RIAA Arrests Pro Artist for Making Mixtapes

Maximum Prophet writes "The RIAA is now going after mixtapes; specifically, the well-known mixtapes of rap artist DJ Drama. From the article: 'On Tuesday night he was arrested with Don Cannon, a protégé. The police, working with the Recording Industry Association of America, raided his office, at 147 Walker Street in Atlanta. The association makes no distinction between counterfeit CDs and unlicensed compilations like those that DJ Drama is known for.' The story goes on to say that many of the artists featured on the mixtapes would never have had the exposure and thus sales they had if DJ Drama had not featured them on a mix. Nowhere is a specific artist mentioned who claims to have been wronged by him. Additionally, the article states that mixtapes such as those made by DJ Drama are an accepted and integral part of rap music culture. His arrest is confusing on several levels."

Comments

why so onerous, technology, redux

[yagu]

Wow, only 3 articles later, and more media industry trampling. Now the trampling is on artists (the mixers).

On a personal level, I've always had mixed feelings about hiphop and mixing from other artists, especially when used without permission. But at a gut level I tend to agree it's a different kind of creativity and creation, and the end result is exposure of old (and new) music in ways never heard before. The final net result is positive for all parties involved.

The research I was able to do showed pretty clearly using other artists' work in mixes is tacitly allowed with a wink. The artists getting additional exposure are getting free advertising. (I'd be happy to know if there are artists out there who really don't want their art in others' mixes.

This clearly underscores the RIAA's hypocrisy in that their thesis includes the tenet they are out to protect the artists, but if more exposure, and ultimately more happy consumers and sellers all around doesn't fit the definition of "protection", I'm at a loss.

In the meantime unknown artists who may have never seen the light of day get world-wide exposure. Sales across the genre, and from the borrowed genre (I just had to go out and get the Steppenwolf, after hearing the mix with "Magic Carpet Ride") go up. Everybody could be happy.

But I keep forgetting it doesn't seem to be about being happy (on all levels: aesthetic, profit), it's about power and control. The RIAA wants to control something they feel slipping out of their hands and they seem more desparate every day.

I keep thinking it'd be interesting to organize some loosely structured boycott or activity against the RIAA, but as I mentioned in my very recent post the irritation factor alone may be enough to push consumers away.

I'm always reminded of a favorite Peanuts cartoon (kudos to slashdotter Patrick Furlong for finding that old cartoon for me) where the RIAA behaves much like Lucy... they want "us" to have fun, but give us minimal leash to do so... and even then when they see we've figured a way to have fun with so little leash, they want to take that away too. Stupid gits!

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[questionlp]

yagu wrote:

This clearly underscores the RIAA's hypocrisy in that their thesis includes the tenet they are out to protect the artists, but if more exposure, and ultimately more happy consumers and sellers all around doesn't fit the definition of "protection", I'm at a loss.

I think "protect the artists" should be interpreted as: protecting their profits and control over their artists that have signed to the labels covered under the RIAA.

Independent artists and labels that are not under the RIAA umbrella are non-existant from the RIAA's point of view when it comes to protection.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[jythie]

I think that part of this issue is that they want to be the single source of exposure for their artists, so anyone else that helps them out is a potential problem.

A bit like drug dealers actually.... make sure your people are dependent on you, make sure they can't get what they want anywhere else, shoot any other dealers on your turf....

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Jeff DeMaagd]

So a person reuses other people's creative works for a profit but without complying with the terms the owners of the works, that's OK, but Cisco reuses GPL'd code without complying with the terms those authors put forth, then that's not OK. Huh? They are both matters of copyright infringement.

I think this is another case where the Slashdot crowd generally sides with the "little guy" and it just looks like the same hypocritical line that the RIAA puts forth because we all are trying to root for the underdog. However, it's not a good argument.

Who benefits from the infringement doesn't tell the entire story, generally it's still infringement. You have to have a permission arrangement before hand in order for it to not be infringement, whether or not you had good intentions.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Did you miss the part where nobody complained about the DJ's activities? Copyright is a civil matter, so why involve the cops if nobody cares about it?

