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."
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.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
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...
I belong to the ______ generation.
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
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?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
"If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
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
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.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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
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.
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?
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 are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
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
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.
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?
Yeah, right.
"It is far easier to beg forgiveness than to secure permission".
Old navy axiom
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.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
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?
$150,000 is less than most of the RIAA kids were sued for...
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.
... 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''.
The twist comes from the definition of derivative works in the copyright law. I'll start with the definition:
17 USC 101
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.
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.
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.
exactly...If it weren't for EMI I wouldnt be downloading it right now...Maybe this is secretly a marketing conspiracy
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?
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
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.
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.
"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.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
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.
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
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
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
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
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.