire electronic systems are available with scratch pads. However, you will never get the respect of a real DJ, they don't go for blinking lights!!

There are loads of websites with new mixes appearing daily from all over the world. Some of them are incredible, others are accapallela rap lyrics over something else. Like this album. Yawn, might have been interesting about three years ago...bootleggers, mixing rap over another song isn't big or clever. Mix two songs with similar chord-sequences and clever name/band connections, then I'll be impressed. :-)

If this sort of thing appeals to you, check out the following names: Freelance Hellraiser, 2ManyDJs, Eclectic Method, Osymyso, etc. See you on p2p!!

Re:Kinda mediocre

[bdaehlie]

I love it - mixing is really tough. Hell - beat matching on two turntables is tough. Taking two songs and putting them together is really difficult if you choose the songs for what songs they are instead of how their beats mesh. Most often when you hear two tracks mixed, they're mixed because their beats go together, not because the DJ wanted to hear those two specific songs together. The latter takes a lot more skill. DJ Danger chose to mix two records together because he wanted to hear them together - not because their beats are particularly close. He did a great job too - talented dude.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[notsoclever]

The beats are the 3-second chunks I was talking about. I've done quite a bit of remixing, and I know what goes into it, and this was a trivial effort.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Myopic]

i disagree. i think it's great.

maybe it depends on what kind of music you otherwise like. i like hip hop.

i downloaded it from gnutella, for what it's worth.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Entire electronic systems are available with scratch pads. However, you will never get the respect of a real DJ, they don't go for blinking lights!!"

Which just goes to show you know absolutely nothing of "real DJ's". Many of them DO go for blinking lights as it enables them to carry FAR more music with them in a much more compact form which is much harder to damage. While there are still some issues with the scratch pads, they are remarkably close to the real thing and MANY of the top DJs in the world use mp3s in some form in their sets. Just so you know, tech has been in the turntable world for a LONG time. In fact, the entire modern electronic music scene has been embracing tech for a while now.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[shokk]

I find no creativity in mixing two previous albums. Quite, the opposite, it strikes me as lazy uncreative slop. If you can't write or create your own music, well, you're just not creating anything new, and where is the art in that? It only smacks of grabbing at commercial straws. This is where the art of music is today, folks... wallowing in its own mediocrity and whipping out a right tit ovre it.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[SlamMan]

Apply this to programming: "He didn't make any new libraries or a new language, he just assembled existing functions and threw some variables in"

Mixing's a lot harder than it sounds, and a good job is really good stuff to listen to. But I bet you're one of those people who dislikes any song already performed by anyone ever, regardless of who wrote it originally.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[doofusclam]

I used to DJ myself and know a few hard house / hard trance DJs here in the UK. Not one of them would use mp3s in their set. I know a lot of famour folk use Final Scratch, and so would I if it supported the musepack codec, but they use uncompressed wavs, not mp3s. Ever heard an mp3 in a large club setting?

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Alan Partridge]

how does "mileage" relate to art again?

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Hatta]

Tools like Acid allow you to pull loops from songs, reorder them, remix them and resequence them into something entirely different.

Am I the only one who was trying to figure out who this band Acid was and why them allowing you to take sample from their songs made them tools?

Re:Kinda mediocre

[stuph]

actually, final scratch is making it's way into the DJ world, at least when i was out in california, and at least in the drum and bass community..

and i can really understand, having dragged 50+ pounds of vinyl around, just in case i want to play that *one* song that i know people will go crazy over.. instead, carrying 4 pieces of vinyl (2 and 2 backups), plus perhaps a few extra records in order to play something while setting up.. score... laptops are simple, and the extra hardware is nothin'...

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the obvious question is if it was so simple and you do remixing, why didn't you think of it? Or were you not so clever?

Re:Kinda mediocre

[afidel]

I'm guessing you've never seen a good DJ?? I mean saying there is no art in mixing is an extremely ignorant statement. Beyond that only a handfull of DJ's worldwide are able to be commercially sucessfull, most while around in small clubs or underground scenes simply plying their art.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[glesga_kiss]

Which just goes to show you know absolutely nothing of "real DJ's".

No, just you know nothing of me, so don't make an assumption. It depends how you define a DJ. On one end of the spectrum, there's your "Dave's Disco" guy, for hire anytime any place. Sure, they love mp3.

On the other extreme end, there's the performance DJ, where the mixing of the music creates something new. This goes beyond playing two tracks at work. You need to see someone like Q-Bert or Mixmaster Mike cutting up vinyl to appreciate it. It's like certain sports (e.g. golf) where you have to have experience of it to appreciate the masters. The DMC championships make for some cool viewing if you can get a hold of the videos.

You just can't do that electronically yet. Final Scratch and any other similar device will never give the instant audible feedback that a needle on a record can give. The sound buffers etc all add milliseconds to the response. The drive sensor does the same. The same issues are a problem in putting together a digital studio. Add in midi delay, and you get to see some artificts of digital media. It's good, but it's not perfect. Give it a few years tho and who knows

I think one of the next things will be people doing electronic mashes live. It would work like a normal DJ set, but instead of dropping in tracks, you drop in loops. With the right software, you could put off some good tricks and react instantly to the crowd. Should be good!!

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And just like programming, if you're going to derive your work from other work, you have to fucking PAY FOR IT if the license calls for it.

Yea mixing is tough. Not as tough as learning how to play a guitar or keyboard or whatever for yourself. Even if it was, it wouldn't make it ok to sample people with actual TALENT and use their work for your own gain without paying them their due.

I don't give a shit how clever he was. It wasn't his to take, without paying whatever the fair market fee was.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Commercially succesful != actual talent. See Spears, Britney.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[notsoclever]

Well, since I'd never heard of Jay-Z before, much less The Black Album, that would have been pretty hard to come up with. Anyway, I prefer just doing my own original music; I only do remixes when requested to.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[afidel]

I never implied that you had to have talent to be sucessfull or that being talented was a guarentee of making it big. In fact most of the best DJ's I've seen have never had a commercial release. There are exceptions, Paul Okenfold is a damn good DJ, as is Bad Boy Bill, but there are tons of others like 7UP, Scott Henry,Rob Black, etc which will never make more than a living (and usually not even that) off their art.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[shfted!]

No, it's because you're on Acid, Tool :P

Re:Kinda mediocre

[sumbry]

I'm an LA based house DJ and been using Final Scratch for about 6 months now... the benefits of it far outweight the drawbacks.

1) FinalScratch will play any mp3 (vbr, 320k, etc) not just uncompressed wavs
2) The millisecond delay you're talking about is EASILY compensated for. Ever played on a large system w/no monitors - same type of situation. Any DJ worth even 1/10th of his booking price will be able to deal with this w/o even thinking about it
3) If you encode all your mp3s at 320k, it sounds fine on a large club system. Not as good as a brand new record, but sounds about 1 million times better than a record that you've been playing out for years

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Lord_Dweomer]

I never suggested that this might be of use to Q-Bert. I have no idea how good this thing would be for a professional scratching contest. But being a DJ is not just scratching, there are many top of the line DJs who spin without scratching. The milliseconds added to response are easily compensated for by any DJ worth his vinyl.

Also, perhaps you've never seen a Live PA set, but groups like Crystal Method and Underworld produce all their loops and samples, and then combine them live with software on a laptop, or with a midi sequencer.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[dipipanone]

The beats are the 3-second chunks I was talking about.

So you didn't think he's taken his drum samples off the White Album and added some programmed drum sequencing on there as well then? (Which is what people working in sampled music forms usually refer to as 'beats'.)

I thought you said you did this stuff yourself?

Re:Kinda mediocre

[notsoclever]

Uh. A "beat" is just a beat, regardless of whether it's a loop, a sequenced drummachine, a sample, or what. I've never seen anyone take "beat" to mean "a rhythm as generated by a drummachine," which is what you seem to think it means.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[dipipanone]

Yea mixing is tough. Not as tough as learning how to play a guitar or keyboard or whatever for yourself.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's rather like the difference between video and painting. Sampling and mixing is more fluid, more democratic, yet still involves creative selection and imaginative leaps to be any good. More importantly, perhaps, it's what many people want to listen to -- rather than a bunch of hackneyed old wankers fondling their shiny phallic symbols as they posture in the mode established by some old dork from the early seventies.

Even if it was, it wouldn't make it ok to sample people with actual TALENT and use their work for your own gain without paying them their due.

Don't be a tosser. The only difference between the sampling that Dangermouse did, and the Beatles did before them, was that Dangermouse had better technology available to him. When the Beatles stole Little Richard's trademark squeal, or Chuck Berry's riffs, did they pay those artists for what they stole? Of course they didn't.

I don't give a shit how clever he was. It wasn't his to take, without paying whatever the fair market fee was.

Let me guess. You wouldn't be yet another of those no-hoper bedroom guitarists who someday dreams of prog rock superstardom, and is enraged by the fact that someone who hasn't practiced until his fingers bled is getting all this attention, by any chance?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

Re:Kinda mediocre

[dipipanone]

Heh. See, I *knew* you'd never done any *real* remixing. What's more, you clearly have no knowledge of or interest in the genre either, so perhaps I should educate you a little?

In my experience, people working in this form tend to distinguish between beats, loops and (non-repeating) samples. (If you're serious about anything, you need to have a language to communicate about it with that has some precision. A beat is a beat is a beat doesn't help anyone if you're trying to describe how you did something or how you want something doing.)

But regardless of what terminology you use, your original post was making the argument that all Dangermous used to make this is stuff longish (three seconds or so) loops that have been chopped from the original, inserted, and possibly time-stretched in something like ACID to match the lyrics? You're just plain wrong about that, because those drum patterns weren't produced by the Beatles. Rather, he's chopped out the individual Beatles drum hits into seperate samples, put them into a soft sampler and programmed new and sometimes (fairly complex) drum patterns in a sequencer.

In truth, Dangermouse is no Dr. Dre or Timbaland, but it's still an interesting and creative piece of work and the fact that you didn't recognize any of this tells me that you've got no real idea at all what goes in to making a piece of work like this and are talking out of your arse.

But thanks for playing, and do come back and try again sometime.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Uncle Ira]

"The DMC championships make for some cool viewing if you can get a hold of the videos.
You just can't do that electronically yet. Final Scratch and any other similar device will never give the instant audible feedback that a needle on a record can give. "

Go ask DJ Craze how he feels about Final Scratch's utility in turntablism and get back to me.




Assuming three consecutive DMC championships is enough to qualify him as a "performance DJ", that is.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[0x0d0a]

I don't know about music production. I do know about computer software. A properly configured Linux system can stay below 3 ms audio latency, which I *really* doubt folks can pick up on. (if you notice under a three hundredth of a second of latency, I'm impressed). And that's just a general-purpose operating system, not audio hardware designed for low latency. Disk seeks would be significant, but are not part of the equation -- software for real-time audio use prebuffers the audio it's working with. There's *some* degree of buffering happening on a sound card, but that can be cut down to almost nothing if the app can feed the card fast enough.

Hell, there's some guy that hangs out in #linpeople that's a DJ that's been doing a digital scratch pad for BSD, which isn't even as low-latency as Linux is.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[ManxStef]

Hehe, good post :)

Favourite (rediscovered) remix is probably Freelance Hellraiser's "Smells Like Booty" - can't go wrong mixing Nirvana and Destiny's Child! Oh, and Empire State Human (.co.uk) did a good mix of Kelis's Milkshake vs. Whitey's TwoFaced, pretty rocking though fairly straightforward.

Other names that spring to mind - Girls On Top (Richard X - of SugaBabes fame), Kurtis Rush, etc.

Re:Kinda mediocre

[Fnkmaster]

No, he's not Dre or Timbaland - but we've heard plenty of Timbaland and Dre already. It's nice to hear something fresh, even if it's still a bit unrefined. To me, the Grey Album sounds tight for a small time DJ, not necessarily polished and admittedly a bit uneven in execution quality, but interesting for the conceptual quality of the mix selections and for what I hear as a fresher style than much of the mainstream hip hop stuff.

Anyway, I didn't really like the Black Album when I heard it the first few times. The Grey Album clicked right away for me. Admittedly, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the underground/"mash up" genre to really compare this work to its peers in that sense.

A natural correction to excess

[A nonymous Coward]

I have always wondered what would happen when the IP mafia went too far. A common fiction theme is carrying some oddity to to an extreme that is not possible. Sometimes it seems to be laziness, other times intentional.

Slashdot itself is full of these extreme types of worry. People get all het up over copyright holders locking down 1+1=2 (or Intel's version, 1+1=1.999998; perhaps Intel was merely ahead of its time, eh?), and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent. It always seemed a silly take to me. But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up. The farther out of whack, the more intense the corrections.

I like the looks of this, we have more and more natural corrections all the time, little ones and bigger ones. GPL is a natural correction, quite ingenious, the ultimate hack to make a system subvert itself. Remixes like this are great, they put the big labels on notice that they can't control everything. Kazaa is helping.

Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[tepples]

and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent

For an interesting perspective on this phenomenon, please read "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson. And yes, it has actually begun, in fact involving a late Beatle.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[rzbx]

"Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs."

Well, it is our time and money. Not all of our time and money though. Think about it. We work (time) and spend our money to buy products from companies, whether it be music or just a cheeseburger. They in turn use some of that money to advertise which is using our time. They control a lot of it because they have the money to do it. When is too much control too much? If they see something not working, then they will spend more money on marketing. Most people don't have the time nor money to find alternatives or find out where the money is going. Even more so, they spend their time watching the media which is in a way controllled by them, because THEY pay for advertising with the money WE pay them. The "big boys" rarely ever die easily. They fight to stay in control. RIAA was finally losing out because of not changing fast enough, so what do they do, iTunes and others. The "big boys" are still in business. Sometimes it isn't so cut and clear and some few do fail eventually, but they all fight to the end using OUR time and OUR money. Do we deserve it because we don't know any better and only watch and listen to the major media? Or should we finally start watching the money and finally decide where it SHOULD go, to support those that bring us what we want, not those that simply control it?

These natural corrections you speak of take time, and in that time we pay for all of the problems. Why not correct the problems as soon as they arise? Why sit back and let others control and profit from these problems? The "big boys" in the RIAA understand these natural corrections (or maybe they don't, but that doesn't matter). They do what they can to stop it, slow it, or make it work for them. Welcome to profit for the wealthy RIAA. With the internet and all of the recording tech we have that makes it both easy and cheap, we could undermine them and finally get music straight, cheap, original, artistic, and pay the artists what they deserve.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[Comatose51]

True but I don't want to wait until I'm dead before it gets corrected. Sure Hitler's manical dreams were at tne end "corrected", but at what cost? I don't think those millions who died cares. Not trying to equate the atrocities to the IP chaos but the point is the same. Yes, things do get corrected eventually but it makes no difference to those who must suffer through it first.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[Lord_Dweomer]

"and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent."

That is assuming of course that SCO wins........

Re:A natural correction to excess

[dhaines]

A while back I was watching my nephew and his friends playing. They had Matchbox(R) cars and a city drawn on a big piece of cardboard with books and blocks for buildings. Intellectual property crept into their play when the oldest decided to "patent" his zoo to stifle a competitor that popped up across town. (I'm still trying to figure out how they've even heard of patents.)

Anyway, you can imagine where this led... Soon the entire metropolis was gridlocked with exclusive patents on everything from ambulances to zebras. As the older boys snapped up the rights to things like swimming pools and cheeseburgers, the little guy was left behind. Right when I was wondering who was going to invent movie tie-ins, he thought to "patent" the sun.

Not long after, the disputes tapered off and the city got back to the everyday business of car trading, skyscraper construction and monster attacks.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[Deliveranc3]

Although this seems to lead to marxism you forget that only the common man benefits from equality and reasonable copywrite law. If someone could charge you for air and shoot you for going outside of their monopoly they would win. Government's are established along these lines, power = control.

Interesting examples are north American imperalist policies in other countries, Nike in Asia, Cadbury in Africa, just about everyone in south America.

Cadbury gives the women who work for them a milk suplement for their babies when the women's breasts have stopped giving milk they start charging for the milk. Who do you think the soldiers shoot when someone complains.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[iminplaya]

Slashdot itself is full of these extreme types of worry.

I think the saying goes something like, "Extremities in the defense of freedom is not a vice(officer)" :-)

Re:A natural correction to excess

[Blackknight]

Also check out Tales From the Afternow which is a story with a similar theme.

Corporations take over the government, start the listener license, etc.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[dr_tube]

"But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up."

People worrying is part of the "natural correction". Often times the things people do because they are worried are the most influential of "natural corrections."

For example, there have always been people who insist that "the world is going to end" for some reason or other. You CANNOT conclude that because the world has yet to end, that these people were wrong. Why? Because their hard work of alerting people to possible dangers may have been what kept the world from disaster.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[Ray Radlein]

And yes, it has actually begun, in fact involving a late Beatle.

Speaking of which, has anyone actually done a mashup of "He's so Fine" and "My Sweet Lord"?

Re:A natural correction to excess

[tepples]

The Chiffons, the girl band that performed the popular recording of "He's So Fine", went on to cover "My Sweet Lord", inserting some "He's So Fine" lyrics near the end. It's rumored that the Belmonts performed a humorous combination of the two songs, but I can't find it on any of the music piracy 3 networks.

Re:A natural correction to excess

[Stealth Munchkin]

The story has an interesting idea, but fortunately in the case of music at least the number of possible melodies is so extremely huge that it's never going to happen - the number is so staggeringly huge, even if one makes stupid restrictions like the melodies have to be eight bars long, in 4/4 time, and within one octave, that if everyone on the planet were to write a new melody once every second it would take somewhere in the region of a googol years before one could expect an exact duplication. Of course, given that most melodies are inspired by previous ideas, and that most people have unimaginative minds, it happens occasionally, but the number of new good melodies is not going to appreciably diminish within the lifespan of the human race.

As for the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine case, even John Lennon didn't believe George Harrison. The two songs have identical melodies and simillar arrangements, and He's So Fine was a favourite of Harrison's in the 60s. He knew what he was doing, and he got caught.

Danger Mouse?

[Magus311X]

He's the greatest, He's fantastic,
Wherever there is danger he'll be there,
He's the ace, He's amazing,
He's the strongest, He's the quickest,
He's the best, Danger Mouse,
He's terrific, He's magnific,
He's the bravest secret agent in the world.

Danger Mouse, Danger Mouse,
Danger mouse.

I think that's all of it. Or maybe not. Crumbs, DM!

----- ----- -----

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, only Brits will "get" the parent comment.
Good Grief, Penfold!

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about, cracky? DM ran in America. Perhaps you should do some research before posting inane assumptions.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so: Danger Mouse ran for several years on Nickelodeon, the cable network for kids, here in the United States in the 1980s, and was (if not still is) available on VHS. I'm in freakin' Kansas, not exactly a cultural hotspot, but I know all about Danger Mouse and Penfold. (We also had Count Duckula, which was a spin-off, I think.)

Re:Danger Mouse?

[p4ul13]

I could swear that somewhere in there is a bit that goes "Danger Mouse; Power House!!" but my memory sucks for that sort of thing. Time for a googling and an offtopic mod.

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Carrion Creeper]

you forget

Danger Mouse! Power House!

(and this was on in the US for a time)

Re:Danger Mouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the subject of this post, perhaps the poster's name should be 'anonymouse coward'?
For more Dangermouse information, try TV Cream, or Dangermouse.org.
Enjoy...

Re:Danger Mouse?

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Close. Here's as I recall.

He's the greatest, he's fantastic,
Wherever there is danger he'll be there.
He's the ace, he's amazing,
He's the strongest, he's the quickest, he's the best!

Danger Mouse.

He's terrific, he's magnific,
He's the greatest secret agent in the world.
Danger Mouse -- powerhouse!
He's the fastest, he's the quickest, he's the best!

Danger Mouse -- amazing!
Danger Mouse -- astounding!
Danger Mouse!
(Fanfare, and bomb explosion.)

The abbreviated version didn't have the second verse.

<span style="voice: David Jason">Penfold. Shush.</span>

BitTorrent

[moertle]

+5 Informative to the first person who can supply a .torrent link...