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Hatta]

So a person reuses other people's creative works for a profit but without complying with the terms the owners of the works, that's OK, but Cisco reuses GPL'd code without complying with the terms those authors put forth, then that's not OK. Huh? They are both matters of copyright infringement.

A DJ making a mixtape makes the information on it more free.

A hardware developer closing open code makes it less free.

Do you see the common thread here? We are not concerned about the law, we are concerned more about the principles of free access to information. That's consistency, not hypocrisy.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Now the important question: If James Brown had had a way to collect royalties on all those songs, would that have inspired him to create more songs? Theoretically that's what copyright is about...

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Em Adespoton]

This clearly underscores the RIAA's hypocrisy in that their thesis includes the tenet they are out to protect the artists, but if more exposure, and ultimately more happy consumers and sellers all around doesn't fit the definition of "protection", I'm at a loss.

It isn't hypocritical at all... the best way to protect YOUR artists is to put all the competing artists in jail.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[budgenator]

Anyone who knows anything about hiphop knows a guy like DJ Drama didn't use any material without permission.
Just because the artists who wrote and preformed the material gives permission either literally or implied doesn't mean the owner of the rights to duplicate and distribute gave permission; a lot of these artists are going to find that they have sold their souls to the devil and that they didn't even bother to read the contract.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[adrianmonk]

Not a bit like drug dealers...exactly like drug dealers...The RIAA is trying to be the middle man in an agreement that's just between a grassroots 'pirate'(distributor) and an artist. This is the music-industry equivalent of the mafia harassing someone because they are importing drugs straight from Colombia and selling them on their territories, bypassing the mafia's trade route and therefore removing them from the deal.

I don't think this is a good analogy, because the artists have willingly signed a contract with a record label and assigned some of their rights to the record label. Therefore, this matter is no longer between just an artist and a DJ. The record label (and anyone they choose to represent them), who the artist has chosen to bring into the picture, has a say in the matter.

A better analogy would be one of venture capitalists. If you have a good idea for some new software or something, you can either finance development and everything else on your own, and make your own connections, and try to do your own sales, and so on, or you can make a deal with venture capitalists, who will use their connections in the industry, their money, their experience at managing a company, and so on to help your new company succeed. And to help themselves succeed.

But, when you make a make a deal with venture capitalists, you give up a certain amount of control. The contract you sign usually gives them the ability to do things like replace management personnel if they think the company is going in the wrong direction. It probably also gives them a seat on the board of directors. You are no longer the boss, or at least you are no longer completely the boss.

And so it is with artists who make a deal with a record label. Just like lots of software people don't have a knack for business, many artists don't either and would prefer to have someone more experienced in that area handling that side of things. Or maybe they just suckered in by a "we think you're really, really talented, and we can make you famous" line. Even if it's the latter, the artist has willingly signed, so it's kind of a case of caveat emptor.

Now, it may be the case that record labels are becoming unnecessary. I personally doubt it, since as Frank Zappa once said, "most people wouldn't know good music if it came up and bit them in the ass," and no matter how crappy the music they put out, they have enough marketing behind it that they can create a market for it. That may be a workable business model, even if it is stupid and all about making money. But personally, I don't care. The record labels can keep, for all I care, the rights signed over to them by all the artists who have no talent and never wanted anything other riches and fame and a rock star lifestyle. To me, it's more important to develop a viable way for good artists to make what they deserve off their music (and performances), so if that can happen, I guess I personally don't really care that much about the RIAA. Although it is, of course, annoying when they act smug and moralistic when what they are really trying to promote is their own self-interest, and only that.

Another example

[ack154]

Another example of the RIAA looking out for what THEY believe are the interests of the artists... when really isn't the interest of their own pockets. The artists may get exposure from such tapes... but the RIAA doesn't profit from mixtapes... so they're bad.

Well, there IS no distinction

[glwtta]

The law in this case if very broken, but arrest are made based on what the law is, not what it should be.

