Slashdot Mirror
Backlash as EMI Hunts Down the Grey Album
An anonymous reader writes "DJ Danger Mouse's The Grey Album, a remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles White Album has become a online music sensation, even getting reviewed in Rolling Stone though only 3,000 CDs were ever made. Now EMI, which controls the Beatles copyright, is trying to shut the album down. They've sent cease and desist letters to Danger Mouse, a handful of record stores, and websites that have hosted the songs. Wired News is reporting on the backlash that has ensued, led by anti-music industry group Downhill Battle, who insists that the major record labels are stifling creativity."
Why don't EMI sign the guy, or at least come to some kind of arrangement to get commission from the sales?
From the reviews (and prices on eBay) the albums been getting they could certainly make a good profit.
Seems these days the first response is always intimidation rather than considering other possibilities.
Disclaimer: This isn't a troll, I'm just a fucking idiot.
I dunno, I listened and I didn't think it was all that great. The idea of matching Black against White is interesting, but -- and this is just one subjective opinion -- I didn't think the music itself deserves the hype.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
I have always wondered what would happen when the IP mafia went too far. A common fiction theme is carrying some oddity to to an extreme that is not possible. Sometimes it seems to be laziness, other times intentional.
Slashdot itself is full of these extreme types of worry. People get all het up over copyright holders locking down 1+1=2 (or Intel's version, 1+1=1.999998; perhaps Intel was merely ahead of its time, eh?), and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent. It always seemed a silly take to me. But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up. The farther out of whack, the more intense the corrections.
I like the looks of this, we have more and more natural corrections all the time, little ones and bigger ones. GPL is a natural correction, quite ingenious, the ultimate hack to make a system subvert itself. Remixes like this are great, they put the big labels on notice that they can't control everything. Kazaa is helping.
Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs.
Infuriate left and right
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!
----- ----- -----
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.
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.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Don't be stifling on my creativity, man.
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.
http://66.90.75.92/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mouse-G rey_Album.torrent
I wasn't going to download it until I read this article.
Under the original 14 year copyright length, the Beatles recordings would all be public domain by now, and therefore this whole thing would be in the clear. However, since the copyright timespan keeps expanding, it seems like nothing created past Steamboat Willie is ever going to hit the public domain.
So yeah, EMI is stifling creativity, but it's their right to under the present laws. It's a great case to highlight what could be if the copyright laws were different. But since they're not, it's illegal and this is gonna get shut down. If it ever is mass released, EMI will be getting more profits than the original author. Sorry, Danger Mouse, Penfold can't get you out of this one...
If the copyright system worked as it was designed to, this wouldn't even be an issue. Does anybody seriously claim that the Beatles wouldn't have made the White Album if they thought that it wouldn't be profitable almost 40 years later?
If the copyright system worked as it should do, this album would have entered the public domain at least a decade ago, opening it up to this kind of reinterpretation without fear of lawsuits or special permission from anybody. The Beatles have been rewarded for their contribution to the public domain substantially, and so has the record company that signed them. They don't deserve to have a stranglehold on it any more.
Although obviously the White album is superior (hell, I was just listening to it today, along with Sgt. Pepper's - how appropriate!), the Black Album is some of Jay-Z's best work to date. I'm interested in what it will sound like...
I belong to the ______ generation.
Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to the Beatles' music, not the actual recordings. So EMI owns the samples, whereas Jackson controls the rights of the song for people covering it
A little birdie has informed me that there is a Torrent at the USUAL PLACE.
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.
"...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
In other words, if we're going to encourage musicians to similarly release their works for stuff like this, then don't we also have to respect decisions by musicians who choose otherwise?
And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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?
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.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
" 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?
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.
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!
I think it's important that the artist who makes a recording has a say in how it's used. This doesn't mean the record companies should stifle innovation, but it does mean that an artist has the power to for example stop his work being used in a way he finds repellant.
"If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
...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!
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
You are confusing the sound recordings with the publishing rights.
If you sample the Beatles you owe EMI. If you record the Beatles you owe the brother of the boob. If you sing the Beatles you owe ASCAP.
Ain't the music industry grand?
KFG
Funny, isn't it, how when it's music everyone want's it to be free.
Does DJ Danger Mouse release his source ? (i.e. riffs and breaks unmixed?)
If I pressed 3,000 of my own Grey CDs would he mind if I sold them for $6.99 a pop at the local car boot sale?
I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be happening.
EMI are war mongering blood suckers but still artists wet their pants to get signed.