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

http://66.90.75.92/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mouse-G rey_Album.torrent

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

http://66.90.75.92/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mouse-G rey_Album.torrent

http://213.158.116.18/torrents/1163/jay-z%20vs%20d j%20danger%20mouse%20-%20grey%20album.torrent

ed2k://|file|Jay-Z_The.Grey.Album.(DJ.Dangermouse) .rar|72570992|F39A531D9E6005D49F3D7EDBA019844A|/

ed2k://|file|Jay.Z.And.Beatles.-.The.Grey.Album(Dm .Black.Album.Remix)(Musicdonkey.Org).rar|61934130| 22D53378860BFDEA83BEE8B80161FB90|/

two networks, two sources for each

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s. i forgot to add: it's crap, don't bother. read the /. story, you'll find it a lot more interesting. i think :)

Re:BitTorrent

[glk572]

good torrent, nice and fast.

Re:BitTorrent

[OverlordQ]

Tracker is dead can you oblige?

Re:BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget to delete the space between the "d" and the "j" in the second torrent link.

Re:BitTorrent

[cyberformer]

There may be a risk that the RIAA will sue people who download the torrent. It's not normally illegal to download RIAA music (despite the misleading superbowl commercials) but the torrent protocol does enforce sharing. Couldn't an RIAA lawyer click on the link, then sue all the unlucky fans who it taps for packets?

Re:BitTorrent

[nsingapu]

http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html (site respone is slow, download speed was ok)

Re:What is the best file storage format?

[Anonymous Coward]

PNG, plus the DEFLATE and PNG specifications and the source code for zlib and libpng

Permission

[Aneurysm]

Surely this guy could have avoided all problems in the first place by getting permission. I'm sure if he'd pointed out what he was doing, he could perhaps have got himself into a lucrative deal with EMI, whereby he uses the samples, and in turn releases the album under them. I know the record industry is getting a bad press at the moment, but he didn't even ask permission.

Re:Permission

[tepples]

he could perhaps have got himself into a lucrative deal with EMI, whereby he uses the samples, and in turn releases the album under them.

In the United States, there is no compulsory license for derivative works of sound recordings. In the distant chance that the label would have accepted such a deal, it probably would have resulted in a negative royalty arrangement, where the artist would have to pay the record label for each copy sold.

Re:Permission

[Breakfast Pants]

Umm thats how all royalties work. Unless you mean he would pay more in royalties than he would make per sale.

Re:Permission

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you mean he would pay more in royalties than he would make per sale.

Of course that's what he meant.

Re:Permission

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is far easier to beg forgiveness than to secure permission".

Old navy axiom

Re:Permission

[canajin56]

No, he means not that he sells them and pays them a portion, but that THEY sell them FOR him, and charge HIM money for each one they sell on his behalf. As in "Ok, I'll sell your CD's, but every one I sell you owe me $1." That's what they do to most artists though, not just the ones who are licencing samples...

Re:Permission

[Aneurysm]

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant :)

Re:Permission

[blincoln]

It isn't really practical for low-volume releases to have all of the samples cleared and/or licensed.

It's too bad people have decided that sampling is somehow devaluing of the original product, because it's unlikely we'll ever see another Skinny Puppy or classic Front Line Assembly type of band.

I am definitely in favour of protecting IP, but as long as musicians who sample credit the original source (like citing works in an article or research paper), I don't see what the problem is.

It's not like people are *not* going to buy a movie because they already have 3 seconds of dialogue from it, or in this case not going to buy the White Album because they already have some manipulated chunks of it with new vocals.

In fact, I am *more* likely to buy movies and music if I hear it sampled. A few years ago I went on a rampage of buying all of the movies sampled by Skinny Puppy that I could find.

Re: Permission

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the parent poster has no knowledge of licensing issues.

Try getting licensed permission for part of a song you want to use in your own music to release. Then maybe you'll see why he didn't ask permission. If you need to use a sample, they can stop you. Thats all they need to do isn't it? They hold all the cards. If they say, if you use it, we want all the money, plus we don't want you diluting the sound. You have to comply otherwise they can withdraw their permission. Announcing prior intention gives them a lot more chance to make decisions which may affect your release. Negotiation can only happen when you have something they want.

Whats happened now is the music is released, its totally out of EMI's hands and in the public and all concerned get publicity (potentially bad for EMI). Even if it sounds dire, likely the increased demand will force an official release (eventually) which will have them in the position of power, not EMI.

The idea of forming a good partnership in the nature of a 50/50* agreement does NOT happen with a recording studio. Why do you think even the big stars have disputes (and they have a hell of a lot more power).

* maybe thats a little extreme, you could exchange that 50/50 for 'fair'

Re:Permission

[Night Goat]

A few years ago I went on a rampage of buying all of the movies sampled by Skinny Puppy that I could find.

Rent "The Tenant." They sampled this movie, and it's a great horror film. One of those weird '70s horror flicks that's a marked contrast from today's horror flicks in that it's psychologically scary as opposed to just superficially scary.

Re:Permission

[Night Goat]

Surely this guy could have avoided all problems in the first place by getting permission.

Yeah, and of course he probably had the half million dollars to clear all those samples. Sampling legally costs too much money. Read "Fair Use" by Negativland, it goes over how much bullshit you have to deal with to actually clear samples. The days of records like "Paul's Boutique" by the Beastie Boys are over. Ever wonder why rap records nowadays have almost no samples? This is why.

Re:Permission

[pod]

Also check out Contingence (their first album, Dominion, is practically a masterpiece) for some great sample-heavy industrial. FLA of course did it as well. Fear Factory may have, on Demanufacture, and Leather Strip too, but I'm not sure off-hand.

These days I'm into Velvet Acid Christ. They sampled a TON of movies, of all kinds, mostly sci-fi and horror, and have released some 6-7 CDs to date, so you'll have fun with that.

Re:Permission

[Technician]

Getting permission is sometimes not easy. How do you get permission when the answer is "NO!"? You can legaly take all of Bill Gates earnings last year. The only trick is first you have to get permission. Good luck. Getting to use Beatles stuff is just as easy. Just get permission. Ya, Right!

Re:Permission

[Stealth Munchkin]

EMI have never given permission for any other artists' use of the Beatles' work in this way, and under the terms of their contract with the Beatles never will do so.

The only time any other artists have been allowed to mess with Beatles' recordings legally was when Paul McCartney himself comissioned some remixes for 'Liverpool Sound Collage'. Even then, the artists in question (Youth and Super Furry Animals) never got a penny...

It's a great album

[Amsterdam Vallon]

Seriously, it's fucking awesome.

1) Get this
2) Set this as default
3) Query the album name

You should have it downloaded within 20 minutes tops. It's fucking worth it though. I'm a huge Beatles fan and I enjoy a lot of modern rap, so this was a great joy for me to find this album. I don't see why EMI is so pissed off anyway.

Re:It's a great album

[Anonymous Coward]

The album appears to be availible as a bittorrent if you're interested in it... Of course, bittorrent isn't anonymous, but it's a way to share it with a lot of people...

Re:It's a great album

[Z-MaxX]

Sweet! I can download a 65.4 MiB album in 20 minutes tops?!

And other than the smoke pouring from my modem, no adverse effects.

Linux 2000

[mikeophile]

It's not plagarism of Microsoft source code. It's a remix.

Don't be stifling on my creativity, man.

Re:Linux 2000

[cgenman]

I'm personally waiting for BSDXP. You know, the intuitive interface of BSD mixed with the stability of Windows.

Heaven is where the interface is designed by Apple, the back end by Linus, and gaming API's by Microsoft. Hell is where the interface is designed by Linus, the back end by Microsoft, and gaming API's by Apple. I get the feeling any Darwin LinBSDXPwould be more like the latter.

Re:Linux 2000

[kurosawdust]

It's better than Puff Daddy's remix of the Linux kernel. It's just the kernel itself with

/* Unhh, Yeah */

and

// I thought I told you that we don't stop

all throughout the source.

Re:Linux 2000

[Sunnan]

Huh? You think Direct X is much nicer than SDL/OpenGL?

EMI's acting reasonably

[RandBlade]

This is not stifling creativity. If DJ Danger Mouse wants to create his own music he's perfectly entitled too. However if he does not have the permission of EMI to use the Beatles music in this manner then that's not allowed to, and reasonably so.

Musicians get a lot of money when even a small amount of their music gets sampled, this weeks number one in the UK samples U2, and the U2 artists are getting royalties for it. People pay to sample other artists and sell it on in their remixes, if this has not been done completely in this case then its unfair use and EMI are perfectly entitled to step in.

PS no doubt this'll be modded flamebait by someone who mods on opinions not content.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[Repugnant_Shit]

I wish there was a "-1 Asking for mod points" mod.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[Anonymous Coward]

Content such as whining about about being modded down based on opinion?

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[dr.badass]

I think it's important to note that there is another artist that's been sampled here, whose opinion on the matter is obviously different. The Grey Album wouldn't have happened at all if not for Jay-Z releasing an acapella version of The Black Album for the explicit purpose of remixing. There's a hell of a lot more of his work in the Grey Album than the Beatles'.

Your point seems to be that they (EMI) have a legal right to do as they are, and right you are about that. The question is should they (and if so, why)? Are they afraid that this underground release is going to cut into new sales of The White Album? Fat fucking chance. This breed of remixing isn't about stealing someone else's work for your own gain -- it's about creating something new out of something else.

This wouldn't even be a debatable subject our culture still viewed music as art instead of product.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[RandBlade]

EMI should have a right to decide on sampling rights as it is their artists work which is being sampled. As I said already, other artists regularly pay for the rights to sample existing works in new works. The new works include some of the old works and as such the rights of the existing IP-owners should be maintained.

Jay-Z may have made the decision to let others use his works - that's his decision to make. But by including other artists, they should be able to make their own decisions. If DJDM wanted to make his own work based on Jay-Z's then he should, but the fact is that he included another persons work in his own, and they should get the credit for it.

Would it be right for someone to take Linux source code, add to it and call it their own? To not obey the GPL? No it would not! Each IP-owner, whether from EMI to Torvalds should have the right to have a say on what happens to derivative works of theirs.

If you want pure art instead of products, then sample other peoples arts. Other peoples products are theirs. Not even GPL lets you do whatever you want, even GPL has restrictions to it and rightly so.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[tepples]

EMI should have a right to decide on sampling rights as it is their artists work which is being sampled.

Do you feel EMI deserves the right to deny all derivative use of its artists' samples at any price short of a hostile takeover?

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[RandBlade]

Do you feel EMI deserves the right to deny all derivative use of its artists' samples at any price short of a hostile takeover?

Personally? Yes I do. If you want to create your own music then do so, you don't need to use EMI's. The author (or their agents) of any art should have absolute rights (with a sunset) IMO. You can do the same genre, the same style, there's no need to sample their actual work though.
Legally? No, that might not be legally allowed. However since EMI don't do that, its not an issue.

I could argue that 'the progression of art' doesn't need to include samples at all. If one artist creates a new genre, they don't own that genre, progressed works are new works within that genre. I can't think of much art in 1776 which worked by simply mixing samples of others works. Progressing art was art based on anothers art, not art which is anothers.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[mcpkaaos]

Musicians get a lot of money when even a small amount of their music gets sampled

If by "Musicians" you mean "Record Labels", then you are correct. Otherwise you might want to read up a little more on who gets what in a record contract.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[tepples]

If you want to create your own music then do so

Even if I do write a song "from scratch" as they say, how can I make sure that I'm not subconsciously sampling somebody else's work? Under current precedent, even subconscious copying is actionable infringement.

The author (or their agents) of any art should have absolute rights (with a sunset) IMO.

If the sunset provisions of the Copyright Act of 1790, which provided a maximum 28-year term, were still in effect, there would be no case because copyright the samples in question would have expired. What do you consider a fair copyright term?

Progressing art was art based on anothers art, not art which is anothers.

How would you specifically define the difference between "based on" and "is"? If I play a tune on a trumpet, does the manufacturer of the trumpet own copyright in the recording? Likewise, if I play a tune using sub-1-second samples from The White Album, then what? What specific difference can you find between these scenarios?

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[RandBlade]

Even if I do write a song "from scratch" as they say, how can I make sure that I'm not subconsciously sampling somebody else's work? Under current precedent, even subconscious copying is actionable infringement.

This is a much more serious issue and I'd agree with you on this.

If the sunset provisions of the Copyright Act of 1790, which provided a maximum 28-year term, were still in effect, there would be no case because copyright the samples in question would have expired. What do you consider a fair copyright term?

28 years is too short. It should for 'the arts' be at least the life of the artists(including spouses), possibly longer. The longer of 70 years or the life of the artists is fair I think. Longer for books and shorter for science, 20-30 years I'd put for that (I think its 20 years for medicines atm).

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't comment about your sig, you capitalist pig.

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[Anonymous Coward]

I could argue that 'the progression of art' doesn't need to include samples at all.

This is another way for you to say "I don't like your art."

I bet you listen to a lot of "progressive rock", don't you?

Re:EMI's acting reasonably

[Chris Pimlott]

This whole situation shows that the Beatles work has an additional value as a source for sampling, remixing, etc., as demonstrated by the demand for the Grey Album. If EMI were to roll over and let DJ Danger Mouse sample the White Album for free, why would any artist in the future who wants to use elements of the Beatles work both to pay EMI for it?

IMO, there is a clear and straightforward reason why EMI should be pursuing action against DJ Danger Mouse, since the value of the Beatles' body of work extends beyond simple the album sales.

Oh you mean THIS album?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't going to download it until I read this article.

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[Anonymous Coward]

or this article.

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[Organized Konfusion]

Direct http download

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that doesn't help when the tracker is down . . . somebody change the tracker to point to http://www.thedarkcitadel.com/phptt/announce and re-upload

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[OverlordQ]

If anybody Can seed it'd be much appreciated :)

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[Clinoti]

The album is actually impressive.

Perhaps a GPL verison of Musical and/or artists rights needs to be created at some point?

After the *Happy Birthday song got a copynote...music creativy has gone gone down hill to the mimck factory. Lets not stifle the creative talent we have left out there.

*"Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030 (snopes).

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[Anonymous Coward]

No need, the whole cd was posted to alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd.

Take these words of wisdom...

[LostCluster]

Under the original 14 year copyright length, the Beatles recordings would all be public domain by now, and therefore this whole thing would be in the clear. However, since the copyright timespan keeps expanding, it seems like nothing created past Steamboat Willie is ever going to hit the public domain.

So yeah, EMI is stifling creativity, but it's their right to under the present laws. It's a great case to highlight what could be if the copyright laws were different. But since they're not, it's illegal and this is gonna get shut down. If it ever is mass released, EMI will be getting more profits than the original author. Sorry, Danger Mouse, Penfold can't get you out of this one...

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[kfg]

I always like the 14 years renewable for 14 more. It allowed a broader scope of protection for an author's works if he were still actually making money from it and cared to file again, but fast tracked it into the public domain if nobody thought enough of it to refile.

It seemed a fair compromise, even with the rights of the public, since the maximum span of 28 years isn't really that long.

Anything more than 30 really isn't reasonable. Write another decent song/book/movie if you want more money.

The rest of us actually have to work every day too, it won't kill you.

KFG

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even indefinitely renewable copyrights wouldn't be so bad. The problem isn't the maximum length of copyright - it's that at the moment it requires action on the copyright holder's part to place a work in the public domain. That's the wrong way round. If it required time, effort, and money to keep works out of the public domain, then surely everyone would be happy, except for fans of antique Disney.

I can live without public-domain Mickey Mouse. It's the way Disney's greed is keeping everything else under lock and key that annoys me.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[kfg]

I can live without public domain Mickey Mouse too, and I'm a fan of classic Disney. I only own nine DVDs, and two of them are pre WWII Disney. Had they been in the public domain I still would have payed for the Disney discs anyway. Only they could provide the extra materials.

See how that could work? Public domain, and yet they'd still be making money from it by leverage the work.

But I'll tell you what I can't live without. Public domain Robert Johnson, Mississippi John Hurt, Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Huddie Ledbetter, Woody Guthrie.

All long dead. They don't need any money. But corporations are still making money from them, and the corporations would keep renewing, and renewing and renewing.

And suing, and suing, and suing.

Disney can have Mickey, but music is something eveyone gets directly involved with, even if it's only whistling your favorite tune, and music is a group cooperative art. Every generation builds its own musical identity on the foundation of the previous generations.

Only under current law music is protected unto the seventh generation. People in high school today will be dead of old age before the music of Nirvana would become their public property.

And that's death to musical arts.

No. Copyright needs to expire automatically, and it needs to do so within a reasonable fraction of a single human's life.

KFG

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[damiam]

Under the original 14 year copyright length, the Beatles recordings would all be public domain by now, and therefore this whole thing would be in the clear.

Jay-Z's album was released last year. We'd still have another 14 years to wait.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it going to get shutdown? I just downloaded the entire "THe Grey Album" via P2P using Shareaza in about 12 minutes. They'll have to shut down the internet before THIS is gonna get shut down.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[LostCluster]

Jay-Z would likely have agreed to reasonable rates if he charged anything at all. If you read the Wired News artice, you'll see on page 2 that a words-only mix of Jay-Z's album was put out so that mixing DJs could have fun with it.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[ActiveSX]

Jay-Z's album was released last year.

So was the vocals only release designed specifically for remixes.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[beakburke]

I always thought 50 years was a good date. I really settled on that one after the economists brief during eldred vs. ashcroft.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of us actually have to work every day

Writing and performing music is work too, you fucking imbecile, but you wouldn't know that, because you're a fucking moron, too stupid to have any talents. All you can do is blow hot air at /. - the ultimate loser.

KFC

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[Deliveranc3]

cough 2 year.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[ktakki]

But I'll tell you what I can't live without. Public domain Robert Johnson, Mississippi John Hurt, Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Huddie Ledbetter, Woody Guthrie.

All long dead. They don't need any money. But corporations are still making money from them, and the corporations would keep renewing, and renewing and renewing.

I know Woody Guthrie's daughter, Nora. She pretty much spends all of her time administering his estate, and by estate I mean his legacy: his songs and the royalties that they generate.

Woody died in 1967 of Huntington's Chorea, a degenerative neurological disease. Nora and the Woody Guthrie Foundation have been instrumental in raising money towards finding a cure for Huntington's Disease, something that would be all but impossible if there wasn't a royalty stream from Woody's music.

I mention this not to name-drop, but to disabuse you of the notion that some faceless corporation is cashing the checks each time This Land is Your Land gets covered or played on the radio.

k.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a musician myself, I feel that it doesn't matter if it's a mega-media corp., or an artists' family that retains copyright..the corps. need to invest in new artists/material, and after almost 3 decades (under a 28-year expiration model) the family members should have made their own way in life, found their own talent/career, or at least put enough away to see them through for a while, it's not supposed to be like inheriting land. Personally, I'd rather my kids couldn't just sit back and suck up royalties forever. That's just not healthy.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for replying without reading the post, jackass.

The grandparent post was referring to Artists who actually don't write and perform.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[kfg]

And I made the first fretless banjo that Arlo ever played. Jackie Alper, nee Gibson, an old girlfriend of Woody's and the original female vocalist of the Weavers is an old family friend. It was a terrible day when Woody died. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the Guthrie family or the Woody Guthrie Foundation.

That doesn't change my point one bit, nor its accuracy, even if all of Woody's songs were in the hands of the foundation.

Copyright was not intended to finance heirs and foundations, even those that are doing good deeds. If Nora wishes to raise money for the fight agaisnt Huntington's Disease she can call me or any number of other musicians who would be perfectly willing to donate time, labor and performances to the cause.

There are other ways to leverage works than royalty streams. Other foundations not so blessed use them. It's time children can stick their finger in the air without potential legal consequences.

Woody explictly released songs into the public domain. In print. Lawyers for commercial enterprises yanked them back for their own benefit.

This song is my song
This song is your song
Woody wrote it
So we could sing it
He didn't write it
To endow a foundation
This song was writ for you and me

KFG

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[kfg]

All you can do is blow hot air at /.

Which is done. . .in writing. Go figure. I seem to have some experience and talent with the art form. Expressing that art form on /. is no different than Basho inscribing his haiku on rocks.