This is a good thing - a legitimate activity shouldn't exist under constant threat of prosecution; only avoiding it because everyone feels that the law shouldn't be applied in this case. If that's actually true, then the law needs to be changed, not ignored (until it isn't).

What Confusion?

[RegalBegal]

Dealing with the fucks down at the league office will always result in frustration.

"There are some people you just can't answer"

The RIAA are MONEY driving goon-thug-idiots. The music industry is run by accountants and executives. Most of them probably hate music unless it's Michael McDonald or something generic and safe like that. They have no bearing on anything meaningful as far as music is concerned. This organization is what's wrong with the music industry. That fact that it's an industry is a problem as well.

I'm not confused. I know exactly why. They are filthy examples of people and will do what they can to scrape up a buck or scare someone.

Re:Confusing

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

99.9% of the time the lables are the owner of the music not the artists.

All part of a strategy

[dsanfte]

This is part of an effort to "criminalize" Copyright Infringement. Currently it's mostly viewed as a somewhat hypothetical, tort issue by the general public, because most people who get into hot water over this are sued, not arrested.

Seeing people in the news being arrested for copying CDs turns that situation on its head. The whole image of an arrest, with the handcuffs, police with guns, threat to society etc, being associated with copyright infringement is something they really, really want to see. They'd like nothing better than for you to think hitting "copy" on your PC is exactly the same as walking into a Walmart and pocketing a jewel case, and especially for you to fear JAIL TIME over doing so.

Essentially they are fear mongering, here. They want people to honestly believe they can be arrested for burning a CD.

Re:All part of a strategy

[dsanfte]

Congrats, you missed the point.

Yes, it's currently a criminal act to infringe a copyright, but the public doesn't perceive copyright infringement as a real crime, at least, not in the same way as it does shoplifting or drug dealing. This is about changing the perception of the crime of copyright infringement from something you get sued over if you're big-time, to something you get arrested for, just like a petty shoplifter.

Essentially they are trying to raise the public's perception of the gravity of the crime.

Re:Confusing

[RedACE7500]

I'm also confused. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one. He should be served in court, not arrested by the police. He should only be arrested if he fails to appear in court and the judge orders an arrest warrant. /IANAL

Two wrongs don't make a right

[MalleusEBHC]

There are a whole host of things to complain about*, but the bottom line is he violated copyright law in order to make a profit. Just because the RIAA does things wrong doesn't make it right for this guy to commit copyright infringement. He decided to ignore the rules of copyright, so he has to deal with the consequences. If he was too dumb to know there might be consequences, sucks to be him.

* Dumb artists signing with big record labels, dumb artists signing away all their rights, record labels bankrolling some mixtapes but arresting the makers of others, etc.

Re:Confusing

[Overzeetop]

You're confusing artists with copyright holders. Most of the former must sell all their rights to someone else to get their "big break," and so the actual owners of this IP are the members of the RIAA. Of course, I didn't RTFA, but I suspect that someone acting on behalf of an RIAA member instigated the raid. Hence, the copyright owners were complaining. The original artist, of course, has no say in the matter.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Hip-hop = black. Look at the DVD covers and read the lyrics of blacks: guns, gangs, drugs, murder, etc. The police have no idea what to expect and look for the worst-case scenario: whatever they are rapping about they will actually do in real life.

I guarantee you that if it was classical or elevator music being mixed, it would only be couple of deputies to arrest the, presumedly, white guy.

81,000 discs confiscated

[Tilzs]

81,000 discs confiscated and on the itunes store. Hardly "for promotional use only". He is a pirate and get what he deserves. Any real commercial mix compilations gets the tracks licensed from the copyright holding label. He gets what he deserves

Re:81,000 discs confiscated

[LotsOfPhil]

He has been instrumental in the careers of rappers like Young Jeezy and Lil Wayne. He appears on the cover of the March issue of the hip-hop magazine XXL, alongside his friend and business partner T.I., the top-selling rapper of 2006.

