Slashdot Mirror


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."

14 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. why so onerous, technology, redux by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:why so onerous, technology, redux by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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....

    2. Re:why so onerous, technology, redux by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:why so onerous, technology, redux by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:why so onerous, technology, redux by budgenator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. Another example by ack154 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Well, there IS no distinction by glwtta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  4. What Confusion? by RegalBegal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins
  5. All part of a strategy by dsanfte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  6. Re:Confusing by RedACE7500 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  7. Re:Confusing by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. Promotional Use by teeloo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. remember what happened to danger mouse? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  10. Disingenuous article... by PFI_Optix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.