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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[shfted!]

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

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

[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.

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]

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.)

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

[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?

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

[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

[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.

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.

Linux 2000

[mikeophile]

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

Don't be stifling on my creativity, man.

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

[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

[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.

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?

[Organized Konfusion]

Direct http download

Re:Oh you mean THIS album?

[OverlordQ]

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

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...

[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

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.

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: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

Torrent...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Torrent...

[NewWaveNet]

Or more specifically, here.

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 ;)

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.

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"?

[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 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.

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.

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!

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: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

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

[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? ;)

.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: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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

[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"?

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

[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:Black Album my ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

illegal-art.org DL link

[Sideswiped]

Get it while its hot.

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

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

[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.

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?

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...

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.

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!

[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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is a better way

[cgenman]

Step one) Download from here.

Step two) Play Music.

Step three) There is no step three.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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.

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.)