It sounds like this guy is a very big name in his field. The 81,000 discs doesn't sound like a massive amount if you compare him to a radio station. It also says he has lots of unofficial recordings like outtakes and freestyles never meant to be published. For all we know it could include blank CD-Rs.

Re:81,000 discs confiscated

[xantho]

No, they will not get what they deserve. What they deserve is the opportunity to license the tracks that they've used for a reasonable amount with respect to the money that they've made. What they'll get is jail time. Another thing they'll get is a huge fine, which is probably payable to the government of the United States. What they might get is a civil lawsuit from the RIAA, which might result in normal sized compensatory damages, and ridiculous punitive damages.

Honestly, this is what you get in return when you give fallible, stupid people a monopoly on power in our society.

Promotional Use

[teeloo]

It looks like Drama was selling these Cds in large quantities. The is a huge difference between making a "promotional" CD and handing them out as a demo of your DJing skills and making a mixed CD and selling them to the public. Mixed DJ sets are very popular in the underground electronic music scene as well (house, techno etc.), where most of the artists are independent and will NEVER be available via the normal big record label channels. The problem with what Drama was doing is that the hip hop genre is mainstream, and the major labels notice. I pray that this will never happen in the electronic dance music scene.

Re:Promotional Use

[radarsat1]

I agree with you. I've always found it quite annoying when DJ's sell their mix tapes/CDs. To me it seems that it's one thing to be creating a mix and wanting people to hear it, but quite another to go and sell it without getting the requisite permissions.

Another point that I wanted to bring up though, is that the summary talks about the tapes being full of artists that "would never have had the exposure" without being on the mix tapes. If these are underground, unknown artists we are talking about, why is the RIAA interested? I thought the RIAA only represented those big huge record labels whose artists are advertised everywhere.

Is this a case of the RIAA trying to charge someone for breaking copyright that doesn't even belong to them?

In any case, I still think that it's totally unpardonable to be selling mixtapes without permission. Imho the practise brings a dark cloud over the otherwise well-meaning gesture of creating compilations of your favorite tracks.

remember what happened to danger mouse?

[circletimessquare]

he was the dj who mixed the beatles and jay-z a few years back, making the completely unauthorized grey album (the white album mixed with the black album, get it? get it?)

the riaa had a fit. result: lots of press for this guy

problem was, he was a nobody before the riaa got upset about the grey album. in other words, if they had ignored the grey album, it would have remained obscure and esoteric and mostly unknown except to him and some friends and some music gadflies. but because of the riaa atttempts at squelching the album, it gained in massive popularity

now danger mouse is half of the chart topping group gnarls barkley ("crazy" from summer 2006). that would have NEVER HAVE HAPPENED if the riaa had just ignored this guy. he would have had no career if the riaa hadn't pointed a spotlight at him (well, obviously he still had a chance at stardom on his own, the point is, it is now point of historical fact that it was riaa's actions that made this guy famous)

in other words, the riaa coming after you if you are an artist IS GOOD FOR YOUR CAREER. my adive for any budding pop music artists: DO YOUR BEST TO PISS OFF THE RIAA. you will be guarranteed stardom! idiots

this dj, dj drama, he should personally embrace and kiss the feet of these RIAA lawyers: they just made his career. this move of there's is guaranteed to put millions in this guys pocket a few years down the line due to his massively inflated exposure now. additionally, as a hip hop artist, anything that gets you in trouble with authority increases your street cred and your fan base. sure its not slinging crack and shooting at the cops, but its something. even us dorks at slashdot know about the guy now. do you honestly think any of you would ever know this guys name if it weren't for the RIAA? exactly my point

the lesson?: the RIAA can't do anything except hurt themselves and reward their enemies, no matter what they do. they're extinct. every thrash of the mammoth's trunk in an attempt to live only sinks them deeper into the tar pit

what totally sad pathetic losers. any attempt to censor something you don't like only gives whatever you don't like massive appeal and PR

true about angry fundamentalist moslems and an obscure danish newspaper, true about rudy giuliani and a profane painting of the madonna, and true about the riaa and any mix artist they go after. stupid, pathetic, predictable. it's like a golden sociological law or something: attempts at censorship/ outlaw backfires on you and just creates more exposure for whatever you are trying to block, makes your target a hero, a martyr

you think people would learn, but they never do. drunk on power and greed, clouding the mind and reason. morons

Good Business Move...