An OpenSource armoury, now that would cause a stir.
Here's the code for a countour hugging ICBM or radar jamming code.
Put a bit of GPL code in your router and everyone is up in arms.
Put a bit of copyright music on your CD and everyone says you should have carte blanche to sell it.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Actually, I'd say that 3000 pressed is a very big run, given that he knew that he was violating copyright when he mixed in the Beatles' tracks as he did.
He didn't just make a mix to play, he made something to sell.
I mean, isn't this well beyond your typical non-profit copyright infringent type issue?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
told me the torrent is here
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?
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.
Downmix - The Artscene News Source!
They need to charge $24.00 for the "Beatles White Album". ..... uh no?
Because..........
There are the promotional expenses.... oh wait?
CDs cost alot to manufacture.... um no that's not it.
They need to recoup the investment in recording expenses
Oh yea.
They have hordes of greedy middle men depending on the corpse of the Beatles to make their Porsche payments, yeah that's it.
And needs to be rewritten. The whole point of copyright and patents, and I quote from the constituiton (article 1, section 8) is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
So the constitution grants the right to congress to pass laws to promote art and science by legally giving authors/creators rights to their work. To that end we got copyrights and patents. However, the system has been severly abused and suffers from a real case of not keeping up with the times. Record companies use it to maintain absolute control which is NOT what the constitution allows.
I mean look at copyright terms. They have been extened to a term of the entire lifetime of the autor, plus 50 years. That is completely in the face of the intent of the consitution.
The whole remix thing shows another huge flaw. IT has been law that you can do your own version of other songs (called covers) for low fixed royalties. It ensures that new bands can't be extorted and locked out of using popular songs. But this doesn't apply to remixes and the record companies won't let it happen. Notice how EMI never approached DJDM or talked about licensing, no, they just wanted it stopped.
This is NOT right. The framers recognised that information is not the same as physical property and therefore needs a different, more limited set of laws. The whole intent of copyright law was to encourge people to create and share and then, after awhile, for their work to become property of the public (14 years in teh beginning).
The constitution declares that the laws relating to copyright ought to be to promote the progress of the arts, which the Grey Album is, not to allow conglomerates to retaing exclusive control over their works forever.
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?
1) All new music will be blatently commercially driven. This is the case in India where copyright is non-existant. No, I'm not talking about a Pepsi can being in the background or sipped by a star, but about a movie being ABOUT Pepsi with dancing, animated Pepsi commercials running across the screen in the midst of the film regardless of their relevance to content.
2) Turing machine-proof Trusted Computing to ensure IP is not violated. The keys are built into the hardware and will be unbreakable. If I am wrong and you do break them, they will be replaced with the next generation of hardware that you cannot break.
It is pretty unfortunate to consider that the cost of protecting intellectual property makes it almost seem like it's not worth doing. I wonder if the world's greatest musician will come along some day and spend his days working at McDonald's and his nights toiling away at his craft and not sharing with anyone because he refuses to work for free for people who do not acknowledge the CAUSAL relationship between creation and intelectual property rights.
I join the other posters on this story in welcoming our EMI Overlords, who's actions both informed my ignorant self and piqued my curiosity enough to *cough* sample the album.
Maybe Amazon can add a "Publishers who banned this album also banned..." section so we can know what music is worth acquiring?
Yeah, right.
Just for the record, I don't think anyone at EMI is really that smart.
Just finishing up downloading the first couple of tracks, and it's actually pretty good. I'm thinking that I'll burn a couple of copies for some folks in my office who share a similar taste in music. I don't like screwing artists so I don't usually do that sort of thing, but in this case I figure I'm just screwing some rich asshole music executive. That actually makes me feel all sort of warm and fuzzy inside...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Here are some facts to kick off.
I like the Beatles. I was even born in the 1960's in Liverpool so that kinda makes it obligatory. Not a big fan, but I like the music, especially the early stuff.
Lots of other people like the Beatles too. Like Oasis and Straw.
OK, so far so good.
Now Im guessing here but I suspect Mr DJ Danger Mouse is not the leader of a beat combo (for examples see above), but rather someone of more "modern" tastes.
Right. So how does EMI think that DJ Mouse is interfering with their market for Beatles sales? I am pretty confident here that DJ Mouse fans are unlikely to have come across the Beatles if it were not for him. Likewise I until five minutes ago have never heard of the Murine Maestro.