I might reply at greater length, but I have to make sure all my gear and instruments are in order, I have a solo performance in a few hours. Today I'm doing a program of prerevolutionary colonial songs in "celebration" of my city's massacre in February 1690, by Canadians. The border wasn't always friendly.

The songs are all in the public domain. ASCAP can blow me.

KFg

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[rollingcalf]

I can also speak of thousands of carpenters and masons who died ill and destitute because the law wouldn't enable them to collect ongoing royalties on the houses they built. I can speak of teachers' children who are destitute because the law wouldn't enable them to collect royalties on the knowledge their parents imparted to school children who grew up and used the education to become rich.

Sorry, but there is no reason why the legal system should distort the market for the purpose of providing lifelong income and inheritances for artists and corporations on the basis of work that was performed many decades ago, when people in almost every other occupation have no such guarantee. Provide the 14 or 28 years as an incentive to create; nothing more is needed or deserved.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[rollingcalf]

Writing and performing isn't work after you have stopped doing it. Or if you are dead.

You are the imbecile if you think you deserve to keep collecting money for decades after your last performance, when everybody else has to work every single day to earn their next dollar.

Re:Take these words of wisdom...

[ktakki]

I can also speak of thousands of carpenters and masons who died ill and destitute because the law wouldn't enable them to collect ongoing royalties on the houses they built. I can speak of teachers' children who are destitute because the law wouldn't enable them to collect royalties on the knowledge their parents imparted to school children who grew up and used the education to become rich.

Carpenters, masons, and teachers have strong unions behind them that fight for competitve wages and benefits (well, carpenters and masons at least). Songwriters have no such support. Writing songs is like working on spec; even the most successful writers might have 1 in 10 of their songs recorded.

Besides, the architect who drew up the plans for the house that the carpenters and masons built receives a royalty for each blueprint bought. The author of the textbook that the teacher uses receives a royalty for every copy sold. There's a difference between an occupation that generates intellectual property and one that uses intellectual property. Consider a session musician that plays on a recording: they do not receive royalties (and many of them belong to the union).

k.

Did Wacko Jacko hock the Beatles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Michael Jackson controlled the copyrights to Beatles music.

Re:Did Wacko Jacko hock the Beatles?

[Aneurysm]

Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to the Beatles' music, not the actual recordings. So EMI owns the samples, whereas Jackson controls the rights of the song for people covering it

Re:Did Wacko Jacko hock the Beatles?

[Bender Unit 22]

He did, but then he needed money. I believe he took a loan in them, sold some parts/shares of them or something.

Re:Did Wacko Jacko hock the Beatles?

[Anonymous Coward]

so just tell him it made some little boys wet or something.

Highlights broken copyright system

[Anonymous Coward]

If the copyright system worked as it was designed to, this wouldn't even be an issue. Does anybody seriously claim that the Beatles wouldn't have made the White Album if they thought that it wouldn't be profitable almost 40 years later?

If the copyright system worked as it should do, this album would have entered the public domain at least a decade ago, opening it up to this kind of reinterpretation without fear of lawsuits or special permission from anybody. The Beatles have been rewarded for their contribution to the public domain substantially, and so has the record company that signed them. They don't deserve to have a stranglehold on it any more.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[Waffle Iron]

Does anybody seriously claim that the Beatles wouldn't have made the White Album if they thought that it wouldn't be profitable almost 40 years later?

Given the notoriously bad business decisions that they made back in the 60s, I would guess that they didn't really care that much if it was going to be profitiable the week after it was released.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[jeffkjo1]

Mod parent up!

The Beatles (Specifically John and Paul) made a hugely bad decision when, in 1970, upon the breakup of the band, they sold the rights to the entire Northern Songs Catalog for less than 2 million pounds.

Paul spent years trying to buy it back, only to have Michael Jackson swipe up the entire catalog in one swoop.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[darnok]

Doesn't Michael Jackson (yep, Janet's brother) own the rights to the Beatles' back catalogue? In fact, I'm pretty sure I read that it and Neverland are basically his only financial assets these days; everything else he "owns" is leveraged against one or the other.

Anyone know if that means he's now getting the copyright income from albums such as the White Album?

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[xigxag]

True, things are totally broken now. Even the United States' national anthem would've been illegal under our current regime. The original melody was composed in 177x by John Stafford Smith, and while he was still alive, Francis Scott Key (who was ironically a lawyer) "stole" his IP to compose the words to the Star Spangled Banner in 1814.

Of course, back then all that was quite legal. Mostly because The Walt Disney Company wasn't around to buy the rights to it.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't deserve to have a stranglehold on it any more.

Sure they do, jackass. Who made you such a fucking authority?

They wrote and performed the music and helped produced it; your nigga friend did not. If he had any talent, any brains, he would have demonstrated it by now. He hasn't; he didn't; he can't.

He's as fucking dumb as you. Plus, he's a thief, you cunt.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[Uncle Gropey]

No, they don't. After a certain time, a popular-enough work becomes part of a people's culture, and at that point trancends being mere property. That's why the Constitution specifies a limited time for copyright and patent protection.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they do, jackass.

Great, name-calling. How mature.

Who made you such a fucking authority?

The burden of proof is on the person asserting that they have the right to stop anyone from copying a song. In our society, certain rules have been laid down with very good rationales that I agree with, namely that people should be rewarded for creative work with a limited artificial monopoly on copies and derivatives of said work, to promote growth of the public domain.

Our current lawmakers have twisted those rules to create a monstrosity that can no longer be rationalised in that way. So in order to convince me that somebody should hold a copyright over the White Album, they need to present a new rationale.

So go ahead - how do you rationalise preventing people from making copies and derivative works of the White Album? It's certainly not artistic license, as a) you have to explain how that benefits society more than the public domain, and b) the artists in question don't hold the copyrights, a corporation does.

Plus, he's a thief, you cunt.

You really have a lot of pent up hostility, you know that? Do you have any basis for calling him a thief? He's been accused of copyright infringement, not theft. Anyone with even a basic familiarity with the law would understand the difference.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[dirk]

While I do support limited copyright, I also hate the idea of it. I dread the day that after 10 years any company can take any song they want and use it in a commercial. What if you don't want your music used to advertise for beer? Too bad, it's been out 10 years and anyone can use it for anything? Don't want your song used to promote the latest anti-drug movement or the latest candidate you don't like? Sorry, your copyright has run out. Things like that make me think maybe copyright should be X years of the life of the artist, whichever is longer. At least that way you don't have to see your own work perverted.

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[advocate_one]

"Paul spent years trying to buy it back, only to have Michael Jackson swipe up the entire catalog in one swoop."

And it now looks like Bank Of America are going to get their sticky mitts on it...

Re:Highlights broken copyright system

[Stealth Munchkin]

Actually that was Dick James and Charles Silver, the music publishers who owned more shares than Lennon/McCartney in Northern. Once they sold their shares to ATV, Lennon & McCartney were in a near-impossible position...

Both great albums....

[ziggy_zero]

Although obviously the White album is superior (hell, I was just listening to it today, along with Sgt. Pepper's - how appropriate!), the Black Album is some of Jay-Z's best work to date. I'm interested in what it will sound like...

Re:Both great albums....

[ziggy_zero]

I just downloaded and listened to the Grey Album, and it's interesting, if nothing else. It's fairly easy to spot the samples...the only thing that DJ Danger Mouse seems good at is making beats, which is probably what he should stick to.

Re:Both great albums....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that The Beatles' WHITE ALBUM was the first to do some sampling itself. If you listen to the song "Honey Pie" you will hear a sample of what is a scratchy record. It is actually a short recording, pressed to scratchy vinyl, and sampled into the song.

Re:Both great albums....

[ziggy_zero]

I would probably say "Revolution 9" is more indicatave of sampling use.

Torrent...

[Anonymous Coward]

A little birdie has informed me that there is a Torrent at the USUAL PLACE.

Re:Torrent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Don't forget to seed at least 1:1

Be fair to others.

Re:Torrent...

[NewWaveNet]

Or more specifically, here.

Re:Torrent...

[jCaT]

Is anybody else having trouble with suprnova's tracker? I keep getting connection refused errors...

And the winner is...

[LostCluster]

A record deemed illegal by a major label is not likely to be allowed to be nominated for a Grammy Award. It's the labels throwing the party there, so they just won't allow it.

But, I wonder if the other more fan-centric music award shows might nominate this as an anti-industry protest. Might be a nice way to get some headlines.

eh, er

[Anonymous Coward]

Pixies

Unless you were looking for exactly this response, that is.

Re:eh, er

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty much

Seems to be on eMule

[enosys]

There are plenty of hits on eMule. You can find individual MP3s and whole album archives. I haven't tested any of this though.

Anti-Music?

[Eponymous Mallard]

"...led by anti-music industry group Downhill Battle, who insists that the major record labels are stifling creativity."

"anti-music industry group"? Is that

1. A group in an industry that makes anti-music?
2. An industry group that is against music?
3. A group that is against the music industry?

I guess you meant #3, but I prefer meaning #1. What does anti-music sound like? If music and anti-music meet, will they annhilate each other?

Eponymous Mallard

Re:Anti-Music?

[liquidsin]

Anti-music would sound like music that is not created artistically, as music should be, but that is created by the marketing department. It would sound like Britney Spears, N`Sync, and the like. And if you listen to the radio at all, you would know that they don't annihilate each other, but rather that anti-music envelopes all else, sucking formerly decent artists into its clutches and making them turn out crappy albums. Oh yeah, and since this is nothing but flame-bait, the obligatory plea for leniency: Mod me down if you want, but you know I'm right ;)

Re:Anti-Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

ur FACE is anti-music

Re:Anti-Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA would fit definition 2. It's an idnustry group that does everything it can to stifle the spread of new music and new technologies that musicians might use.

Re:Anti-Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

OHHHH... SNAP!

Re:Anti-Music?

[DynaSoar]

Anti-music is a fine old musical worship tradition of the Church of the SubGenius (being and anti-art artform, similar to their anti-science science in this anti-church church). First defined by the Doktors for "Bob", it consisted of people with instruments they didn't know how to play, "trance-spouting" (similar to channeling, but at top volume) songs that nobody had written yet. A precurser to anti-music is "tootling", defined in the chapter "Tootling the Multitudes" in Tom Wolfe's "Electric Koolaid Acid Test, about Rev. Ken Kesey (yes, he was one too) and the Merry Pranksters. Anti-music can be heard at www.subgenius.com, as can the Hour of Slack weekly radio show, a regular source of anti-music and other anti-things.

It's a joke. I'm serious. We are VERY serious about this joke.

epinion

[maxbang]

This is what's wrong with this copyright nonsense. If this was the case with other works of art we wouldn't have any of the art we enjoy today. It should not be against the law to interpret another's art as long as credit is given where credit's due.

Re:epinion

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an interpretation. This is an actual lifting of the sounds The Beatles played and placing someone else's vocals on them. This guy wants to start a career like this! I.E., he wants to make money by doing this. I'd say he's in hot water now that they know who he is.

first I've heard of it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll download it now and give it a listen.

Mod him up then.....

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the torrent you asked for. I think the contorversy is produces more interest than if they ignored it. I shareza'ed conan obrien after hearing he was called racist for insulting canadians. It was very funny toilet humor that I would not have seen had it not been for the controversy!

No speling abilatie!

Ideas for better mixes

[mabu]

Mixing Jay-Z with the White Album? How about ACDC's "Back in Black" with the White Album.. that would rock!

Re:Ideas for better mixes

[first.last]

how 'bout NOT

Re:Ideas for better mixes

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to your crack pipe before it gets cold.

Re:Ideas for better mixes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sounds like a great idea, shit-for-brains.

Go take some piano lessons, you wanker.

Re:Ideas for better mixes

[first.last]

ohhhh...big words for an AC

What is "the Progress"?

[tepples]

If DJ Danger Mouse wants to create his own music he's perfectly entitled too. However if he does not have the permission of EMI to use the Beatles music in this manner then that's not allowed to, and reasonably so.

And if EMI refuses to give DJ Danger Mouse such permission, then EMI has impeded "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by preventing a work from being created. What's the constitutional goal of U.S. copyright law again?

Re:What is "the Progress"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless, they made it first. If they want to be aschool kid bully and not let anyone else use their lyrics and/or music it's their goddamn right. THEY CREATED IT first.

Every last one of you would be screaming sue/lawyer/stop selling if you made an album and 20 years later someone took all your music/lyrics and remixed it without your permission. It's common sense retards.

Re:What is "the Progress"?

[tepples]

If they want to be aschool kid bully and not let anyone else use their lyrics and/or music it's their goddamn right.

No, copyright isn't their goddamn right; it's their goddamn privilege. Congress can deny or abridge it at any moment.

THEY CREATED IT first.

Would you feel it just if you had to pay royalties to the estate of the caveman who invented the wheel for every mile you drove, just because HE CREATED IT first?

Re:What is "the Progress"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would take a long stretch to put back IP to pre-history. Even todays system wouldn't do that. IP has not gone too far at the moment.

Re:What is "the Progress"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking idiot.

EMI is BRITISH. You fucking idiot.

The Beatles are British too, you fucking idiot.

No one cares about YOUR fucking copyright law.

You fucking idiot.

Re:What is "the Progress"?

[tepples]

Only the defendant's jurisdiction can enforce a judgment against a defendant. Is the defendant also British?

Re:What is "the Progress"?

[iminplaya]

What's the constitutional goal of U.S. copyright law again?

I think it's spelled out in the sanity clause. But we all know there is no sanity clause.

Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob

[ziggy_zero]

He still does, but I guess he only owns part of the catalogue. He's in debt over a bank loan right now though and might have to sell it.

Re:What is the best file storage format?

[Chess_the_cat]

The best file storage format, bar none, is a piece of letter size paper. You'll be able to see it 5,10, yes even 15 years from now. From what I understand, they have even found readable documents that are hundreds of years old. As a bonus, paper is quite thin and light and very easy to store. And since your personal documents are probably already printed on paper, you save yourself the time spent scanning them. Next question please.

incase you're looking for the album

[elohim]

you can get it on soulseek (http://www.slsknet.org). use the search term "grey album wcr"

Way to go EMI

[Lord_Dweomer]

Way to go EMI, yeah, I'm sure that you taking action against him, and the stores selling it and the websites distributing it is going to stop it from spreading. I'm sure that these actions will kill any desire anybody might have for listening to this.

Oh wait....it won't. In fact, I wasn't even aware of this album until now, but I'll be sure to grab it off my favorite P2P client tonight, simply because you don't want me to listen to it.

Maybe EMI should take a look at how well the War on Drugs or Prohibition worked.

Re:Way to go EMI

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be sure to grab it off my favorite P2P client tonight

Sounds like you got a good machine at home.

Me, I'll write to the RIAA and point them to your post, and then we'll all kick back and watch you go to jail.

Re:Anti-Music? Easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Music = Justin Timberlake, Celine Dion et al.

Music != recordings

[tepples]

True, Mr. Jackson controls copyright in the Beatles' music, but a musical work (as embodied in sheet music) and a sound recording of that musical work (as embodied in a CD) are two separate works with two separate copyrights. Mr. Jackson owns the musical works (unless he has sold them in the last two years since this story came out; EMI (one of the Big Five labels) owns the recordings.

Princeton senior thesis on sampling & copyrigh

[soullessbastard]

My obligitory Google searching turned up a rather unexpected thing...a PDF version of a Princeton undergraduate thesis (warning...336K PDF) on sampling in the recording industry. It's actually been an uninteresting read thus far (quite unlike my undergraduate thesis, that is, unless you like reading about graphical interfaces for Fortran namelists).

It starts off with an interesting history of the development of folk music in this country and how new words were put on standard melodies or lyrics were appropriated into new songs. Continues on to give an overview of the history of sampling. Best quote I've seen thus far: "the current system of copyright misrepresents the creation of music, considering it a purely original act rather then an event in a cultural tradition".

The thesis goes on to propose that fair use laws should be revised and a compulsatory licensing system put in place for sampling similar in structure to current "cover" style licensing to help avoid just the kinds of lawsuits while constructing a creative artistic environment. The application of copyright law in the US is so twisted these days that perhaps a system like this is needed. We really as a country should start some serious rethinking about how old concepts should apply to the modern world.

ed

Go 99 Tigers!

Re:EMI is legally acting reasonably

[Anonymous Coward]

and as you say EMI are perfectly entitled to step in. However the broader issues is with the Copyright Law, which provides 95 years of protection. The Law does not benefit music or creativity it benefits companies and their profits.

In the World today, with worldwide distrubution and near instant propergation of media the period of protection should be getting less not more.

Artistic control

[StuWho]

I think it's important that the artist who makes a recording has a say in how it's used. This doesn't mean the record companies should stifle innovation, but it does mean that an artist has the power to for example stop his work being used in a way he finds repellant.

Re:Artistic control

[Petronius]

Do Bach or Mozart have control over how their music is played today? some of it makes me puke, yet I think it's OK.

Re:Artistic control

[StuWho]

I'm thinking of All Saint's cover of RHCP's Under The Bridge here, an aberration that should never have known life.

Re:Artistic control

[Myopic]

it's not like someone took Beatles songs wholesale and spliced some new lyrics over them; this Danger Mouse guy took sub-one-second samples and used them to create *ENTIRELY*NEW*MUSIC*. having control over your own song is one thing, but having control over infintessimal snippits of it, rearranged and mixed with lots of other stuff, resulting in something which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original, is another completely.

i'm listening to it right now. it doesn't sound anything like the White Album. i can hardly even pick out any of the samples. in my opinion, the Beatles have no artistic claim on this new album.

Re:Artistic control

[King_TJ]

I agree that an artist making a recording should have say in matters related to "for profit" uses of the entire original work in ways other than originally intended. EG. If a car manufacturer decides they want a Beatles song in the background of one of their commercials, then they should have to get permission to use it in that manner, and have to deal with it if the artist's wishes (in writing) stated the music was not to ever be used for that purpose.

On the other hand, anyone creating new works using samples of other works should be free to do so. I don't see how it makes sense to have it any other way? I realize that currently, the law seems to disagrees with me -- but where are the lines drawn? Do we say "5 seconds of continuous sampling is not ok, but 2 seconds is"? If I sample a distinctive synth riff from a popular rock or dance song and re-use it, who *really* owns the rights to that sound? After all, the original band playing it probably used patches built into a popular synth (say, Korg Triton or Yamaha Motif), which were the intellectual property of the respective synth maker to begin with. (Or do we say "It's only your own original sound if you make parameter changes to the stock patches before playing them."?) The whole thing quickly gets ridiculous.

Re:Artistic control

[scot4875]

Except in this case, the Beatles have absolutely no say in how it's used.

Basically, we're in a society where our culture is being bought up by wealthy individuals and large corporations, and then being sold back to use at highly inflated prices.

I don't think that was the original intent of copyrights.

--Jeremy

Re:Princeton senior thesis on sampling & copyr

[soullessbastard]

Ack. the "uninteresting" in the first paragraph refers to my thesis, not the one I linked to. Apologies. Friggin inability to edit on /. is almost as frustrating as debugging PHP.

ed <--- bonehead

Since when is it...

[Anonymous Coward]

creative to mix someone else's music?

What a bunch of hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go crying to me the next time some company violates the GPL. You have no respect for copyright wither.

Re:What a bunch of hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

A - Fucking - MEN

Re:What a bunch of hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

You read slashdot, so I assume you're saying you don't believe in copyrights? To accuse all of the readers is to accuse yourself. You have to realize the people on slashdot are not a hivemind and there are many different viewpoints. I agree it can look like a bunch of people who are self serving because there are completely conflicting views of what people support. You should look at it like this: Are the same people who say BSD is dying are the same people who post when a new version of freeBSD is released? There you have your answer, people who care about the GPL have nothing to do with people who want to violate music copyrights. It does make you look a bit self righteous though, and dense too.

My Old Band....

[SgtPepper]

...Is hanging out with some mighty strange types these days...I mean Jay-Z? What has the ol' Lonely Hearts Club Band come to? Next it'll be human sacrifices, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

I agree with this

[notsoclever]

and I also think that "only 3000 pressed" is actually a pretty big run, considering that's larger than most independent releases (which are lucky to sell 1000).