[aitikin]

I'd have to say this is a great business move, especially if the major media really picks up on stories like this. After all, if they can sue anyone who makes a mix tape and distributes it without the label's consent, then they can effectively prevent rap and hip hop from being made by anyone outside of the RIAA.

Gotta love how the music industry has become just that, an industry.

Legal reform for gray areas?

[uqbar]

This is one of those cases where the industry itself stand to shoot itself in the foot. Arguably a better solution is to allow a legal scheme to pay a royalty to use a song in certain contexts (samples, mixtapes, and other creative re-purposing scenarios). While you can license the right to perform a song, no such similar scheme exists (outside of radio and music venues) to allow royalties to be paid for use of things like samples. Because each needs to be negotiated one by one, the legal encumbrance becomes so great that sometimes going the "For Promotional Use Only" route is the only way to go. While this is clearly copyright infringement, it also is often a creative act onto itself.

While the music industry is hardly ready to embrace this (and indeed looks to be going the opposite way with laws they are pushing regulating internet radio) arguably reform in this area would open new models for everyone in the music industry to profit.

Disingenuous article...

[PFI_Optix]

Yes, some artists may have benefited from having their music put on mix tapes. No, not all artists involved did. No, he didn't get their permission, nor did he give them royalties from any profits made.

He was selling copies of recordings made by artists without cutting the artists in. In this one case, I'm all for throwing the book at the guy. He ripped them off and made a fortune doing it.

I corrected your spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to appreciate the kind of despotism you're dealing with; let's play a game called name the common denominator:
MPAA
RIAA
Bols^h^h^hushevik Revolution
Apartheid Israel

Here's a clue: the players are both slaves and tyrants.

You're welcome.

Re:MAFIAA

[horn_in_gb]

There is nothing either ethical or legal about mixtapes

Well, there may be no legal grounds for them, but we are in totally different moral worlds if you think that mix tapes are unethical. There are plenty of people in both camps -- I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not absolutely clear that mixtapes are unethical.

A lot of artists (and consumers) think mixtapes are great from all standpoints.

Re:MAFIAA

[mrchaotica]

There is nothing either ethical or legal about mixtapes, so it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Bullshit! Mixtapes are derivative works, but they're also new creative expressions in their own right. Not only is it ethical to make mixtapes, being able to do so (i.e, being able to build on previous works) is the entire fucking point of copyright!

Re:Got Things Right

[jkiol]

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist; Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I was not a Jew. Then, they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then, they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up for me".

81,000 Mix-cds

[kremvax]

I think that the article is very sympathetic to DJ D., moreso than I'd be. Even if the prosecution is the RIAA.

This isn't someone who was making mixes for his friends, he had a factory set up to create and sell tens of thousands of copies of music that he didn't own. He'd already received a cease-and-desist letter from the music's owners, which he ignored.

What was he expecting?

Re:Confusing? No...

[psnail]

You don't know what a mixtape is. It's not a mix of a bunch of unlicensed tracks. You would probably be surprised that it's not actually a tape either, right? It's usually exclusive stuff. It's usually distributed on CD-Rs on a smaller level rather than commercially, but what most of these DJs do is legal. Here's some information on what you claim to know about. Read up on this ruling on sampling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastie_boys#Sampling _Lawsuit [wikipedia.org]

Re: it's called civil disobedience

[xjmrufinix]

At one point it was completely legal in America to enslave other human beings, and it was illegal to assist them in their escape. More recently, it was illegal for blacks to ride the front of the bus. The laws changed, but were the people who broke them wrong until they did? That's ridiculous.