We all see further by standing on the soldiers of giants. I think EMI in this case could acknoeledge that and be a little less heavy handed. Particularly given that the Beatles themselves regularly borrowed from 50's pioneers.
Mind you to be fair to them they have to been seen to defend their copyright otherwise it in the future becomes undefendable. Catch 22 for them.
I think engaging some common sense and granting DJDM some limited rights is the right thing to do here given the limited circulation. In fact they have to if only to show an increasingly cynical music buying public that they really aren't all bad.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
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?
~ Aero
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)
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?
And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?
Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?
"Besides, I dont' care for Jay-Z and I dislike the beatles (but I do like John Lennon's stuff) -- but the Gray Album sounds DAMN GOOD. Easily far better than the shitty Black Album rap crap."
And as for me, I think this Gray Album is a fun idea, but a pretty boring listen.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
In another interesting twist, it appears that EMI is taking a legal approach that, under copyright law, might allow EMI and Roc-A-Fella to release the album on their own and not pay DJ Danger Mouse a penny.
... A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
The twist comes from the definition of derivative works in the copyright law. I'll start with the definition:
17 USC 101
Ok. So far so good. The definition of derivative works appears to give DJ Danger Mouse copyright protection over the use of his remix. In other words, if EMI wanted to release the album, they would have to negotiate with DJ Danger Mouse.
However, take a look at section 103(a):
17 USC 103 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
The notes on the Cornell site explain:
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not ''unlawful,'' even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be ''lawful'' under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted
Since, by his own admission, every single second of the Grey Album is sampled from one of the two source albums, DJ Danger Mouse has absolutely no copyright claim to any of his own creation.
Of course, once DJ Danger Mouse is stripped of his copyright interest in his own creation, there is no legal barrier to EMI and Roc-A-Fella simply releasing the album, because they own the underlying copyrights to the source albums.
Whether or not they do this, it is interesting that copyright law has the effect of excluding remixers from any copyright protection whatsoever over their own work. It appears that by taking legal action to shut the album down, EMI is not merely seeking to enforce their copyright as they claim. They are laying the groundwork to deny copyright protection to DJ Danger Mouse over his own creative work and steal his album. They are in effect muscling him out of his own copyrights over his own work.
I'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? ;)
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
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.
The Grey Album is an exhibit at Illegal Art , an site dedicated to discussion of the copyright issue as it affects creativity.
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.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
- The remaining Beatles getting money for a copyright settlement for music they wrote (whether they need it or not)
- The music label getting money for a copyright settlement for music they didn't write and wouldn't even back if it were written today
since those are the only two possibilities which could come of this situation.Personally, I'd prefer it if these were the options:
- The copyright for an album released in 1968 expired in 1996 like it was originally supposed to, making this whole issue moot to begin with
- The original artists decided to let this pass to begin with, and EMI only acts based on their requests (which both Paul and Yoko probably wouldn't let happen anyway)
- They money from the settlement goes to support musicians (preferrably independent ones, or at least EMI's marginal musicians who are getting shafted due to the way the record industry works), and not EMI's lawyers
But those aren't the options. The first two are.There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
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.
If corporations have rights, why not albums? or rocks and dirt for that matter? Everything except humans.
What?
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.
1. You can download Bittorrent here.
Bittorrent is a small program that lets you download
2. Install the program.
3. Open your browser and paste in this url:
http://66.90.75.92/torrents/1163/DJ_Danger_Mous
4. Download. You can and should keep your torrent downloads open a while after you've finished downloading so the network stays alive.
The GNU General Public License (GPL) is intended for licensing computer software, not music. Music may very well require different freedoms that the GPL doesn't account for (like public performance).
I understand the point you're trying to make--since music licensing and the GPL rest on the same copyright regime (with comparable default powers and permissions), if we honor the GPL aren't we somehow duty bound to honor any other copyright license? I disagree with this assessment because it attempts to conflate the differences between the licenses, as if they all have same effect on society.
The GPL contributes to society in a way proprietary software licenses do not. The free software community grew up around the GPL and the GPL is the most widely used license within that community. Other free software licenses contribute to community too, but few secure the freedoms granted by the license as the GPL does.
It's hard to compare a software license and a music license, but one point sticks out to me--withholding people's ability to change and distribute copies of the music (or performances based on the music), is obviously not a contribution to society; such licensing should not be put in the same class as GPL-covered works.
Digital Citizen
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.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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.
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.
Yeah, I'd feel sorry for the record companies if they didn't regularly take songs that they've already paid for once, overlaid a "dance track" and released it either as a 'dance single' or stick it on a compilation album of 'dance hits'.