Re:I agree with this

[turnstyle]

"and I also think that "only 3000 pressed" is actually a pretty big run, considering that's larger than most independent releases (which are lucky to sell 1000)."

Actually, I'd say that 3000 pressed is a very big run, given that he knew that he was violating copyright when he mixed in the Beatles' tracks as he did.

He didn't just make a mix to play, he made something to sell.

I mean, isn't this well beyond your typical non-profit copyright infringent type issue?

Re:I agree with this

[Aero Leviathan]

From www.djdangermouse.com --

The Grey Album is an art project/experiment that uses the full vocal content of Jay-Z's Black Album recorded over new beats and production made using the Beatles White Album as the sole source material. Danger Mouse insists he can explain and prove that all the music on the Grey Album can be traced back to the White Album and its musical content via sampling. Every kick, snare, and chord is taken from the Beatles White Album and is in their original recording somwhere.

This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004. The resulting record is a unique hybrid of work from one of hip-hop's fastest rising production stars via two of the most important musical and cultural forces ever.

In an incredible year, Danger Mouse has already received critical acclaim from his status as the Producer and DJ of the DM & Jemini duo. His work on their 'Ghetto Pop Life' debut showcased his enormous potential and 2004 will see Danger Mouse involved in several further projects.

Both the Beatles own remix project ('Let It Be... Naked') and Jay-Z's retirement Black Album are in stores now. At the time of writing, neither Jay-Z nor The Beatles were available for comment.

---

3000 copies, eh?

Re:I agree with this

[notsoclever]

Wow, he must think he's spreading those 3000 copies pretty thin then. Or maybe all of the articles I've read about this were mistaken, or maybe his site hasn't been updated with the information about how after the initial run they were sued by EMI and so that's why it became "limited."

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

He was violating copyright when he pressed a few thousand copies to GIVE AWAY to his FAMILY AND FRIENDS mixing audio tracks with JAY-Z's self-distributed vocal-only (specifically intended for DJ's to remix) tracks?

I'd sure like to know how that's copyright violation. That's like calling me to the carpet for drawing an Akira poster and giving it to my little brother.

Re:I agree with this

[turnstyle]

"He was violating copyright when he pressed a few thousand copies to GIVE AWAY to his FAMILY AND FRIENDS mixing audio tracks with JAY-Z's self-distributed vocal-only (specifically intended for DJ's to remix) tracks?

I'd sure like to know how that's copyright violation. That's like calling me to the carpet for drawing an Akira poster and giving it to my little brother."

Well, from Danger Mouse's own site:

"This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004."

How non-commercial does that sound to you? ;)

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

"This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004."

How non-commercial does that sound to you? ;)


World-wide means that he knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy that knows a guy that owns a record store in Japan, or France, or Estonia, etc.

*I've* had records released world-wide, and I've only made one.

(also, *everybody* knows a guy that can get records in shops in the UK)

Re:I agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

World-wide basically means that he knows a guy or two in Europe, or Japan or somewhere that wants 100 or so copies for his shop.

Don't be a dick. This is a guy in his bedroom with a sampler, not some asshole in a $3000/hr studio.

Re:I agree with this

[turnstyle]

"World-wide means that he knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy that knows a guy that owns a record store in Japan, or France, or Estonia, etc.

*I've* had records released world-wide, and I've only made one."

And your release was also given away, worldwide, for free?

I don't know too many people who print up a few thousand CDs for worldwide release, just to give them away without any financial objective.

But, hey, maybe that's because I don't have 3,000 friends... ;)

Re:I agree with this

[FattMattP]

"This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004."

How non-commercial does that sound to you?

My response to your post is available world-wide right now. How commercial does that sound? Just because something is available doesn't mean that it's being sold.

Re:I agree with this

[notsoclever]

Just because it's not for profit doesn't make it not a copyright violation.

Re:I agree with this

[Sumocide]

Maybe the whole thing is guerrilla marketing/astroturfing campaign by EMI. Can this guy actually believe he can take Jay-Z vocals and Beatles music for a worldwide release without paying some royalty?

.mp3 links - not torrent files

[mxcantor]

If you just want a few songs, here's a site hosting the individual files. I just got 300 K/sec off them, so they seem pretty strong.

if you keep the songs, just paypal him a few bucks. guys like this deserve compensation

Re:.mp3 links - not torrent files

[Anonymous Coward]

if you keep the songs, just paypal him a few bucks. guys like this deserve compensation

How much goes to the Beatles? Or to Jay-Z?

Guys like this do NOT deserve compensation. You haven't created shit in your life; how would you know?

Eat shit and die, creep. I mean that in a nice way.

Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob

[kfg]

You are confusing the sound recordings with the publishing rights.

If you sample the Beatles you owe EMI. If you record the Beatles you owe the brother of the boob. If you sing the Beatles you owe ASCAP.

Ain't the music industry grand?

KFG

Re:EMI is legally acting reasonably

[Anonymous Coward]

In the World today, with worldwide distrubution and near instant propergation of media the period of protection should be getting less not more.

Tell that to Sonny Bono / Michael Eisner / etc...

Then get involved

[tepples]

Don't like this situation? Then write to your legislators, asking for a compulsory license system for derivative works of sound recordings.

s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be different

[DrSkwid]

Funny, isn't it, how when it's music everyone want's it to be free.

Does DJ Danger Mouse release his source ? (i.e. riffs and breaks unmixed?)

If I pressed 3,000 of my own Grey CDs would he mind if I sold them for $6.99 a pop at the local car boot sale?

I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be happening.
EMI are war mongering blood suckers but still artists wet their pants to get signed.

An OpenSource armoury, now that would cause a stir.
Here's the code for a countour hugging ICBM or radar jamming code.

Put a bit of GPL code in your router and everyone is up in arms.

Put a bit of copyright music on your CD and everyone says you should have carte blanche to sell it.

Black Album my ass...

[th1ckasabr1ck]

... the only true Black album is the one by Metallica.

Re:Black Album my ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait...the only true black album was the spinal tap record.

Re:Black Album my ass...

[first.last]

Why oh why did you have to bring up that piece of shit? It marked the start of their downward spiral. What I wouldn't give to lock you in a room with Superjoint Ritual on a looped tape playing.

Re:Black Album my ass...

[my_name_is_steve]

The only *One*

Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob

[thogard]

I've wondered if that was why some of his friends are willing to loan him very large amounts of cash when they know they will never see the money again. Is it a bet they might walk away with rights to songs that will be wortha fortue over the next 100 or so years?

What?

[JayJay.br]

"They've sent cease and desist letters to Danger Mouse, a handful of record stores, and websites that have hosted the songs"

I would have expressed my opinion about all the copyright stuff.

Then I realized the album is already available on Kazaa.

My point? No point.

Statutory damages

[tepples]

They're not going to be able to get much money as damages in court from [leftovers after a 3000-copy pressing].

They can get 150 grand.

And who's to say DM didn't reach out to EMI before and they refused to contribute their part at any price?

Every public corporation has a price, usually about one-third of its market capitalization. It would be possible to buy a controlling interest in EMI, but such a hostile takeover would be cost prohibitive.

Re:Statutory damages

[LostCluster]

$150,000 is less than most of the RIAA kids were sued for...

Re:Statutory damages

[AdamD1]

I worked at a record label for the better part of the 90's and our licensing department had a hell of a time dealing with sample clearances.

The bottom line is this: there are a few artists who it is just 'known' that you are never going to ever in a billion years be allowed to sample, for any reason whatsoever:

#1: The Beatles
#2: The Rolling Stones

Probably numerous other ones. To further clarify: we're mostly talking 'Lennon and McCartney' Beatles. They as songwriters have always been pretty firm about it: not allowed. So the label / publishing companies always enforce this. Contrary to what this discussion is heading into, the label would be bound by whatever Paul McCartney would prefer rather than whatever the label would prefer, and this is likely due to the unbelievably unique position The Beatles hold in the annals of pop music. Even if the label felt it was a great idea, they'd still mostly have to go back to Lennon's estate (ie: Yoko) and Mr. McCartney just to be sure.

You can bet that the remaining members have likely heard this recording, not just the label reps.

I hate the way music publishing works. My favorite examples:

How many recent (say 1980's forward) movies which take place in the 60's can you name that *ever* contain a Beatles recording? Specifically a Lennon/McCartney recording? The Big Chill bases itself in 60's motown but apparently they desperately wanted Beatles galore in it. No go.

Ferris Beuller's Day Off. No soundtrack recording has ever been released for this film and when I worked in music stores I can tell you: people wanted it. No go again, licensing was prohibitively expensive.

I for one welcome our non-copyright overlords...

ad

Re:Statutory damages

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Jacko bought the rights to a bunch of the Beatles work?

Re:Statutory damages

[pnorthover]

"unbelievably unique position The Beatles hold"

Yes, people have been hung up on this group for way too long. Play talent scout on the internet and sample the zillions of songs/bands/musicmakers on audiogalaxy/iuma etc and in a few months you'll have a collection of tracks that exactly match your taste and are much more satisfying than anything the Beatles ever did. Also, there's nothing quite like the feeling of unearthing a great "find" and listening to people who demonstrate a deep understanding of a musical style yet for one reason or another, never made it to the big time.

Re:Statutory damages

[Zak3056]

robably numerous other ones. To further clarify: we're mostly talking 'Lennon and McCartney' Beatles. They as songwriters have always been pretty firm about it: not allowed. So the label / publishing companies always enforce this. Contrary to what this discussion is heading into, the label would be bound by whatever Paul McCartney would prefer rather than whatever the label would prefer, and this is likely due to the unbelievably unique position The Beatles hold in the annals of pop music. Even if the label felt it was a great idea, they'd still mostly have to go back to Lennon's estate (ie: Yoko) and Mr. McCartney just to be sure.

They actually need go no further than Michael Jackson, who owns the rights to the complete works of the Beatles.

Re:Statutory damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Ferris Beuller's Day Off. No soundtrack recording has ever been released for this film and when I worked in music stores I can tell you: people wanted it. No go again, licensing was prohibitively expensive.

No soundtrack? No problem!

1) Watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off (1986) (in full or fast forward to the end credits).

2) Note all the songs used in the movie in the end credits.

3) Get all the songs via CDs for maximum audio quality.

4) Use 'the appropriate software' to make a 'homemade' CD soundtrack of Ferris Beuller's Day Off.

5) Viola! Problem solved. QED.

PS: I basically did this to create a 'homemade' soundtrack about 10 years ago. I was glad I was able to get the 2 CDs it was derived from at the time.... Years later, I 'boiled down', 'combined', or 'remixed' some other soundtracks down to their memorable essences....

Tired of copyrights lasting nearly a century?

One can 'infringe' privately in a noncommercial manner via 'fair use'....

Or one can 'FSCK COPYRIGHT' via civil disobedience, go by the original 14-year term set up by the Founding Fathers, and raise a big media stink if/when they get busted for infringement.

The choice is yours....

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the editor tries to justify it by linking to a wired article.
FYI, the Wired offices are in Iowa, and when was the last time

Juarez

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets make slashdot into a juarez sharing palace. Have fun boys, Torrent link: http://213.158.116.18/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mous e-Grey_Album.torrent

The Grey Album

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like chicken.

Coachella

[ajayrockrock]

Even if EMI continues to bitch about the album, you'll always be able to see it live. He's even been added to the Coachella lineup.

--Ajay

Re:backlash ensued?

[Anonymous Coward]

not only that but the article was posted on the "internet" i think they're trying to imitate those google people because google invented the internet

an even more helpful birdie......

[Anonymous Coward]

told me the torrent is here

DC hub elitism?

[tepples]

Doesn't the policy of a typical Direct Connect hub require a user to own a T1 and a Network Attached Storage unit of at least 500 GB?

Re:DC hub elitism?

[Deliveranc3]

50% Riaa watchdogs anyone?

Re:DC hub elitism?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is that a problem for you? :)

Re:DC hub elitism?

[Anonymous Coward]

It does. This is a problem how?

Re:DC hub elitism?

[WWWWolf]

Doesn't the policy of a typical Direct Connect hub require a user to own a T1 and a Network Attached Storage unit of at least 500 GB?

No way, there's no end to DC elitism. Those specs were there a few years ago. Nowadays it's probably an OC-3 and a petabyte RAID. =)

Plus it has a silly name. Whoever advertised Indirect Connect? =)

Anyone got a torrent?

[delmoi]

I don't think I can fully appreciate this article without the associated mp3 files.

Why?

[Nihynjahs]

I doubt this could do any sort of justice to the white album, not sure how many people who read this have it or have listened to it, but the white album was very very excellent. The best "rappers" are people who have thier own stuff and dont do sampling, for example outkast but i suppose thats closer to funk than rap. But then again i havent heard the gray album so maybe it is good. Im not a fan of messing with a good thing though.

Never heard if it.

[Glenda Slagg]

Now I want a copy.

Bit like Paris Hilton.

Will reccomend

[WiKKeSH]

I had never heard of this album before this news story, but now that EMI has brought it to my attention, I downloaded it.

I kinda like it, and I'll probably end up making a few of my buddys listen to it.

Thanks for makign us aware of new music, EMI.

Re:Will reccomend

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for makign us aware of new music, EMI.

It's not music, moron. It's certainly not new. It's a mix by someone so untalented he can't create his own music so he has to steal it from others and thereby break every code of ethics in the book, every clause of every code of honour at least good musicians live by.

Which of course doesn't help him squat if he can't get blithering idiots like you interested. At least he's smarter than you, because you're so fucking stupid that you're duped by the likes of him.

If he had talent, he would have recorded his own music; if the majors had even thought him a staying power money machine, he wouldn't be messing around with self-made recordings with a circulation of 3,000.

Face it: this guy is a hypocrite, a thief, and a loser. And has no respect in the entertainment industry.

And the only fans he has are idiots like you.

Poor guy.

Well, yeah

[notsoclever]

I mean, that was kind of my point. Most independent releases are lucky to sell 1000 and he presses "only 3000" and calls that limited? And, 'Oh no, we didn't know we were doing something wrong, we won't release any more than that!' and whatever. Ugh.

This situation definitely goes beyond fair use, in any case.

Unfortunately, EMI will win and they'll get lots of damages which will just go back into their own coffers, rather than actually supporting the artists who were wronged (the Beatles and their respective estates), and it'll be yet another victory of the major labels over the horrible, evil independent musicians who only want to steal profits away from them...

Re:Well, yeah

[alex_ant]

Those poor Beatles! Bankrupt and starving, forced to sell away the rights to their music at gunpoint! Will somebody think of the artists!

Re:Well, yeah

[notsoclever]

Okay, which of these two is better?

1. The remaining Beatles getting money for a copyright settlement for music they wrote (whether they need it or not)
2. The music label getting money for a copyright settlement for music they didn't write and wouldn't even back if it were written today

since those are the only two possibilities which could come of this situation.

Personally, I'd prefer it if these were the options:

1. The copyright for an album released in 1968 expired in 1996 like it was originally supposed to, making this whole issue moot to begin with
2. The original artists decided to let this pass to begin with, and EMI only acts based on their requests (which both Paul and Yoko probably wouldn't let happen anyway)
3. They money from the settlement goes to support musicians (preferrably independent ones, or at least EMI's marginal musicians who are getting shafted due to the way the record industry works), and not EMI's lawyers

But those aren't the options. The first two are.

Re:Well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

heloooo, insightful mod?

Re:Well, yeah

[notsoclever]

It's nice to know that other people care about my karma and mods more than I do (which is to say, not at all).

Re:Well, yeah

[alex_ant]

oh ho ho. +5 modesty!

Re:Well, yeah

[alex_ant]

Okay, which of these two is better?

2, because the Beatles sold off the rights of their music fair and square, in exchange for shitloads of money. Yes they wrote it, but if they wanted to keep the rights to it they shouldn't have sold it. It's as clear cut as a god damned tomato in a Miracle Blade 3000 infomercial.

Re:Well, yeah

[g00z]

Err, Michael Jackson gets cash for all Beatles music sold. Paul and Ringo don't get a dime as they sold the entire Beatles catalog back in the early 80's.

So when you buy a Beatles record, your money goes to out of court setelements for a (alleged) child molester.

If you have any sense of moral decency you download beatles songs from the net.

Re:Well, yeah

[notsoclever]

Yes, but this distinction has been discussed many times in this discussion - EMI (not MIchael Jackson) has the rights to the recordings; MJ has the rights to the publication of the songs themselves (i.e. the lyrical and musical content of the songs, as opposed to the specific recordings). So the royalties are split between EMI and MJ when you buy an album, but copyright settlements go to EMI when you illegally sample them. (On the other hand, if you record a cover of a Beatles song, then it's MJ you have to negotiate with if you want to publish it.)

Yay for the confusing world of copyrights.

SCORE -1: NAIVETY

[Anonymous Coward]

yes I'm sure if he'd asked "pretty please with sugar on top" EMI would have said sure, do what ever you want Mr Mouse. We wont interfere at all.

Re:SCORE -1: NAIVETY

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

hordes

[Beer_Smurf]

They need to charge $24.00 for the "Beatles White Album".
Because..........
There are the promotional expenses.... oh wait?
CDs cost alot to manufacture.... um no that's not it.
They need to recoup the investment in recording expenses ..... uh no?
Oh yea.
They have hordes of greedy middle men depending on the corpse of the Beatles to make their Porsche payments, yeah that's it.

Re:hordes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear!

*claps*

I bought the vinyl and when it came time to get the CD version, I said fuck it, it cost more on CD than it ever did on vinyl...

Re:hordes

[Anonymous Coward]

You act as if had he asked he would've been given the right/offered a deal to use them anyway. Jay-Z might have been 'cool' enough to find a way to cut a deal with him if he really liked what he heard, but can you imagine the suits at EMI agreeing to this?

Re:hordes

[tepples]

I have no sympathy for anyone stupid enough to sample something and not clear it before releasing it.

Would you have sympathy for somebody who tried to clear it but received a price quote of "half the entire market value of our company", in other words, "not at any price unless you hostile takeover our @$$es"?

Re:hordes

[black mariah]

Hell no. When you use sample, you take that chance. That's just the way it works. I'm not saying I'm for it, but you have to be extremely stupid not to have seen this coming.

Re:Ralph Nader is running for President in 2004!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

screw that, come election day i'm voting for twiggy the water-skiing squirrel

Everything is influenced by something

[tepples]

Is music created in a vacuum? Every song derives in some way from some other song.

Then that means copyright is broken

[Sycraft-fu]

And needs to be rewritten. The whole point of copyright and patents, and I quote from the constituiton (article 1, section 8) is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

So the constitution grants the right to congress to pass laws to promote art and science by legally giving authors/creators rights to their work. To that end we got copyrights and patents. However, the system has been severly abused and suffers from a real case of not keeping up with the times. Record companies use it to maintain absolute control which is NOT what the constitution allows.

I mean look at copyright terms. They have been extened to a term of the entire lifetime of the autor, plus 50 years. That is completely in the face of the intent of the consitution.

The whole remix thing shows another huge flaw. IT has been law that you can do your own version of other songs (called covers) for low fixed royalties. It ensures that new bands can't be extorted and locked out of using popular songs. But this doesn't apply to remixes and the record companies won't let it happen. Notice how EMI never approached DJDM or talked about licensing, no, they just wanted it stopped.

This is NOT right. The framers recognised that information is not the same as physical property and therefore needs a different, more limited set of laws. The whole intent of copyright law was to encourge people to create and share and then, after awhile, for their work to become property of the public (14 years in teh beginning).

The constitution declares that the laws relating to copyright ought to be to promote the progress of the arts, which the Grey Album is, not to allow conglomerates to retaing exclusive control over their works forever.

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[RandBlade]

Why should EMI have to speak to DJDM? Why didn't he speak to them? He started this off by creating this and publishing it, he didn't speak to them before he published it, he simply published it. Its upto him to seek out sampling permission, plenty of people do it every year (inc. as I said this weeks #1 in the UK charts). Its not impossible to get sampling permission, he could have arranged it if he wanted to, before publishing. Instead he went behind them and did it anyway. He broke the rules, and he should have known that. Its not upto EMI to then grovel to arrange licencing AFTER its already published!