Now, I agree that this guy isn't as noble, but it seems pretty ridiculous to penalize someone with incarceration and SWAT teams, which are violent punishments, for a non-violent crime. RICO is serious and carries big time. Add to that the fact that the amount of damage done is debatable, minimal, and probably offset by the free publicity he generates for the artists.

What seems to me to be overwhelmingly right in this case would be to ignore the law. The way people's legs get chopped off from running from their master, or mix tape producers end up in federal prison for years, is not just a small group of powerful men dictating laws and punishments. Every single person who knows something is wrong and goes along with it because it's "just how things are" or its the law lets it happen. Things Don't change if you go along with them. I certainly hope that if this keeps going that law enforcement will be human enough to ignore the laws as often as they can.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[smackt4rd]

Look at the DVD covers and read the lyrics of blacks: guns, gangs, drugs, murder, etc.

Ok, you win the award for the most racist comment I've ever seen on slashdot.

Re:And I have bad news....

[moxley]

So how bad does it have to get before "by any means necessary" becomes the guiding philosophy? (and I am obviously not just talking about the RIAA - I am talking about the now standard practice of corporations and their toadies [western governments and their puppets] disrespecting human rights, the rule of law and their own constitutions to abuse the citizens in whichever way brings profits or more control to the corporate/government conglomeration)?

Re:They used a SWAT team

[ghyd]

This really shows some broken aspect of american society when alledged lyrics and skin color are enough to make a judgement on why it was okay to use para-military police against an (hip hop, sorry) artist. USA 2006 ain't the Italian renaissance that's for sure.

10 Years from now...

[thorkyl]

RIAA
        Freeze, you are under arrest.

John Doe
        for what?

RIAA
        For listening to the music being played by the car that went by...

Hey RIAA get a (&^$$#%(*)*^%$%@^&*(**&^#W$%^&{)*)(*&#W@$#@$#$&%*^ & clue

Confusing? Why not at all!

[lymond01]

The story goes on to say that many of the artists featured on the mixtapes would never have had the exposure and thus sales they had if DJ Drama had not featured them on a mix. Nowhere is a specific artist mentioned who claims to have been wronged by him. Additionally, the article states that mixtapes such as those made by DJ Drama are an accepted and integral part of rap music culture. His arrest is confusing on several levels.

It's not confusing if you consider that it's not the artists who are suing for distributing their music, it's the RIAA who is suing for distributing music mixed and compiled and marketed (sometimes) by them. I'm not sure how it would work if someone had an artist's permission to record their song live (like the Sting video, Fortress Around Your Heart) and then made mix tapes of those songs...does the RIAA own the song? Or just the recording of the song?

Re:Confusing? Why not at all!

[BCW2]

This is a classic example of the fact that the RIAA is not about "the artists" but is all about the record companies!

Re:I agree ... arrest him

[hamelis]

I'm all for "Fair Use". Now, "Fair Use" doesn't exist in and of itself, it's a notion created by us (humans). And its extent is defined by us (and varies by country / jurisdiction). But this bloke went too far.

I'm all for Copyright. Now, Copyright doesn't exist in and of itself, it's a notion created by us (humans). And its extent is defined by us (and varies by country / jurisdiction). But this jurisdiction has gone too far.

NOBODY read the NYT article

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Sigh. NOBODY seems to have read the NYT article. He wasn't arrested for "creating mix tapes". 81,000 - yes - EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND - CDs were confiscated. He is a bootlegger. If he had simply creted mixes and given them away on his website this wouldn't have happened. I suspect that he sold the CDs and since he did not have permission for the samples he used, he was, in the eyes of the RIAA, a bootlegger. I'm no fan of the RIAA, but they cracked down on a dude making serious money from potentially illegal activity. That's for the courts to decide. The RIAA has always cracked down on bootleggers.

I really don't like commenting a day later, but I didn't have time yesterday to followup on this and nobody seems to have bothered to read the article. I shouldn't be surprised. This is Slashdot after all.