I'd feel sorry for the record companies if they actually used proper accounting techniques so the artists (you know, the people who actually create the works?) are compensated for what they do instead of generally being hung out to dry.
Frankly, the record companies complaining about this is kettle->black territory.
Furthemore, it's hardly diluting the trademark of the Beatles or Jay-Z. It's 3000 albums. More pirated albums of Jay-Z get sold on street corners of New York in one day then this.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Though many artists release vocal only tracks for guys like this to do remixing, I am not sure what all of the hub bub is about.
I downloaded some of said tracks and while its fairly tight, nothing I have heard (after 6 songs or so) really impressed me. I love remixes, but frankly, I think the originals are much better and I'm not necessarily a huge Jay-Z fan.
You want to hear unbelievable Jay-Z tracks? Listen to those where he plays with the Roots. They play behind him live and *they* are so tight, it makes tears come to your eyes. They make Jay-Z sound unreal and that's why he brings them on tour at times.
Frankly, this guy is doing nothing new. Diggable Planets were sampling their label's old music 12 years ago, legally.
I will give him props for spending what must have taken a long time to sample and arrainge these songs.
But at what point are you not really adding anything to the music? Much of the Beatles samples seem a little out of place. Yes, the Beatles were ahead of their time, but (comming from someone who listens to more hip hop and rap than anything else) so far all of DJ Danger Mouse's versions just aren't that good.
You want to hear examples of producers who REALLY accentuate an artist (in the hip hop genre), look for Dr. Dre, Timberland and Pharrell. They are absolutely nasty and have the ability to create music as well as sample.
I'm not sure how this guy has contributed more than his ear for music and his time to slice samples. This is nothing new. People have done this for 15 years now.
"The record industry has become a huge drag on creativity..."
There is a difference between creativity and interpretation. The Grey Album may be creative interpretation, but it's still an interpretation. Should such works be halted? I'd say no, but if you're using someone else's intellectual property (music, painting, source code, video, whatever) then you should at least have the decency to not take sole credit (and reward) for the work. That is what is really at stake, not just an industry recklessly stomping on "artists".
"If Danger Mouse had requested permission and offered to pay royalties, EMI still would have said no and the public would never have been able to enjoy this critically acclaimed work."
To record and issue a recording with someone else's song no permission is required, but full royalties would have to be paid. Typically there is contact beforehand because royalties are often negotiated between artist and songwriter to come to a win-win situation - the writer gets their work on the rack and the radio, and the performer isn't selling the farm to get a decent song (and please remember, the big money in the music industry is copyright royalties - don't let anyone try and tell you otherwise).
The point to this is that nobody could have stopped the DJ whatsisface from putting together the recording, but he could still expect to fork over some hefty royalty payments after the fact.
"Artists are being forced to break the law to innovate."
I think those who speak out against the big bad recording industry may be their own greatest enemy, offering quotes like this. We're talking about a DJ (a person who plays other people's music) coming up with a novel way of presenting other people's music. If the DJ were a visual artist who used other people's visual works and simply offered unique ways of viewing the same identifiable work, then I don't think anyone would be calling this person an "innovative artist". It's like the difference between Sealab 2020 and Sealab 2021; is Sealab 2021 a creative take on the original work? Maybe, but's it's just an interpretation and still the work of the original artist.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Yeah, so what if want to take it and stick with something that's not GPL'd and say "fuck you, I'm a code artist, I can do whatever I want. Fuck you and the license you rode in on." That is the analogue of this musical situation.
I wasn't making an analogy. But you are, and you're wrong. Just like the guy before you.
What I meant when I emphasised "as it fucking should be" was that the GPL, and more generally, open source, and even more generally, public domain works, Creative Commons licenses, etc. are better for mankind than things like software patents, DRM, and absurdly long copyright terms that serve more to protect corporate profits (EMI) than artists (the poor, starving, Beatles).
If The White Album had become part of the public domain X number of years ago (as I feel it should have), this wouldn't be an issue. Danger Mouse would be able to make his artistic contribution and the folks at EMI would have to do something more productive than milk every last dime out of a 35-year old record.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
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.
In that case, the only option is to mock Mr. McCartney and Ms. Ono for being so reluctant to allow sampling. The steps:
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.
Step one) Download from here.
Step two) Play Music.
Step three) There is no step three.
The ______ Agenda
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!
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
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
[ a directive occured while processing this error ]
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).