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[blincoln]

Its not impossible to get sampling permission

Given that typical rights holders charge thousands of dollars for short samples, I can't imagine that he could reasonably get permission for what he'd done.

I am all for legitimate enforcement of IP rights, but not when it ends up preventing someone from releasing another work of art.

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[tepples]

Its not impossible to get sampling permission

What happens if the label says "not available at any price short of buying our company outright"? Has copyright failed us?

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[ichimunki]

I don't think you can do covers for a "low fixed royalty" as you suggest. It is true that you can perform songs in public, and that things like ASCAP/BMI will make sure that the songwriter gets paid, but don't you still need to secure permission to record the song and release it on an album?

Other than that I agree 100% with your analysis.

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[Col. Klink (retired)]

RTFA. You do not need permission, you simply have to pay the established royalty.

Once a musician has released a song commercially, Harvard Law School professor Jonathan Zittrain notes, other acts are free to perform and record [emphasis added] their own versions of the song -- as long as they pay the songwriter a standard royalty. That's why so many bands are able to play their takes on tunes like "Take the A Train" or "Louie, Louie."

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[Pfhreakaz0id]

maybe because actually playing and singing a version of a song requires real, honest-to-goodness musical talent, as opposed to P. Diddy going "uh-huh, yeah." over a song of Sting's?

Mod me flamebait, I don't care. it's not "art" and if someone did it to a song I wrote, I'd sue the pants off of him.

Re: Then that means copyright is broken

[Black Parrot]

> The whole point of copyright and patents, and I quote from the constituiton (article 1, section 8) is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

I always found that curious. How many other rules in the US Constitution are prefaced by a justification for the rule? Did those guys in the powdered wigs feel some special need to justify this one?

Was it just an excuse, even back then?

Re:Then that means copyright is broken

[ichimunki]

My fault, I guess. I've believed wrongly for years then. Article or no, reporters and even law school professors make mistakes, too. But on further research of the actual copyright laws, it looks like the article is correct.

So what this indicates is that it's much worse than I thought. If there is a compulsory license available to play covers, then DangerMouse could have legally recorded his own "White Album" all he wanted-- as long as he plays the instruments himself and pays royalties? But when it comes to using samples instrumentally, he's suddenly breaking the law? You can see why I would find this confusing, yes? It's insane.

Ugg...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just downloaded a few tracks and have to say that this music is pretty awful. It's completely beyond me why anyone would care about this "Grey Album." Let it die in peace.

Darker shade of grey

[88NoSoup4U88]

Within a month, he will release 'A darker shade of grey' : Which will feature the original song lyrics by Jay-Z, and the music will be supplied by... a drum computer : Is that what the EMI people want to keep onto the 'legacy that is the beatles' ?

Re:EMI is legally acting reasonably

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time I see them I'll be sure to.

:)

Sooner or later

[Ricin]

OK this is not a perfect example because of the Beatles copyrighted legacy, but sooner or later there's going to be one, two, three, fifty songs that get really popular but are only available online by independent vendors/artists.

How are they going to react then? They'd have lost before even starting. And eventually it will happen. It could have happened long ago, but what it needs is enough people sufficiently pissed off to go and create or find their own music. A portal that gets rid of distribution and merely links to media in an ordered way would be nice. (There probably are some?)

Remember mp3.com? I'll tell you what really killed it: it had WAAY to much quality music. It showed the emperor really is butt naked and not that pretty after all.

I had such a hangover from mp3.com that I haven't looked into online (independant) music for a while. Any suggestions?

Re:Sooner or later

[mabu]

You might want to check out Songramp. It's pretty much a haven for mediocre artists, but you can find some real diamonds in the rough on the site. They're pretty grass roots and there's lots of content on the site with no record labels or distribution companies to fuck things up.

Re:Sooner or later

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfinished Thought

Misnomer

Machinae Supremacy

All well worth a listen.

Re:Sooner or later

[Ricin]

I remembered the first two off the top of my head :)

illegal-art.org DL link

[Sideswiped]

Get it while its hot.

http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html

Re:illegal-art.org DL link

[Anonymous Coward]

GG, slashdotted the fucking site.

Re:illegal-art.org DL link

[Sideswiped]

Still working for me.

warning! if you click this link...

[Anonymous Coward]

...your computer is broadcasting an IP address!

(joke. kinda).

bittorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

http://213.158.116.18/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mous e-Grey_Album.torrent please delete after listening. yeah.

And this..

[notsoclever]

is why I release all my music under CreativeCommons by-nc-sa. (Not like I was expecting to get rich off of it anyway.)

There will be two consequences of this behavior

[MBraynard]

I'm not sure what the eventual mix will be, but it will be one or both of these:

1) All new music will be blatently commercially driven. This is the case in India where copyright is non-existant. No, I'm not talking about a Pepsi can being in the background or sipped by a star, but about a movie being ABOUT Pepsi with dancing, animated Pepsi commercials running across the screen in the midst of the film regardless of their relevance to content.

2) Turing machine-proof Trusted Computing to ensure IP is not violated. The keys are built into the hardware and will be unbreakable. If I am wrong and you do break them, they will be replaced with the next generation of hardware that you cannot break.

It is pretty unfortunate to consider that the cost of protecting intellectual property makes it almost seem like it's not worth doing. I wonder if the world's greatest musician will come along some day and spend his days working at McDonald's and his nights toiling away at his craft and not sharing with anyone because he refuses to work for free for people who do not acknowledge the CAUSAL relationship between creation and intelectual property rights.

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[tepples]

I wonder if the world's greatest musician will come along some day and spend his days working at McDonald's and his nights toiling away at his craft and not sharing with anyone because he refuses to work for free for people who do not acknowledge the CAUSAL relationship between creation and intelectual property rights.

The CAUSAL relationship exists only because Congress says it does.

Were the 14+14-year copyright term of the Copyright Act of 1790 still in effect, these recordings would have already fallen into the public domain. Do you believe that copyrights and patents should last forever, that we should all be paying royalties to the estate of the caveman who invented the wheel?

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

1) All new music will be blatently commercially driven.

Dude, you need to go out more. Lots of people actually make music because they like it. It's not all like on the radio and MTV. Anyways, new music is rarely/never commercially driven, because you can't predict sales of the unknown. Commercial music almost always uses some sort of formula -- boy bands always have five members; one cute, one tough, one normal but handsome, one of some other species, and one rebel. Spice Girls used that formula for girls (but maybe they were just four).

2) Turing machine-proof Trusted Computing to ensure IP is not violated.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this, and I don't expect you to understand it either. No matter what, I think it's more likely that record companies will decide to release all music for free and declare world peace.

It is pretty unfortunate to consider that the cost of protecting intellectual property makes it almost seem like it's not worth doing.

Exactly. That's why it never will be done.

I wonder if the world's greatest musician will come along some day and spend his days working at McDonald's and his nights toiling away at his craft and not sharing with anyone because he refuses to work for free for people who do not acknowledge the CAUSAL relationship between creation and intelectual property rights.

I fail to see any sense in this. Is it meant to be some unknown sort of irony? All right, I'm tired and should go to sleep. Why would someone want to play music that nobody hears?

Uhm, and I even misread "CAUSAL" as "CASUAL", which would nearly have made some sense. HIBT?

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[MBraynard]

If you read /. and don't understand what I mean by hardware driven Trusted Computing, then you should go to sleep.

Causal. If you cannot reap the rewards of something, you don't create it. Writing/singing/composing/etc take tremendous time to be done right. Yeah, there are always hobbyists who will do stuff for free but it will always be inferior. With IP the way it is going, Beethovan would be on welfare because the world will have grown comfortable stealing from a blind man.

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[MBraynard]

I think they should last for as long as the creator chooses to let them last.

The causal relationship exists because of congress? I guess the sun rises every day because you will it, too, right?

If you work for a living, you prove the causal relationship between creating (working) or whatever it is you aren't doing for free. You provide value to others because they provide it to you.

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[NichG]

Actually, in the future you predict, the hobbyist work will not be inferior, because anyone not a hobbyist will not produce work. Sort of solves itself, doesn't it?

In a sense, eliminating copyright would show just how fundamental the need for a thing like music is. If people have a deep need for music, and yet it isn't being produced (for whatever reason), then they must learn to produce it themself. Look to the roots of music, and that's a likely result. Music didn't originate as a commodity, but rather as a form of expression and as ritual or tradition. So we'd either see an onrush of people desperate for music, creating it for their own consumption, or music would be shown to be a weak need - something we got addicted to, but which we don't feel the loss of. I tend to think the former is more likely than the latter, but either way, we end up doing what we need for our own satisfaction.

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read /. and don't understand what I mean by hardware driven Trusted Computing, then you should go to sleep.

I know about "trusted computing", but it doesn't work the way you describe.

Causal. If you cannot reap the rewards of something, you don't create it.

That explains why I couldn't understand you. You don't seem to grasp the concept of causality. Your 'cause' is in the future (the rights to 'reap the rewards'), and the effect is in the present (the creation). Come back after you've been to logic 101 or whatever they call it in your part of the world.

Writing/singing/composing/etc take tremendous time to be done right. Yeah, there are always hobbyists who will do stuff for free but it will always be inferior. With IP the way it is going, Beethovan would be on welfare because the world will have grown comfortable stealing from a blind man.

Most composers in the old days were on some sort of welfare: rich people paid so they could spend more time composing.

Re:There will be two consequences of this behavior

[MBraynard]

That explains why I couldn't understand you. You don't seem to grasp the concept of causality. Your 'cause' is in the future (the rights to 'reap the rewards'), and the effect is in the present (the creation). Come back after you've been to logic 101 or whatever they call it in your part of the world.

Wow. Reverting to condescention. Just what part of causality don't you understand? It was stated perfectly and clearly the first and second cases - enough so that the comment was modded up to 4 interesting. Could it be you who ishaving the hard time understanding?

And how does doing work and getting paid for it compare to 'welfare' - which is just the opposite- getting paid to do nothing.

You are a bitter AC.

SHHHH! YOU'RE VIOLATING THE GROUPTHINK!

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is a divine license, music copyright is a tool of the devil.

Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob

[Anonymous Coward]

if you kill the beatles you owe your local pest control dealership

Nice links

[A nonymous Coward]

Spider Robinson hits the nail pretty squarely, but too squarely for the bought politicians to ever understand him. The only thing they care about being infinite is bribes^Wcampaign contributions.

The lawsuit doesn't surprise me. Like I ranted, when the system gets out of whack, corrections occur naturally, and the system has been getting out of whack for a long time.

I wonder what the future will be like, say in 50 years. I see the extreme that I ranted against. The world separates into the above ground, where the big boys fuss over legal copyrights and patents, and the under ground, where the vast majority of people just do what they want and copyright is as foreign a concept as caviar was to a peasant from 1500.

But I don't expect that, the natural corrections will do something before it gets that far. I don't think a simple muddling thru is the outcome, I expect it rather to be comething completely different. It will be interesting.

Why P2P?

[Safety Cap]

You can get 'em piecewise or continuous.

I join the other posters on this story in welcoming our EMI Overlords, who's actions both informed my ignorant self and piqued my curiosity enough to *cough* sample the album.

Maybe Amazon can add a "Publishers who banned this album also banned..." section so we can know what music is worth acquiring?

Re:Why P2P?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Wow, I really hope you stay modded at 1...I'm still trying to download hehehe. Thanks!

Re:Why P2P?

[eponymous flower]

I don't know about anyone else, but the mp3s from this site caused my xmms to freeze...

Way to original thinking

[Skyshadow]

If they were smart they'd sign the guy. If they were *really* smart, they'd try to stomp on the album after it got good reviews, provoke a lot of press and buzz and *then* sign the guy and release the album.

Just for the record, I don't think anyone at EMI is really that smart.

Just finishing up downloading the first couple of tracks, and it's actually pretty good. I'm thinking that I'll burn a couple of copies for some folks in my office who share a similar taste in music. I don't like screwing artists so I don't usually do that sort of thing, but in this case I figure I'm just screwing some rich asshole music executive. That actually makes me feel all sort of warm and fuzzy inside...

Re:Way to original thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, how funny is it that as soon as I saw this article, I did the same thing; downloaded it. I just had to hear it. Only listened to one track thus far and it's not bad. Have to listen to the rest to see if it's suitable to burn...

Re:Way to original thinking

[trezor]

Same here. Read the headline. Downloaded the album, and now I'll listen to it.

If I didn't know for a fact that the boneheads at EMI are in fact boneheads, I'd supspect this was some kind of new marketing scheme.

Oh, and the fact that it's impossible to buy, and that people are willing to fork out over $80 for it on eBay, kinda gives it away. No scam here. Just downloads :)

jackass

[SHEENmaster]

It's only "creativity" when you aren't pissing the community off, and the Linux developers would be seriously pissed off at such a combination.

Linux 2000 would be the bastard child of a hero and a whore.

Re:jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

So which is which?

Re:jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, do the humor-impared get one of those neat handicapped placards to park closer to punchlines?

MOD PARENT UP

[Game Genie]

This is a sweet site. I actually found it before on my own. Almost submitted a /. article about tham but I decided that it would be too creul to unleash the /. effect on them.

please someone mod this down

[Anonymous Coward]

not because he's wrong, but because i'd like soulseek to remain low profile, plus a thousand people have already posted much easier to use torrent links. btw, elohim, see you on soulseek ;)

Stifling creativity?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

DJ-anything is noise. I hope they shut them down. Like the world needs another loser DJ-*. If anyone's stifling creativity, its these DJ losers, they dont create, they copy.

Gah what a shame.

[carldot67]

Here are some facts to kick off.

I like the Beatles. I was even born in the 1960's in Liverpool so that kinda makes it obligatory. Not a big fan, but I like the music, especially the early stuff.

Lots of other people like the Beatles too. Like Oasis and Straw.

OK, so far so good.

Now Im guessing here but I suspect Mr DJ Danger Mouse is not the leader of a beat combo (for examples see above), but rather someone of more "modern" tastes.

Right. So how does EMI think that DJ Mouse is interfering with their market for Beatles sales? I am pretty confident here that DJ Mouse fans are unlikely to have come across the Beatles if it were not for him. Likewise I until five minutes ago have never heard of the Murine Maestro.

We all see further by standing on the soldiers of giants. I think EMI in this case could acknoeledge that and be a little less heavy handed. Particularly given that the Beatles themselves regularly borrowed from 50's pioneers.

Mind you to be fair to them they have to been seen to defend their copyright otherwise it in the future becomes undefendable. Catch 22 for them.

I think engaging some common sense and granting DJDM some limited rights is the right thing to do here given the limited circulation. In fact they have to if only to show an increasingly cynical music buying public that they really aren't all bad.

Re:Gah what a shame.

[serutan]

We all see further by standing on the soldiers of giants. I think EMI in this case could acknowledge that and be a little less heavy handed.

Me too. But wishing that the people running a big record company had the slightest sense of cultural responsibility, instead of being driven entirely by money, is like wishing all the assholes in the world would go away somewhere and leave the rest of us alone. It would be nice, but it will never happen.

EMI and the surviving Beatles are well beyond any reasonable need to profit from songs of the 1960s. There's no justification for letting EMI continue to control music that is nearly 40 years old. What I wish is that people relentlessly tell legislators that we will vote against them until they stop taking bribes from the creative work rights ownership industry, and reform copyright law to serve the interests of creators themselves and the public.

yeah, but have you heard it? yuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm not commenting on the genre here, which i pretty much like... i'm commenting on this specific work:

the "grey album" stuff i heard was pretty poorly produced, uncatchy, just plain uninteresting.

if this was legal, do you think anyone would give a crap?

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[Monkelectric]

I think the issues here is A company having iron-fisted control of art work *40 years* after it was written. Is that what was meant by the constitution of the united states?

Jay-Z? What a relief!

[JonTurner]

Whew! For a moment there, I thought DJ-DM mixed Spinal Tap's black album against the Beatles. Now *that* would be ugly!

"How," you ask? Well, imagine the lyrics of Big Bottom ("my baby fits me like a flesh tuxedo, I'd like to sink her with my pink torpedo" synch'ed to the tune of Rocky Raccoon. Scary stuff, I tell you!

Just the idea's enough to make me say: (Insert Dean_Scream_Remix.mp3 here)

Re:Jay-Z? What a relief!

[kommakazi]

It also could have been Metallica's Black Album...that would have been interesting and probably raised an even bigger fuss about the copyrights :D

Re:Jay-Z? What a relief!

[elmegil]

A variation of this idea already exists. Except it's Sergeant Pepper's, not the White album, and not strictly speaking the Black Album either. But hilarious. Enjoy.

Re:Jay-Z? What a relief!

[OldSchoolNapster]

DJ Danger Mouse Grey Album .torrent

This is what all the fuss is about from wired.
The Grey Album, which mixes music from the Beatles' White Album with lyrics from rapper Jay-Z's Black Album, is being hailed as a classic. EMI thinks it's a classic, too -- a classic case of copyright violation.

This is a badass album. It is seriously one of the best pieces of music I have ever heard, truly greater than the sum of its parts.

Re:Jay-Z? What a relief!

[elmegil]

Eh. I can only listen to a rapper boast about his prowess or how hard his life was getting to this point so many times. I can't see it as great, except in concept. The skill of the mixing is superb, but the content doesn't do much for me. I'd like to have just the instrumental version of the beats, myself.

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[DrSkwid]

When does the GPL expire?

Thanks, EMI!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care for the Beatles or Jay-Z, but since you've got to be such utter cocks about these sort of things, I've just sought out MP3s of the whole thing, which I will burn to CD and give to my friends who do like one or the other.

Just to piss you off, and hamper your efforts to stomp it out of existence.

FOAD.

Yours truly,

A. Consumer

MUTE 0.2.2

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you could find it using MUTE http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

0.2.2 is better at not dropping downloads than 0.2.1 and earlier, but still suffers from not having enough users to guarantee you'll be able to find what you want. It's also extremely slow. BUT it's encrypted and anonymous, which is increasingly what's required in this time of RIAA's and EMI's.

I believe Canadians can download from http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html no problem, completely legal thanks to the copyright revision of the late 1990's which also introduced the hated blank media levy.

Ain't my cup of tea, but it's so much it's own thing that in a reasonable universe it would be considered original work. This isn't the Beatles.

Me too!

[The Limp Devil]

Someone please post a BitTorrent. Please?

Re:Me too!

[Anonymous Coward]

For a BitTorrent link, look on suprnova.org or look elsewhere in this Slashdot discussion. It's been posted several times; you may have to go to threshold -1 to see all the Redundant posts.

Who?

[Zane Edwards]

I says (while starting up Gnutella) Sorry but I can name dozens of the Beatles songs, but have only heard of Jay Z. I am sure I would recognize him, but whatever... Sounds like a publicity stunt.

Copyright protection and remixers.

[jms]

In another interesting twist, it appears that EMI is taking a legal approach that, under copyright law, might allow EMI and Roc-A-Fella to release the album on their own and not pay DJ Danger Mouse a penny.

The twist comes from the definition of derivative works in the copyright law. I'll start with the definition:

17 USC 101 ... A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.

Ok. So far so good. The definition of derivative works appears to give DJ Danger Mouse copyright protection over the use of his remix. In other words, if EMI wanted to release the album, they would have to negotiate with DJ Danger Mouse.

However, take a look at section 103(a):

17 USC 103 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

The notes on the Cornell site explain:

The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not ''unlawful,'' even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be ''lawful'' under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted

Since, by his own admission, every single second of the Grey Album is sampled from one of the two source albums, DJ Danger Mouse has absolutely no copyright claim to any of his own creation.

Of course, once DJ Danger Mouse is stripped of his copyright interest in his own creation, there is no legal barrier to EMI and Roc-A-Fella simply releasing the album, because they own the underlying copyrights to the source albums.

Whether or not they do this, it is interesting that copyright law has the effect of excluding remixers from any copyright protection whatsoever over their own work. It appears that by taking legal action to shut the album down, EMI is not merely seeking to enforce their copyright as they claim. They are laying the groundwork to deny copyright protection to DJ Danger Mouse over his own creative work and steal his album. They are in effect muscling him out of his own copyrights over his own work.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[discogravy]

They are in effect muscling him out of his own copyrights over his own work

I think the phrase you're looking for is "turnabout is fair play." He didn't ask them for permission to use the music they control.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because DJ Danger Mouse's actions don't strip EMI of their copyrights over the Beatles' work.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Since, by his own admission, every single second of the Grey Album is sampled from one of the two source albums, DJ Danger Mouse has absolutely no copyright claim to any of his own creation.

