Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Disclaimer: This isn't a troll, I'm just a fucking idiot.
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...
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?
" 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?
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!
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...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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 ;)
do not read this line twice.
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?
They need to charge $24.00 for the "Beatles White Album". ..... uh no?
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
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.
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.
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...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
- The remaining Beatles getting money for a copyright settlement for music they wrote (whether they need it or not)
- 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:
- 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
- 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)
- 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.There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
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.
Mod point free since 2001
If corporations have rights, why not albums? or rocks and dirt for that matter? Everything except humans.
What?
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?
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.
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
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
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).