Uh, no. That would be the case if he just put both albums together on one CD. Since (apparently - I haven't heard it) he did a lot of editing he clearly added his own element, which he owns.

For example if I as a DJ do an unathorized remix I would get in trouble if I sold it. However, if the record company gets a hold of it and puts it as a bonus track on the next album w/o paying me as a remixer THEY'D be in a boatload of trouble.

If EMI wants to get the DM's copyright interest in this work they'll just ask for them to be signed over as part of a out-of-court settlement.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[LostCluster]

One problem with your writeup... DJ Danger Mouse is based out of London. Assuming the album was made there, it would be UK law that determines if it the sampling was lawfully done, not US law. If UK law allows DJ Danger Mouse to hold any copyright interest at all, then there's the "applicable foriegn law" that the notes were talking about.

It's the UK laws on derivative works that are going to matter here, not the US ones.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[Tokerat]

Another intestesting point, however, is that he did do the work in mixing the tracks together. I assume since this is a DJ compilation, it's not just a straight copy of each album, rather blended (segue'd, as the DJ term goes) together.

If they decide to release it on their own, would it be at all possible they could owe him for creating this portion of the work?

If not, that's entirely understandable. If you're going to make a DJ mix, you absolutely must at least get permission, if not pay for a license, for the tracks you use. The only exception to this is demo CDs for promotional use, but this is something that the music industry tends to simply turn a blind eye too...it's still against the rules. I cannot, for example, distribute my DJ demo CD on the Internet because it costitutes piracy, but handing out a few copies to promoters to try to land a gig would probably be ingnored, and rightfully so. This doesn't seem to be the case here, however.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[jms]

Uh, yes. Read the law again. ... protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

Every single second of sound, every beat, every word has been used unlawfully.

People seem to disbelieve that the copyright laws could be that amazingly unfair and capricious, but that's the exact letter of the law.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[Deliveranc3]

This is exactly what slashdot needs more of. Pointing out the exact problems with the laws.

Unfortunatly there are several things about laws that need to be considered before looking at laws.
1: blanket laws - Everyone can be arrested for something, the government only takes advantage of this if you really piss em off, (Al capone tax fraud?).

2:Right wing mentality - Government's of the world are increasingly right wing in that they are of the mentality that wealth/power should be given out in cases where it will motivate future performance. Not as a reward. The government won't throw money at Linux because it will continue just fine without funding.

3. What is government(Oxford Dictionary Paraphrase) - The body with the power to control a society.

4.) The governement has a stake in the current system, it brought it to power, it provides the mandates and power which allow it to opperate and it is proven successful (success defined by providing the above). The members of society who are given freedom of movement have "chosen" to exist within this framework and therefore are responsible for it.

First year poli-Sci is the most boring class in the world but it is an eye opener.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[1vs0]

This is disturbing and destructive to the musicians. And halarious because of the stupidity of labels. Think about it, DJs need mixes and remixes to get somewhere in life. They can not always pay of permission to use the material they use, so they do it underground. Once a DJ becomes popular, he/she can start dumping money into the pockets of record labels. So why are record labels destroying the inievatable source of their income? I honestly hope that record labels world wide win all their law suits and destroy themselves in the process, so we can make way for a new method of doing things when it comes to music. Maybe I as a musician wont benefit from this, but futher generations will.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[NichG]

This suggests a workaround though:

Release the mix as a series of time offsets and indecies to samples.

That way, the mix is entirely an original work and contains nothing of the works from which the samples are derived, but can be trivially combined into the final product.

So then, as long as the producer of the mix makes it clear that they have a 'clean' version to which they own a legal copyright, then the combined thing contains material from at least two parties, so neither party could claim the copyright on the combined object.

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[MrHanky]

The interesting parts are: A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''. DJ Danger Mouse's work does not representThe Beatles' White Album in any way, just as my post isn't a derivative work of your post, even though I use only the same words and letters -- even the same subject matter. It's not a representation of it, I quote your quotation to argue against your interpretation.

The White Album was basically used as an instrument for DJ Danger Mouse's album. The album is derived from Beatles, but from their album as a collection of sounds, and not as a work. I think it could be a tricky legal case. Whoever has the best lawyers win. The legal precedence does allow for sampling of single notes, but not complete melody lines.

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[Embryo3]

Have any of you even heard the album? Danger Mouse didn't create a "DJ Mix" or simply steal the music of Jay-Z and the Beatles. He took rock songs, and recontextualized different aspects of them - individual drum hits, tiny sections of melody, larger portions of guitar lines, a few vocal segments, for example - and created HIPHOP BEATS.

this is something that makes the grey album very different from the cut and dry example of copyright infringement that everyone commenting on this news seems to be assuming. the rhythms are different - hiphop beats swing. and although a beatles fan can hear familiar aspects in Danger Mouse's beats, the beats are substantially different in form and execution from the Beatles tracks they are based on.

this is a fantastic feat of sampling, composition, and sound design - brilliant in conception and execution. and the beats DO bump, although not in a way that everyone is likely to appreciate. DJ Danger Mouse should have every right to make a few copies to give to friends and acquaintances - it is a brilliant work of art. The fact that copyright law does not protect this form of artistry is a shining example of offensive record company control of the concept of "copyright".

Re:Copyright protection and remixers.

[jms]

I have heard the album. Quite frankly, I don't like it at all. I came away with the opposite impression. I could hear and identify nearly every Beatles riff, and I felt that most of the rearrangements of the riffs were clumsy and underwhelming. On top of that, the angry rapping was just jarring and intrusive. I'll add the disclaimer that the Beatles have been my favorite band since I was in high school in the mid 1980s, and I really dislike this particular type of rap. I suppose that I came in about as predisposed to disliking this album as anyone could be, but based on the discussion, I really did want to and try to appreciate and enjoy the music. It just didn't do it for me.

Danger Mouse utilizes mostly signature riffs from the White Album. This is the sort of sampling where you immediately say, "Oh, Beatles." It isn't the sort of sampling where you can't figure out what's being sampled but it sounds familiar. It's been said that in the real world of the music industry, you are supposed to get clearance for all samples you use, but in practice, you only get clearance for recognizable samples. This remix is chock full of clearly recognizable samples, and clearly a great deal of the attraction of this remix is the Beatles aspect of the mix. It's clearly a Beatles mix. There's no mistaking it.

There are interesting nuances here. At what point is this or is this not fair use. If Danger Mouse's use of the Beatles riffs were to be ruled fair use, then the use wouldn't be unlawful, and the remix would qualify for copyright protection. It comes down to Danger Mouse's intentions. If he made the album for his own entertainment and distributed a few copies to his friends, then it would very likely be fair use, as he would be presumably be creating the work for non-commercial purposes. On the other hand, he did strike 3000 copies, which implies that he intended the remix to be distributed for commercial use.

The real injustice is that remix artists are forced to create their work in an environment of legal uncertainity, not knowing if they are going to be sued for distributing their work. If their work languishes in obscurity, they are most likely safe. Only if their work becomes popular do they face possible legal repercussions. All the more injust that it isn't Danger Mouse who is making money off this album -- it's the people who are making bootleg copies and selling them that are making the money. And the more money they make, the more popular the album becomes, and the more legal peril Danger Mouse faces.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

shh, dude, the last thing we need is a bunch of leechers coming from slashdot ruining the party... slsk is for enthusiasts looking for rare recordings, they can go get the grey album practically anywhere.

Re:A Wise Man Once Said

[Anonymous Coward]

the creature in the sky
got sucked in a hole
now there's a hole in the sky
and the ground's not cold
and if the ground's not cold
everything is gonna burn

MODS - please check before you +1, Informative.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would tend to take anything this guy says as being completely untruthful. He doesn't exist; his college doesn't exist; a quick peek at his comment history will show you that he is a troll and a karma whore.

Now, occasionally he may be interesting; even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, to me AV typifies the worst in Slashdot - and that's saying something!

Mods - please don't mod this guy informative until you've checked out everything he asserts.

Re:MODS - please check before you +1, Informative.

[linzeal]

That is the most elaborate hoax site I have ever seen if that Community College is fake. Looking at his post history also does not really confirm what you say, I call troll on you.

Re:What is the best file storage format?

[Anonymous Coward]

a4 is better than letter...

wack

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but yea, this stuff is pretty awful. ...and yea I like hiphop and mashups but this is just stupid. It's not even creative.

oswald

[mbourgon]

I forgot the gentleman's first name, but the style/album is called Plunderphonics. Some of it sounds better in theory, but some are _damn_ clever. And you mentioned mixing different songs together... Get AaA"GrayfoldedAai1/2 (grayfol-ded, greatful dead, get it?) which is the ultimate version of The Dead's AaA"Dark StarAai1/2. Two volumes, and he was given full access to their vaults. Overdubs, mixing solos, merging solos, etc. Impressive.

heavy handed

[kisak]

A remix or a cover version of a song is the greatest tribute a musician can give to another musician. (Another matter is to take without crediting...).

If EMI wants money from it, which they definitly have a claim to if money can be made from the remix, then make an agreement with the artist and make an official release. In a way, they probably already have made money from the remix since it introduces (parts) of the White Album to new listeners who might buy the record.

EMI is not doing the Beatles or music as an industri and as an art a favor by shutting this artist out.

Illegal Art

[tagishsimon]

The Grey Album is an exhibit at Illegal Art , an site dedicated to discussion of the copyright issue as it affects creativity.

To really piss people off:

[twem2]

Remix Metallica's Black Album with The Beatle's White Album.
(or of course, the famous album by the great Spinal Tap - "Smell The Glove" which was released with an entirely black cover before Metallica ever released their's)

A worse example

[Anonymous Coward]

The Verve took some crappy Rolling Stones tune and turned into the great "Bittersweet Symphony". The Stones, being the whores that they are, sued, and the Verve I believe made $1000 dollars total from the recording while Sir Mick sold it to Nike, Cruel Intentions, and several other commercial enterprises for millions in profit. When the song was nominated for a Grammy it was Mick and Keith who were there, not the Verve.

Theft for Art's Sake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright law protects the rights of an artist (or their agent, in this case EMI) to prevent the unauthorized use of their work (in this case, Beatle music). EMI is exercising their right to protect the integrity of their property. The use of Beatle music in the fashion of this Grey Album is theft, pure and simple. It's not like the White Album was released under the GPL, after all. If you want to be protected by the law, you must first respect it, or you are a hypocrite.

A piece of musical history has been mugged on a public street, while witnesses applaud the artistry of the perpetrators! A sad day, indeed.

Doubts about Brightnet

[serutan]

Reading through the associated articles I was interested in the concept of a Brightnet. Briefly, it is a theoretical idea that involves encoding songs as combinations of mathematical formulas. Since each individual formula would apply to many songs by many artists, none of the formulas would infringe on copyright. So in theory people could exchange these formulas out in the open, hence the term "Brightnet" as opposed to existing p2p "darknets."

The problem I see with this approach is that if it's valid it should work for compressed music files. An MP3 isn't a song, it's the output of a compression algorithm. The song you hear is the result of the decompression algorithm. But it's sort of like dehydrating Coca-Cola and distributing it with just-add-water instructions. Legally it would still be Coke.

Still, the idea of a Brightnet is appealing to me. Does anybody know a reason why their theory might stand up against the legal system?

Downhill battle? those losers again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Downhill battle, the ones who advocate music piracy, and want you to give them your itunes music winnings so they can pirate more music for their friends? No credibility here, sorry.

Bah

[Brummund]

If this DJ is such a fucking genious, why couldn't he have made his own album, instead of using someone else's music as a stepping stone? Why couldn't he just have remixed some of his own music?

Re:Bah

[Raven42rac]

Because he is using their music as a stepping stone. How many bands do you know that hop right in to writing their own material? Not very many. They start out taking lessons playing "Mary Had a Little Lamb", and covering other band's songs. Remixing your own stuff gets boring after a while, you get kind of sick of it, you need a fresh ear to take a listen to it. If I were an artist, I would be flattered if someone thought enough of my music to warrant a remix.

Your "Rights" Online?

[JoeBaldwin]

Mod me down or what, I don't care: if you're going to remix stuff, get permission first. Simple as that. There is no way in hell that this could fall under fair use.

Re:Your "Rights" Online?

[Brummund]

Hey, this is a site for people who want everything for free and don't expect to pay for anything (except hardware), so why do you think they suddenly should start to approve of paying others for their work?

(Remember, 99,999% of the posters here have never ever contributed one line to open source; however they expect YOU to give them the rights to all of your work.)

Re:A Wise Man Once Said

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice bass riff.

Ironic that the Grey Album isn't that good...

[gatkinso]

... because now it gets lots of free ink.

However, I guess it is a good preemptive move incase something similar but really great comes out.

Defining extremes so we can discuss means

[tepples]

Would take a long stretch to put back IP to pre-history.

I find long stretches necessary to define the scope of the extremes so that the remainder of the argument can focus on the means, where the interesting opinions lie. So in other words, we have agreed that you feel that there exist things that should not be subject to the restriction of a copyright or patent. Next step is to determine what those things are. For instance, do you agree with legislators' beliefs that "Winnie the Pooh" should still be under copyright? Do you agree with legislators' beliefs that LZW data compression should still be under patent?

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[tepples]

In practice, most GPL'd computer programs are nearly valueless as a source of source code 20 years after they are first published, as the platforms they run on no longer exist.

Copyright protects against rapists like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is not broken. The whole intent of copyright law is to give the creator of a work the right to control how that work is used (copied). If EMI doesn't want its property used in this fashion, it doesn't have to allow it. Just as you don't have to allow someone to borrow your car. You take something that doesn't belong to you without the owner's permission, they call that stealing, and that is not right! If you want that kind of control over something, create it yourself, don't steal it from someone with more talent than you!

Re:Copyright protects against rapists like this

[Hatta]

Perhaps you missed the first paragraph of the original post?

And needs to be rewritten. The whole point of copyright and patents, and I quote from the constituiton (article 1, section 8) is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

I don't see anything there about "give the creator of a work the right to control how that work is used". If you want to argue that the one directly follows from the other, then do so, don't just assert it.

Re:Why P2P? Interesting AND FUNNY!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Maybe Amazon can add a "Publishers who banned this album also banned..." section

Funny +5

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[Anonymous Coward]

"When does the GPL expire?"

When the copyright expires.

Horse Has Bolted

[CowboyBob500]

A quick check on my P2P app of choice reveals over 50 download sources for each track of this album. I think EMI is a bit late on this one...

Bob

Who Would Have Even Known

[Nom du Keyboard]

If Danger Mouse hadn't said where his samples came from, who would have guessed? Not EMI, I'm sure.

If he'd made it a mystery for people to guess at ("I sampled a well-known album, can you guess which one?") it would have made an interesting treasure hunt.

But if it hadn't come from such a famous album (and I do credit him with very creative rework here), would it have engendered this much interest? Or if it hadn't been banned??

Only the people replying to my post can answer that for sure.

Of course, EMI is nuts for believing they can put this Jeannie back in her bottle.

Re:Who Would Have Even Known

[mr qix]

All you would have to do is listen to his reworking of "What More Can I Say" which uses an enormous sample from "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"... and the treasure hunt would have been over :)

That would be an improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was the case with other works of art we wouldn't have any of the art we enjoy today.

Hmmm. For example, in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania there is a statue of a gigantic (around 2 stories tall) clothespin gracing a streetcorner in center city. This, so the pundits tell us, is Art (with a capital "a").

Personally, I would enjoy having fewer such works of "art" today.

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[Anonymous Coward]

ya, well, too bad the constitution was rescinded on March 3, 1933, and it no longer applies to anything in reality.

Grey Album review

[mabu]

After listening to this work, I can't say that I'm terribly impressed. It's basically Jay-Z with some looped hooks from the White album stomping in and out of the rhymes, but many of the Beatles samples used are lame. It's a shame because the white album is loaded with great material that could be sampled but I don't see a whole lot of thought or care in this production.

The concept is clever. The execution seems mediocre though. There's not enough diversity in the loops per track. There are a few amusing spots, such as how Danger Mouse manages to make Jay-Z come off totally gay in "Change Clothes" with a sample from George Harrison's "Piggies".

If you're a Jay-Z fan and you like the beatles, you'll dig it. If you're a Beatles fan and you're not into Jay-Z or rap, save your bandwidth. If you're into creating or producing music, you can probably do better. Nonetheless, I think it's a worthwhile attempt.

EMI should have used the Slashdot effect instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, much as I find this sort of music extremely irritating. By focusing public attention on the album, it only increased the problem.

Oh, wait, maybe they were counting on the Shashdot effect shutting down all the offending web sites!

Or for eDonkey2000 users...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jay z and Beatles - The Grey album (DM black album remix) (musicdonkey.org) [found via www.FileDonkey.com].rar

Re:Princeton senior thesis on sampling & copyr

[Anonymous Coward]

What an asshole...

Danger Mouse, supaproducer

[CausticWindow]

Danger Mouse released the best hip-hop album of 2003, 'Ghetto pop-life', together with Jemini the gifted. If you're at all interested in hip-hop, get this album!

It was released on Lex records in the UK. The climate for intelligent hip-hop in the US is currently non-existant, but the UK is still going strong. Since Lex is a sublabel (almost) of Warp records, you can download the 'Ghetto pop life' from the Bleep site in high quality mp3.

Re:Danger Mouse, supaproducer

[peeping_Thomist]

Ghetto Pop Life is a good album. Dangermouse comes up with some great hooks. Track 06, "The Only One," is awesome.

Question for the producers out there

[dontbgay]

This is slightly o/t but when does it go from "I don't care what happens to my music as long as it gets out there" to "it's my IP and I want complete control over it"? Greed is a powerful demon but I guess people just don't see where they come from. I'm an aspiring producer and i dont give a shit what who does with my music, as long as they don't claim it's theirs. /rant

joe

Newbie Guide: How you can get this album.

[Anonymous Coward]

For educational use only.

1. You can download Bittorrent here.

Bittorrent is a small program that lets you download .torrent files. No spyware or adware.

2. Install the program.

3. Open your browser and paste in this url:

http://66.90.75.92/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mouse -G rey_Album.torrent

4. Download. You can and should keep your torrent downloads open a while after you've finished downloading so the network stays alive.

Re:Newbie Guide: How you can get this album.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

this generation's negativeland U2

[tralfamador]

pretty much

No, we need not think of all licenses as good.

[jbn-o]

The GNU General Public License (GPL) is intended for licensing computer software, not music. Music may very well require different freedoms that the GPL doesn't account for (like public performance).

I understand the point you're trying to make--since music licensing and the GPL rest on the same copyright regime (with comparable default powers and permissions), if we honor the GPL aren't we somehow duty bound to honor any other copyright license? I disagree with this assessment because it attempts to conflate the differences between the licenses, as if they all have same effect on society.

The GPL contributes to society in a way proprietary software licenses do not. The free software community grew up around the GPL and the GPL is the most widely used license within that community. Other free software licenses contribute to community too, but few secure the freedoms granted by the license as the GPL does.

It's hard to compare a software license and a music license, but one point sticks out to me--withholding people's ability to change and distribute copies of the music (or performances based on the music), is obviously not a contribution to society; such licensing should not be put in the same class as GPL-covered works.

why not sample really old stuff, oh yeah...

[0xfc]

that takes real creativity. Why not search out work from the 1850-1930s. Why not remix that? Why in the fuck does one choose the beatles and fucking jayz. oh yea, because he has no creative skills. He needed material sure to get a knee jerk reaction. Give me a fifth of beethoven any day

Darkside of the Rainbow

[rjamestaylor]

This story reminds me that I've never seen Darkside of the Rainbow.
Anyway, sometimes Art comes from two used up overplayed has beens
that in combination make a new compilation and entertains a new generation.

(BTW,you decide which among the White Album,
Black Album, Darkside of the Moon, Wizard of Oz are the
"used up overplayed has beens", if any; I ain't goin' there.)

I'll tell ya why

[jcsehak]

Because the big 5 labels make .5 - 17 cents on the dollar.* If they started charging less for really old albums, they might not be profitable at all. Of course, this could be due to those middle-men's Porche payments...

* Source: "Confessions of a Record Producer," Moses Avalon

I don't know if it's art...

[Queuetue]

Or if it's free speech, or what, but ... listening to this, someone sure went to a heck of lot of effort to completely trash the White Album.

it's the fuss

[TheSHAD0W]

This sort of thing happens all the time, and often it's only astroturfing. But assuming it isn't, and this situation doesn't look like it could be, EMI wouldn't be treating it seriously if there weren't anything about it.

So yeah, when I read the Slashdot article, I visited a w4r3z site and found a torrent for it, and downloaded it. And no, I'm not a big fan of rap, but it's not that bad.

Re:it's the fuss

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh,
As soon as I saw the headline I knew I would find this link in here somewhere.

Thanks!

It's not a justification

[Sycraft-fu]

It's a declraation of the scope of power of the legislative branch. Article 1, Section 1 states "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Remember: We don't hold that the government has unlimited power. In fact it is also held that unless something is specifically made illegal, it's legal. Hence why MDMA had to be outlawed, and wasn't illegal upon creation. Also in that is that the states have jursidiction over things the feds don't make laws on (ammendment 10 states these explicitly).

One of the things the legslative branch has power to do is to pass laws to grant authors/inventors rights to their works for a limited time. However, it's not a blanket right, it to promote progress (and implied in that distribution), not just to make corporations rich.

Also, the constituions DOES have justifications. The preamble is nothing but: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It doesn't establish any rules or laws, it just lays out why they felt a constitution was important.

The constitution is mostly a framework for laws, not laws itself. Thus it is delibratly vague and does include justifications and limitations. There are parts where it is explicit and does specify a whole law, but that's pretty rare. It generally just specifies limits on what the government may do, and how it is to do them. Thtat way, laws themselves can be rewritten to fit the times as necessary, while stil preserving the spirit and intent of the constitution.

Album Posting

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem! ....not that I am advocating this. But, the album is posted in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.remix.

It would be wrong to download. Um....so...there ya go.

lots of smoke, some flashes of fire

[Alien54]

well in general the stuff has too much distorted base. Maybe they like it this way, but it turns me off.

Some of the mixes work well with some of thrashier beatles material, but isn't so good with lyric stuff, like the samples of harrison's "my guitar gently weeps"

best free pr the guy ever had. Not all that great, but I can see that there would be a nitch for it.

the guy may have talent, but this is generally not quite ready for prime time. lots of smoke, some flashes of fire

annihlation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I just can't spell that word.

If music and anti-music meet, they will mesh in a smooth mix of harmony and sampled rhythm, beat mixing with beat, voice with voice, a new creation of sound and...

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, BUDDY!!

YOU HAVE VIOLATED SECTION 3.2a(ii) OF THE GUANTANAMO COPYRIGHT ACT.

MUSIC IS THE PROPERTY OF THE COMMERCIAL STATE.

YOUR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN DETECTED AND YOUR IP ADDRESS SENT TO THOUGHTCORP.

PLEASE PACK YOUR BAGS AND PREPARE TO BE DEPORTED.

Have a nice day!

(c)2006 Content Copyright for 250 Years.

Creator?

[tepples]

I think they should last for as long as the creator chooses to let them last.

<nitpick> You can find most opinions of the creator in religious texts. For example, I don't see anything in the text of the Christian Bible that would make me think "thou shalt not steal" has anything to do with copyright. Do you know of any opinions about copyright in the text of the Quran? Or in the Talmud (a Jewish supplement to the Old Testament)? </nitpick> I'll guess that instead of "creator" you meant "author or inventor", the terms that the law uses.

I think they should last for as long as the author or inventor chooses to let them last.

But what if the author is a corporation? If you'd just abolish corporate authorship, what happens when the author dies? If Johann Gutenberg, who invented a movable-type printing press, had stated in his will that he wanted his estate to hold a perpetual patent on printing presses, would you have granted such a patent?

The causal relationship exists because of congress?

Only copyright laws create a connection between creation of a work and a monopoly on reproducing that work. Only legislatures enact copyright laws, and said legislatures have every right to un-enact them. Remember that copyright as we know it didn't exist until the early 1700s with the Statute of Anne.

If you work for a living, you prove the causal relationship between creating (working) or whatever it is you aren't doing for free.

For one thing, there exist business models that do not rely on an author's ability to restrict others from building on his work. But even with the typical royalty model, what money can it make an author to prohibit a given use at any price?

This is nice but...

[I Hate Jesus]

I thought no one here bought any music from the big label companies anymore.

I just downloaded the album

[Anonymous Coward]

in MP3 format of course.. Anywho, it sounds like ass. The only song that I find listenable (and I like it a lot, actually) is "Encore"

Times like this make me think of Henry Rollins

[coaxial]

DJ Fuckface puts on a record of someone else's music and calls himself a musician.

He should have used Metallica

[Anonymous Coward]

Their black album is much better and it would certainly piss off Lars.

Look, it's only the Beatles you like

[Saint Stephen]

I said it before when this white crackhead made me listen to the Puff Daddy / Mozart overdub, and the Biggie Smalls / Sting overdub:

it's only the sampled music that is good!!!!!

The only reason you like the mix is because it improves the otherwise shitty musical quality of the hip-hop music with some *real* music.

I'm not the only one that feels this way. The other day the stars of Only the Strong Survive were on Charlie Rose, and when asked what she thought of hip hop, Mary Wilson said: "Well, at least harmony is making a comeback."

Foriegn law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like *that* even matters. We're fricken' America. Foriegn law is nothing to us. Either it says the same thing as our law, or we'll frickin invade your country and fix your law so it does...

it's really really good.

[MrBallistic]

as one of the 3000 lucky folks that bought it, i have to tell you that it's really really good. in fact, i can't listen to the jay z original anymore - it's that much better.

if you're into it, check out dm's new cd/lp with jemini. underground hiphop has a new hero from across the pond.

(also, dm has a few 12" singles that do a similar thing with nas and portished, among others)

Re:it's really really good.

[DanBrusca]

Surely not the same, tragic, Jemini that scored zero points in last year's Eurovision Song Contest?

Re:it's really really good.

[MrBallistic]

no way... those wankers couldn't rhyme 'love' with 'dove' and make it sound convincing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/eurovisio n/2003/contes tants/uk.shtml

Re:it's really really good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but since when was the Eurovision actually used to judge musical talent?!?!?!

- DRFSR

Creativity vs. Interpretation

[beaverfever]

"The record industry has become a huge drag on creativity..."

There is a difference between creativity and interpretation. The Grey Album may be creative interpretation, but it's still an interpretation. Should such works be halted? I'd say no, but if you're using someone else's intellectual property (music, painting, source code, video, whatever) then you should at least have the decency to not take sole credit (and reward) for the work. That is what is really at stake, not just an industry recklessly stomping on "artists".

"If Danger Mouse had requested permission and offered to pay royalties, EMI still would have said no and the public would never have been able to enjoy this critically acclaimed work."

To record and issue a recording with someone else's song no permission is required, but full royalties would have to be paid. Typically there is contact beforehand because royalties are often negotiated between artist and songwriter to come to a win-win situation - the writer gets their work on the rack and the radio, and the performer isn't selling the farm to get a decent song (and please remember, the big money in the music industry is copyright royalties - don't let anyone try and tell you otherwise).

The point to this is that nobody could have stopped the DJ whatsisface from putting together the recording, but he could still expect to fork over some hefty royalty payments after the fact.

"Artists are being forced to break the law to innovate."

I think those who speak out against the big bad recording industry may be their own greatest enemy, offering quotes like this. We're talking about a DJ (a person who plays other people's music) coming up with a novel way of presenting other people's music. If the DJ were a visual artist who used other people's visual works and simply offered unique ways of viewing the same identifiable work, then I don't think anyone would be calling this person an "innovative artist". It's like the difference between Sealab 2020 and Sealab 2021; is Sealab 2021 a creative take on the original work? Maybe, but's it's just an interpretation and still the work of the original artist.

Lighten up

[delmoi]

He obviously (hic) got drunk after (hic) getting dissed by some chick on Valentines day. Why else would he be posting here today. Ahem. (hic)

Perhaps they're only stifling crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Jay-Z isn't fit to carry the Beatles' roadies' junior assistants' spit buckets. I'm on EMI's side with this one. Far be it from me to defend the record companies and their avarice, but you just gotta have *some* standards.

Puff Daddy could take lessons...

[teamhasnoi]

This is so beyond the crap that Poo Duffy puts out, it's sick.

"Hey is that a Sting song? No! It's Pee Diddly! And he's *talking over a Sting song*!"

"You're kidding! You mean that's him *talking over Bruce Hornsby too*!?"

"Yes! Can you believe it? He's taken rap to a whole new level of blandness! In fact, his music doesn't even scare white people!"

Funny, you pay your license fees and you're heralded as a star or 'visionary', even when you are absolutely talentless. And he wasn't even the first...the Beasty Boys put out a record before all this 'sampling' bullshit started; now they wouldn't be able to afford to make 'Paul's Boutique'. There are many others...

This is the best Beatles-based remix I've ever heard, and something I'll listen to again - thanks for drawing the world's attention to it, EMI!

Retaliate with faux Beatles music

[tepples]

In that case, the only option is to mock Mr. McCartney and Ms. Ono for being so reluctant to allow sampling. The steps:

1. Make sure you base the project in an area where humorous criticism and comment have been cleared as fair use. The United States is such an area.
2. Write songs imitating the Beatles' style but not copying anything by the Beatles.
3. Write lyrics for those songs that make fun of the Beatles and talk about Beatles scandals in detail. If they can't get you for copyvio, they're going to try to get you for libel; defend yourself by making sure to verify your lyrics' underlying facts.
4. Record the songs.
5. Publish the songs and the recordings under Creative Commons by-sa-nc license.
6. License commercial sync and master rights to movie studios who want "Beatles-like music".
7. s/Beatles/Stones/g and repeat steps 1-6.

Re:Retaliate with faux Beatles music

[Vann_v2]

This has already been done. The group called themselves Oasis.

Re:Retaliate with faux Beatles music

[Anonymous Coward]

...
4. Record the songs
5. ???
6. Profit!

The Grey Album: The Edits

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems these days the first response is always intimidation rather than considering other possibilities.

This is not new, the JAMs/KLF/etc. received a cease and desist order for their album "1987" back in 1987, which heavily sampled ABBA's "Dancing Queen." I would say this situation would lend itself well to the same course of action the then JAMs took. They released "1987: The Edits" which had all samples romoved, but included detailed instructions on the dust jacket on how to recreate the original album using it and your own copy of "Dancing Queen." I haven't heard "The Grey Album," but from description the samples seem to be shorter and more numerous than those in "1987." Even though this may make home recreation of the original work near impossible, the jab at EMI by releasing "The Grey Album: The Edits" seems like good clean fun to me.

For more info on the KLF/JAMs/etc. just plug KLF into your favorite search engine.

high speed DL

[paradesign]

https://www.files2u.com/jsp/downloadFiles.jsp

tracking #: CLY1HI3IKLWEPOF9OAJMD6UAN

works arround firewalls too!

Re:high speed DL

[base3]

That's pretty cool--but when they start charging in March, $2.95 per delivery. It'd be a bummer to have a tracking number associated with my credit card number posted to Slashdot :)!

Re:high speed DL

[paradesign]

HAH, you think id be stupid enough to do that? I found it on some smallfry forum and whored it, proper /. style.

There is a better way

[cgenman]

Step one) Download from here.

Step two) Play Music.

Step three) There is no step three.

"Are you sure

[ballpoint]

you want to remove the folder 'DJ Danger Mouse' and all of its contents ?" asks the machine.

Self clicks 'Yes'. Not selfs stuff. Self doesn't like it.

Maybe EMI just wanted to spare self from listening to this, but failed miserably. Big Music Companies seem not to be able to do _anything_ right nowadays.

Creativity?

[DynaSoar]

OK, I'm going to have to face that fact that I'm officially getting old. I just don't get this.

"...Downhill Battle, who insists that the major record labels are stifling creativity."

Precisely how is it creative to take other peoples' music, mix it together, and call it new, much less yours? It's hardly even creative to remix your own work. Remixing your own is either an admission you could have done better the first time, or a lazy way to create more tracks to sell for more money with less work, and isn't THAT the sort of thing people accuse the RIAAists of doing?

"Yeah, man, I'm in a band."
"What do you play?"
"The record player."

This used to be a JOKE. I saw a "music" video tonight with one guy scratching a record and four others with microphones, and nobody sang a note. That's not a song. Last week I heard a mixture of the Monkee's "I'm a Believer" and the Beatles' "Paperback Writer". It was artfully mixed in that it fit together well. But the only thing artful was engineering, there was no musical creativity involved. Yes, I think engineers can be artful and even creative with engineering. I've done it myself. But I've also created original music, and there's a difference.

If this Grey Album wants to dodge the kopyright kops, stop calling it an original work and call it a parody. That's protected under the law, and it's something I could agree with.

Re:Creativity?

[ShaniaTwain]

Yep, you're getting old.. All of us are, but that doesnt mean you have to close up your mind to new possibilities.

If you program and release bugfixes / patches / new versions isn't that just an admission that you could have done it better the first time, or a money grab?

Just curious.. when you created your own original music did you invent and build your own instruments? Or did you just rely on the creations of others?

Re:A Wise Man Once Said

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard tuning.

E|--0--2--2--5--|

A|--5--5-5--2--2-2--5--5-5--|

A|--5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2---|

Perhaps the EMI will now sue me as well.

Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob

[claygate]

So let me get this straight... 1)If McCartney went techno and sampled some beatles he would owe EMI. 2)If Ringo rerecorded a beatles song he would owe Michael "insane freak" Jackson money. 3)If McCartney and Ringo got together (suspend disbelief) and performed a tribute concert for the anniversary of landing in the US this year they would owe ASCAP money? Wow, and people think it gets better once you are signed. I don't know how anyone owns the rights to the beatles music besides, well any beatle who is still alive. Once they are all dead wht isn't it all as public domain as Chopin, Albeniz, Mozart, Brahms etc etc. If record companies were trully capitalist in the Western world as we are told to believe then a band would sell the right to press 5000 copies to company A at $x and then 7500 copies to company B at $Y and on like any open economic market. And once they are done selling those 5000 copies or so then the band would re-enter negotiations for the next pressing. That is a market, but this is not how it works.

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[Anonymous Coward]

I love people who refuse to believe that FDR saved democracy.

Personally, I wish he hadn't been elected. The alternative would have been a Bolshevik-style revolution.

Enough allready!

[trezor]

• And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?

Let's get the facts straight here. Jay-Z made a vocal only edition, so people could mess around with it! Aka, it was intended to be messed around with. Jay-Z wanted people to remix his album.

Now, with that clear let's move on to the Beatles.

And, yes, for the Beatles... Shouldn't their material be public domain allready? Or do you think that selling 10s of millions of album doesn't establish the incentive to create, or promote creativy sufficiently?

No really. Im all for Betales being good music, but yeez, they've made enough money long time ago.

Death to all who insist on prolonged copyright!

Re:Enough allready!

[Savatte]

they've made enough money long time ago

So exactly how much money is enough money? I want to know, in case I ever end up making that much, so I can just sit back and never make any more.

Mixing the beatles with Jay-Z is like mixing wine and bleach.

Re:Enough allready!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as much as you need to sustain your current lifestyle for the rest of your life i.e. $50000

If it seems easy...

[trezor]

This probably doesn't go for all disciplines, but it's usualy true, and hey, I just happen to feel like getting mod'ed Insightful today. Or just lucky :)

And now, for my killer claim: *tada*

If a performance by a performer is made to seem easy, it's probably a hellova lot of work/skill behind it.

Re:If it seems easy...

[notsoclever]

Yeah, but in this case it doesn't sound easy, so much as really amateurish.

Also, where's the performance? Certainly not on DJ Dangermouse's end (it's not like he was the one rapping or playing the various instruments), and I doubt it's a live mix; to me it sounds like he just took little clips from White Album, painted them in Acid, and then laid Jay-Z over it.

Not That Hard.

Get it from bittorrent

[Dell Brandstone]

Want it? Here.. Join the torrent:

http://213.158.116.18/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mo us e-Grey_Album.torrent

192kbps. Go nuts.

-db

Re:Get it from bittorrent

[Dell Brandstone]

Feel free to remove the space:

http://213.158.116.18/torrents/1163/ DJ_Danger_Mouse-Grey_Album.torrent

oops..

-db

DJing as a performance

[trezor]

Well... I'm kinda not in a position to argue this, as I haven't booted up my MP3-player as of yet, but... There's usually this thing called personal taste that comes around, when stuff like music is being discussed.

And I really thought that we were past those discussions about DJing being artistic or not. A DJ may do something creative with something old, even though he may not have actually made the original creative work.

Denying that DJs can do creative work, is just plain stupid. But that doesn't mean that what a DJ does, have to be, though :)

Gee, you sure showed me.

[notsoclever]

I mean, wow, because we use different sets of terminology on things which aren't universal, and because you think your terminology applies to everyone who does these things, wow, you're so right.

Whatever.

Decide for yourself...

[Dell Brandstone]

On that note, get it from bittorrent straight away and see if you like it...

http://213.158.116.18/torrents/1163/ DJ_Danger_Mous e-Grey_Album.torrent

192kbps.

-db

I didn't say it wasn't

[notsoclever]

I agree that DJing is an artistic performance when it's a live mix. But Grey Album doesn't sound like it's a live mix. It sounds like loop painting in Acid, which I'd be hard-pressed to call a "performance" in any situation.

Personal taste isn't a factor in my assessment. I'm going from a purely technical standpoint.

Exactly right.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you read RMS's articles, like his xerox copier example/catalist for coming up with the GPL, he's drawn a line for the point of what he thinks should be free and not free. That point being hardware vs software. With his line in the sand, it is OK for hardware makers to sell something as a product but not OK for software makers to do the same. Some software you can't make a living off of support and makes sense to sell it as a product but RMS doesn't recognize such situations. If you remove his inconsistent line and apply his logic to everything else then nothing should be sold as a product and everyone should make a living supplying support. An example of where this wouldn't work would be in consumables like produce. What's being denied is that there are programs that are like produce. I could go on, but I'll stick with one point at a time.

Parody, anyone ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The right way (within copyright law, but morally denying it) is to write a parody.

Now a parody of the Beatles is easy - Monty Python did that in the late 70s (look up "The Rutles" on Google).

Parodying a DJ is not necessary - they're a parody on playing music themselves :-)

Toon Moene.

I don't think so

[0x0d0a]

I don't think so. Case law at least has established that presentation is copyrightable. I know, I should go dig up a reference, but I'm tired, and pretty sure that I'm right. Danger Mouse added content in the form of arrangement, and that content is copyrighted by him.

I am a little surprised that translation isn't considered adding content, though, so maybe I'm wrong. I know someone that does translations, and it's hardly a simple, mechanical process. A translation is a highly direct interpretation of meaning of the original into a different thought system.

Nope, only trademarks

[0x0d0a]

Mind you to be fair to them they have to been seen to defend their copyright otherwise it in the future becomes undefendable. Catch 22 for them.

No. Required enforcement only applies to trademarkets. It does not apply to copyrights or patents. (Note: I believe that it *can* affect damages awarded, however.)

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[0x0d0a]

Put a bit of GPL code in your router and everyone is up in arms.

When you can show me 50-year-old GPL code in someone's router, *then* I'll agree that copyright law should be letting people duplicate it.

It just doesn't make sense. I suspect that even very large companies don't plan and depend on profits of IP assets twenty years in advance when determining whether to fund production of something. It's just too far ahead. Most employees involved in such a decision will be gone by then, and markets are simply too unstable to let folks know what might happen.

That means that granting copyright in excess of twenty years does not encourage companies to grant capital to produce content. Since the only powers granted Congress by the Constitution to handle copyrights were specifically for the purpose of encouraging production of content, and it's pretty clear that the current length of copyright does not do that, current copyright law is unconstitutional.

Not a counterargument

[0x0d0a]

That isn't a counterargument.

If I carry a rifle with me, and shoot every person I see wearing green pants, I may well happen to kill a crazy who is about to blow himself up in a crowded building. It's certainly not impossible.

That doesn't make my actions (blowing away people with green pants because I feel like it) justifiable or excusable. It doesn't mean that it's good for society to establish a prescedent of allowing actions like mine. I may have saved lives that day, but the institution itself is not a good one by any kind of a reasonable standpoint.

Same deal with laundered money. Someone may well do very ethical things with ten million dollars that they laundered. That doesn't mean that I want money laundering to be okay.

So, if this woman Nora is doing good things with some money, that's great, but it doesn't mean that I think that the institution giving her money is a good one.

Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob

[kfg]

But wait, don't order now, there's more!

Imagine Paul and Ringo using a sample of Yellow Submarine (the only way to include George and John) in a live concert which was recorded.

They'd owe everybody all at once. Half the money for their own songs skimmed right off the top, before you even get into the shennanigans that record companies use to skim even more behind the scenes (like the producer paying his kid $3000 to "courier" a tape across the hall).

I'd point out that the scenario you depict bears similarities to the ones often used by independents these days. Within certain frameworks it works. The price of producing physical media is so low these days that nearly anyone who can afford insturments can afford to press their own limited run of CDs though, so what would work even better would be for artists to produce their own records and use the labels for what they claim to be for.

Distribution.

You'd press your own 5000 copies and then assign the rights to distribute them, for a reasonable cut, to Rounder or whoever. Rounder would make their money by ensuring the CD got into the stores and sold, but wouldn't acquire any continuing rights to the work itself.

KFG

Why would a DJ use mp3?

[0x0d0a]

I don't understand why a DJ would use mp3. I mean, for Chrissake. Uncompressed CD quality stereo wavs only have a bitrate of about 1400 kBps. That's, what, maybe five times a high bitrate mp3? You can pick up a 300GB hard drive. That's enough for, what, a thousand albums? And MP3 will buy you five thousand albums instead? Big deal! Why worry about artifacts if you're doing this professionally? Just go for quality!

Re:Why would a DJ use mp3?

[glesga_kiss]

There are lossless codecs that produce like for like that would be best here. They reduce it by half. But, in my post I don't mean mp3 specifically, just digital audio files in general. Kinda like calling a vacuum a Hoover.

Sample Away

[AttillaTheNun]

It's time someone took a stand.

Attention DJ Dangermouse and any other enterprising artist out there - feel free to sample from my band's repertoire. In fact, I dare you to make something useful out of this.

Soul Music (Terry Pratchett)

[pommiekiwifruit]

Look at the video/dvd for Soul Music - the cartoon adaptation of the Terry Pratchett Discworld novel, by Cosgrove Hall (the people who brought you the classic cartoon series Dangermouse) - it has nice pastiches of 60s music.

Cost barrier to entry

[tepples]

This is a problem how?

Only corporate CEOs are overpaid enough to individually afford what some DC hub operators ask for. What file-sharing networks are friendly to users of typical $40/mo residential cable Internet access (max 256 kbps upstream) with typical home computers? I can think of at least WinMX, eMule, and BitTorrent, but that's it; definitely not DC, unless the majority of hubs set less elitist policies than I described.

Eight bars? TWO will get you sued

[tepples]

the number of possible melodies is so extremely huge that it's never going to happen - the number is so staggeringly huge, even if one makes stupid restrictions like the melodies have to be eight bars long, in 4/4 time, and within one octave

People have been sued and lost for copying much less than eight bars, which dramatically decreases the number of combinations. One Slashdot user actually had enough time on his hands to do the math, employing a model to approximate a judge's concept of "substantial similarity".

He's So Fine was a favourite of Harrison's in the 60s. He knew what he was doing, and he got caught.

I'm afraid that songs I grew up with when I was four years old might leak into my own music. Does there exist a way to verify that I have not broken the law, other than having the song published and just hoping for the best?

Re:Eight bars? TWO will get you sued

[Stealth Munchkin]

Hmm... looks about right - an 86% chance of coming up with something original based on a very loose definition of simillarity, which would be about a 1 in 6 chance of having a song simillar to the other 9 million published. I was using the chance of coming up with a totally identical melody, as opposed to a merely simillar one.

Even so, the number of those 9 million songs to which someone can have had proven access is far smaller - you are unlikely to get sued if your melody is quite simillar to that of 'No More Hot Dogs' by Hasil Adkins, because you are unlikely to have even *heard* No More Hot Dogs. On the other hand if, like Harrison, you are known to have heard a record on numerous occasions and then come up with what is essentially an identical melody, you are unlikely *not* to get sued, especially if your song is a worldwide number 1 hit, as his was.

I will admit that in actuality the chances of coming up with something simillar to someone else's melody are about those Yerricide says (1 in 6), simply because it has happened to me.

A song I wrote on my band's first album, Sandman, has almost the exact same verse melody and basic guitar figure as Five String Serenade by Arthur Lee & Love, and no jury in the world would believe the truth, that I only heard the Love song five years after writing my own, given that I'm a fan of Love's (the song in question was hard to track down though).

But that is as much as anything else because many songwriters have a regrettable tendency to resort to cliches - both songs have a simple I-V-I-V chord pattern throughout the verse, probably the simplest chord change in the world. When the songs go off into the bridge, and depart from the cliches into slightly more original ground, they sound nothing alike.

In fact so cliched is the verse chord change that there is even a third song - My Beloved Monster by the Eels, which I also heard after writing and recording my song - which bears a passing simillarity to the verse melody of both songs.

So in my experience the best way to avoid accidentally writing someone else's song is to avoid the cliched and obvious, and try for originality - if your chord changes are going from Bb to Ddim7 to Am6 your melody line is very unlikely to follow the same basic contours as someone else's.

The main thing to remember though is that lawsuits only get won if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant had access to the music. A lawsuit against Mick Jagger by a little-known reggae artist was thrown out in the 80s despite both songs having the exact same chorus melody and lyrics, because Jagger was unlikely to have heard the original song. Simillar lawsuits have also been thrown out against Andrew Lloyd-Webber.

To put it simply, look how many songs get written and recorded every year - large music magazines review up to 200 new albums every month. Assume say 10 new songs per album, that's in the region of 24,000 new songs that get some kind of significant audience - significant enough to attract lawsuits anyway. Now, if it was really impossible to come up with many new melodies without being sued, we could expect maybe 2 lawsuits per album.

Even being reasonable and expecting only a tiny fraction of that, how many lawsuits of this type can you think of that have actually taken place? The one that gets trotted out time and again is My Sweet Lord, over 30 years ago, a song which even Harrison's friends admit was probably deliberately plagiarised. I hardly think songwriters are under threat from a tidal wave of lawsuits, somehow...

Download It!

[suwain_2]

.torrent (thanks to SuprNova.org). Or over HTTP from illegal-art.org.

Some of Jay-Z's stuff is pretty good, but Jay-Z and the Beatles aren't the best mix. But my motivation for downloading was driven solely by the RIAA's desire to make sure I didn't get it. :)

Goo goo g'joob my hairy yellow ass

[Dogtanian]

The only difference between the sampling that Dangermouse did, and the Beatles did before them, was that Dangermouse had better technology available to him.

I'd like to see the BBC sue over that bit of Shakespeare dialogue that they had in "I am the Walrus" (nicked off Radio 4, or something similar IIRC).

Yeah, I'll bet they went up to them at the time and said "look, this is your work, we think you should be paid".

Hyphens, people

[BorgCopyeditor]

What's the anti-music industry?

I just need to pick this nit:

[StarKruzr]

"I spent ALL that time creating this product, to sell one copy, and now all I can do is charge for support, and even then, I cant charge too much, because someone else, riding on my coat tails, can offer the same support but cheaper bc they also undercut who knows who else as well."

Well, not necessarily. The fact is you still wrote the software. As such you understand its design somewhat better than even the best hacker who reads your source. You designed the thing, therefore you are the best source for support.

Re:Statutory damages - MJ 0wns the beatles

[Graemee]

Micheal "I love Kids" Jackson, owns the songrights to all the Beatles songs. He outbid Paul M. for them back in the last century. I believe it was for 300+ million. He does not have the right to the original vocals, just the lyrics. Not sure how this works with samples since you could get both artist and song.

Any way maybe MJ needs some more money to pay off another pedo-suit

The album is Welcome. The Shit storm is not.

[mrBoB]

Coming from a guy who doesn't much care for rap/hip-hop/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-today, this Dangermouse remix album is amazing. What few of the critics out there are acknowledging is the fact that today's hip-hop and rap artists seem really to be losing their creativity. I listen to the crap I play where I dj (mostly requests), and one song after another sound the same. I'm always looking for something interesting and this bit certainly fits the bill.
Of course, I've not said word one about the impending legal action that will most definitely occur. You wanna know what sampling fees can be like, read this and you'll understand why Dangermouse didn't ask for permission and pressed very few albums. I have a feeling that he'll still get poked hard, regardless of the albums limited availability. As one of the posts at Drowned in Sound rightly asserts

"Whether you like the style or not, whether you agree with what he has done artistically this is an aside. The recording industry is dead, it's fucked, it's ruled by grey suited accountants and lawyers."

What I hope for is that someone finally gets some balls and takes it to those gray-suited folks and says "Fuck you. This is art and cannot be thus constrained by your petty laws." Of course that'd never happen. A shit storm is on the way and artistic license is gonna get flushed.

Long Live the Remixers! Down with the RIAA!
-Bob

I Thought Article Was About Music

[f0rt0r]

But then I saw "Jayz" and "Rap", neither of which have anything to do with music. :)

dark matter

[chocolatetrumpet]

Anti-music sounds like dark matter looks.

Relativism

[Chris Johnson]

I don't know. I don't think for one second that this Grey Album is likely to be any good, because I doubt I'd like the Black one at all. The White album is pretty freaking good by many standards- hell, even the recordings are considerably more 'vibey' and intense than most modern work for various specific technical reasons. I bet this Grey album has at least some decent loops because the source material will support them. I think that's a bit of a waste.

However, I'm happier with some clown doing this than I am with someone grabbing a slightly longer snippet of the same thing and using it to sell aftershave. Know what I mean? What really bothers me about modern culture is not so much rampant recycling by people who won't take the effort to come up with their own music, it's rampant recycling by corporate agendas that are determined to recast EVERY possible historical reference and cultural landmark into a meaningless orgy of brainless consumption. That bothers me. Some things matter. When something that was originally intended as a childishly idealistic outburst representing a vague but passionate worldview is repackaged to suggest that it might just as well mean that you should buy Post Toasties, something is lost. It's the impoverishment of intent- that once there was a time that people got passionate and expressed these idealistic views in their vague hippie ways, and then the world came around later and proved that it was meaningless. Maybe the original idealism was not wrong- maybe it's the impoverishment of intent that is wrong. It's like a kind of theft. At what point do you grow so tired of resisting the theft of your meaning that you give up? A few years? All your life? Do you get to have your expressions still convey what you meant even after death? Is the very concept that you 'meant' something by it irrelevant? If you don't change your mind, at what point does the world get to pervert what you meant and steamroller what you intended?

John Densmore of the Doors has written about his efforts to resist corporate hijacking of the Doors' music. He's had Robby Krieger's support and has had a lot of conflict with Ray Manzarek, who likes da money. The offers apparently just kept escalating- millions and millions offered to use that stuff for commercials. Densmore would bring up Vietnam vets who'd written him saying 'When I was in 'Nam your music saved my life. I hung on to life through listening to it because it was something real and honest and it wasn't another lie". To Densmore that was reason enough to fight for the intent of the music to be unaltered. If some rapper guy wanted to rip off loops from the Doors, how would that change the intent of the original music? Maybe it would be unfair to the musicians but that's another story. In some ways doing it without permission is all the better- rip it off and do something interesting, like you're making an audio collage from stolen things, the stealing is part of the gestalt of the artwork. With the commercial stuff, part of the gestalt is the implication that this new use is just as good a meaning, perhaps better, than whatever the music originally meant- and that permission had to be forthcoming. It's like a sanctioning, and again, impoverishment of intent. Three cheers for the Grey Album then, even if it sucks, and especially if it's stolen. At least THAT intent is upfront.

Re:Relativism

[Cackmobile]

Yep. And we all know about Moby - Play. Every track on that has been used to sell something. ITs terrible. When it first came out i liked it but now its done. destroyed.

Re:s/Beatles/GPL and the comments would be differe

[Anonymous Coward]

this is art. code is a tool. art should be free as its trying to say something. code is being used commercially so it should have some law.

i think everyone should have radar jamming and ICBM code. why should you only trust one corrupt govt with that code? level the playing field i say.

Corporate Rights

[ClarifyingHaze]

He wasn't arguing that we should do away with corporations, he was saying that we shouldn't give them the same rights as people.

Treating corporations as people was a slimy legal trick pulled by corporate lawyers after they aded the 14th amendment to ensure the slaves rights. Up until then corporations were limited in scope.

I personally agree that the world would be a better place if corporations were limited in scope and not allowed to own other corporations. I strongly suggest to anyone who cares about these issues to see the documentary called The Corporation

Yup. Creativity.

[sbszine]

Yah, you're just old and fear the new. Music is whatever people what it to be. I have performed in traditional three piece bands, and also as a DJ and electronic musician. Electronic music production is easily the most difficult, simply because of the number of roles you take on. You have to write, perform, record, produce and engineer the music, while at the same time maintaining a bunch of uppity machines.

Here's the process I go through to create a typical track:

• Write a drum part, either on a drum kit or a drum machine. Load some drum sounds into a sampler (i.e. individual half second long drum hits, such as a single snare drum sound). These hits come from a combination of real drum kits, drum machines, synths, video game sound tests, drum solos from old records etc. Program a sequencer to play back the drum samples through a mixing desk in the pattern that I've written earlier. Mix the drum part as eight tracks, then assign it to a desk subgroup.
• Write a bass part on a keyboard. Play it in realtime into the sequencer. Hook up a bunch of bass synths and have them play the parts back through the desk (on 2 or 3 channels). Tweak the programmed sequence to add fills and breaks and a general track structure.
• Write and program some keyboard / synth parts. Again, send them through the desk.
• Add any vocals or sound effects, either recorded live or sampled or both. Send them to the desk.
• Do any final rewriting, then record a dry multitrack backup. Add effects / compression and mix down to two track.
• Edit the two track version as needed, and add any filtering, subharmonics or two track effects.

It may surprise you to hear that this is somewhat more difficult than writing a derivative three chord guitar part for your garage band.

Re:Yup. Creativity.

[DynaSoar]

sbszine (633428) sez: "Yah, you're just old and fear the new."

Fear? That's laughable. Disgust and distaste for someone claiming a mix is their own work is not "fear", or is that work "new".

I've done multiple source mixing live on air, my favorite being electronica drum & bass mized with Tuvan throat singers, with some quick cuts of pieces of commercials and evangelical preach rants. It's hypnotizing and hilarious, but it's not "mine" beyond being my engineering, and it's not new.

"Here's the process I go through to create a typical track:...It may surprise you to hear that this is somewhat more difficult than writing a derivative three chord guitar part for your garage band."

I've constructed plenty of new works myself, using both electronic assistance and from scratch on paper, including one orchestrated mutlipart choir piece. The techical tedium isn't difficult, just time consuming. Creating an original work, that's difficult, and original is precisely what the work in question is not.

Re:Yup. Creativity.

[sbszine]

I take your point, but my understanding is that the grey album is not a simple mash up: the black album vocals are overlaid over originally composed music built out of white album samples, mostly drum hits and key stabs as described above. There's a creative element there if a whole album worth of new music was composed (albeit out of existing samples).

Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just downloaded the whole thing as mp3s and I love it. I already have the White Album (along with all the other Beatles' stuff) and tomorrow I'm picking up Jay-Z's Black Album--I love Hip-Hop!! But I wouldn't have brought the Jay-Z thang if it weren't for DJ Dangermouse. Get a clue, EMI/Macca/Ono! Let Eminem or Busta Rhymes play with Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road like this; I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

False modesty is ghey.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with saying you're talented if you are. False modesty only exists so that losers and second-handers can feel less like shit about themselves. Screw them and their feelings.

Re:False modesty is ghey.

[Alan Partridge]

talent speaks for itself

Yes.

[graymocker]

If you were alive a few decades ago (And you very well might have been), you probably would have felt the same way about Andy Warhol and the great jazz improvisationalists.

So yea, you are getting old. Sorry, old man.

(Read the above in the warmest, most sympathetic tones. But you're still wrong.)

Wrong! GPL covers redistribution, not use

[goldfndr]

The GPL is a license to use copyrighted works.

Dude, I think you're trying to understand/explain the GPL, but doing a bad job of it.

Part 0 of the GPL says:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

If you're going to discuss what it says, it'd be really nice if you'd actually read it. OTOH, perhaps you're just an effective troll.

Access threshold is quite low

[tepples]

Even so, the number of those 9 million songs to which someone can have had proven access is far smaller

Based on what I've read of this case list to which yerricde's piece linked, the burden of proof on the plaintiff for proving access isn't very high. If a song has been on the Billboard Top 100 even once since the defendant's date of birth, the plaintiff will argue that the jury should assume that the defendant has in fact heard the song.

So in my experience the best way to avoid accidentally writing someone else's song is to avoid the cliched and obvious, and try for originality - if your chord changes are going from Bb to Ddim7 to Am6 your melody line is very unlikely to follow the same basic contours as someone else's.

It's still a gamble. If I try for originality, and my supposedly original melody matches something that made the pop charts when I was, say, eight years old, then I'm in even deeper doo-doo.

look how many songs get written and recorded every year

BS. I conjecture that like the electronics industry, which has established patent pools, some major music publishers have established copyright licensing pools and may bring Bright Tunes harassment lawsuits against anybody not in the pool. What can one do to defend oneself against nuisance lawsuits if one lacks the finances to hire an attorney and a forensic musicologist?

how many lawsuits of this type can you think of that have actually taken place?

While researching in that case list, Mozilla crashed, taking the first version of this comment with it.

The one that gets trotted out time and again is My Sweet Lord

And Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000), which yerricde's journal piece mentioned.

I hardly think songwriters are under threat from a tidal wave of lawsuits, somehow...

In that case, isn't it entirely possible that most of these get settled, heavily in favor of the plaintiff, before they get to trial?

Bottom line is that I would like to know 1. how to control my songwriting such that copyrighted songs I have heard and forgotten about do not leak in, 2. how to negotiate a settlement should a publisher discover that I did in fact subconsciously copy something, and 3. how to afford a good legal defense in this U.S. economy, where unemployment is still up.

Re:Access threshold is quite low

[Stealth Munchkin]

Yeah, I read that whole case list too, a while back. Yes, the access threshold is very low, but still, that's only a tiny proportion of the number of songs published.

I doubt major music publishers have established pools like that. Unlike the record industry, where only five companies are even worth considering, there are literally thousands of music publishers, and a substantial number, perhaps even a majority, of successful songwriters publish themselves. While big companies like Warner-Chappel or Sony Music have huge catalogues, and some areas of music are dominated by writers working for big companies, the majority of songwriters - especially writer-performers - keep their own publishing now.

I can't see a nuisance lawsuit taking place unless you *have* the funds for a lawyer and musicologist - what would they hope to get out of it? Generally, if you look through that list, there's a recurring pattern of 'has-been or total unknown sues megastar'. If you're the megastar you can afford a defence. There are *very* few examples there of 'Nobby Nobody is sued by the Beatles because he did a song with the word Yesterday' in it, and far more 'Nobby Nobody sues the Beatles because he wrote a song called Yesterday in 1932 and hopes to make a few quid' - although I accept that the first type is more likely to be settled out-of-court.

I really don't think this is a problem for any artist who isn't at least having the occasional Top 40 hit, but I admit I can't answer those three questions, and I would be happier if I could. If you find an answer, could you let me know? ;)

A copyright is not a property right

[LeBain]

Copyrights, originally meant to give authors a temporary monopoly on their works, have essentially evolved into property rights as governments allow them to be repeatedly extended.

Past post on similar topic: Back to basics on copyright laws!