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

[MustardMan]

your favorite peanuts cartoon website is loading the comic, then immediately redirecting to the frontpage of the website. Very annoying.

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

[admdrew]

http://www.darkknight.ca/images/Peanuts_1954_318.g if

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[HTH NE1]

I tried activating Javascript for the site temporarily and got no redirect to the front page. There is a script to redirect to the framed page if you try to access it unframed, but that's all I can see. There is some content for which I don't have the plug-in, so perhaps the redirect is being performed through one of them.

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

[MindStalker]

Realistically its not about the "artist", but it is about the music labels. They are an association who's prime customer is the music labels. If the music labels don't think this is a good idea the RIAA will backtrack... But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.. If it gets enough attention you might even see some Rap heavy labels pulling out of the RIAA.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[monoqlith]

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.

  This not only proves that the RIAA is unnecessary, and their role in discovering and distributing music by new artists extremely overvalued, but that they are more or less now just a music cartel. Their claim to domination over music production is merely nominal and contractual. It is obsolete as well - the means of production and distribution are now commodities, accessible to laypeople. Fortunately, thanks to the internet and the long tail effect, the market will eventually correct itself by locking the existing record industry out of music production and distribution, and the new record industry will mostly just consist of artists and fans.

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

[eieken]

The problem is that mix tapes invariably help those without exposure and fame already to achieve more of both. This tacit agreement to share music for collaboration does exist in many artists minds (except maybe the Metallica's and other super-popular artists out there with one thing in mind the $$$). The thing is that many of these artists are represented on many levels by a business that has only one thing in mind and that is $$$. Basically this is a money grab, and it is a perfectly legal one at that. If you want the money on the table, grab it, especially when you have no reputation in the mix as the RIAA has shown many times that it doesn't care about it's own reputation. The RIAA acts as the reputation-shield for those artists who are only interested in the money; Conversely the RIAA acts as the mafia (only interested in making money, regardless of how) in regards to smaller artists who are only interested in more play. Unfortunately the whole system feeds on itself as artists get super-popular, the artist might change their mind and become more interested in the money, and then the RIAA serves its purpose to the artist quite well.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[poot_rootbeer]

The research I was able to do showed pretty clearly using other artists' work in mixes is tacitly allowed with a wink.

That would be fine, if permission to use the works were the artists' to give away. In most cases, it is not and phonographic copyright is the property of the record label. Thus, while we can argue whether it is morally right that someone can get in trouble for compiling a mixtape even when his actions are condoned by the artists who wrote the music, from a legal standpoint it is straightforward copyright infringement.

Mixtapes can exist and be legit; see Dan the Automator's "Wanna Buy A Monkey?" or DJ Jazzy Jeff's "Hip Hop Forever" series as recent examples of successful, non-copyright-infringing releases in the genre.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Aladrin]

If they truly wish to have this 'agreement', then they need to state it. Without, the law 'protects' their works.

As much as I hate the RIAA, they probably did not notice this guy on their own. Most likely, one of the artists that got mixed didn't like it and complained.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[erroneus]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "pimps and hoes" for the analogy.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[nschubach]

If you "sample" the merchandise without consulting the Pimp first, your gettin' the beatin' of a lifetime.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[nschubach]

Which brings up the question...would he have had permission to make the mix tapes if he was a fairly unknown person? Did he need to mix tapes illegaly to build up "cred" so the artists could feel safe in knowing that his material will net them profit? If he was only allowed to make mix tapes with permission, and he was some new kid off the street, would the artist/RIAA give him the time of day?

Doesn't permission based on popularity lead to corporate control over what's popular?

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[smellsofbikes]

>I'd be happy to know if there are artists out there who really don't want their art in others' mixes.

Yes. Thomas Dolby, he of "She Blinded Me With Science", would be quite happy to talk to you about this. Kevin Federline wrote and distributed a rap song that used a clearly recognizeable sample from Blinded Me With Science, via MySpace, and TD thinks the song stinks, is offensive, and lousy music, so filed a C&D against KF. (He tried to do it on MySpace itself, on KF's page, by becoming KF's friend and then posting a comment, but MySpace choked on the wording of the C&D.

I know all this because I went to a recent TD concert -- which was fabulous, by the way -- and he talked about it for quite a while. He said, "even if I'd been asked first, I probably would've said no" because TD found KF's musical style offensive and didn't want to be associated with it.

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

[Nebu]

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.

James Brown recently died, so I've been seeing a lot of articles on him. In some of them, it is claimed that he's upset about how many artists are mixing his stuff into their songs, but realizes that there isn't much he can do about it at this point. Here's a paraphrasing of what James Brown said from memory, as I can't find the relevant article right now.

"When you're listening to Funk, you're listening to James Brown [referring to himself in the 3rd person]. When you listen to Rap, you're listening to James Brown. When you listen to Hip Hop, House, or even Rock and Roll, you're listening to James Brown. If you hear a beat... and it gets your toe tapping... you're listening to James Brown."

I guess when you're James Brown, the marginal additional exposure you gain doesn't outweigh the royalties you could be getting if everything were done the RIAA way.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[yagu]

Thanks for the example... I'd wondered.

This particular example is interesting considering the "performer". KF was pretty much s***listed early on for taking advantage of his marriage and Spears fame, and his pretty obvious lack of talent (at the House of Blues in Chicago, they finally had to send runners out before his concert started -- they started giving tickets away free just to ensure KF had some semblence of a crowd (even that didn't work )).

So, I'd agree there can and will be artists who would not want their art used without permission (or would even not give permission when asked), and that works for me. I'd prefer to see that dialogue on a case-by-case basis since appearances suggest in today's world it's mostly an accepted practice... no harm, no foul.

What I find a thorn is that the self-anointed RIAA steps in on these things ostensibly supporting the music industry and the artists when nothing could be further from the truth.

Ultimately the RIAA is encumbering both the artists and the consumers so much as to effectively call into question any and all of their actions and motives. I'm hopeful they eventually are rendered irrelevant (not holding my breath, there's a lot of money and power there).

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[dastardly_villain]

What makes no sense about this is that Drama and Cannon are signed as recording artists, work regularly in the industry as record producers, they're both well-known and respected DJs and are a part of Eminem's satellite Radio program Shade 45.
They represent all aspects of the music industry. The Artist, the Promoter and the Producer.
What a dumb, short-sighted move on the part of an industry that's already in enough trouble.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[wall0159]

What's more, it seems like RIAA doesn't care whose music if actually is! It's as if "music" is theirs, regardless of who has made it - whether or not they're even signed to an RIAA company!

And I love this quote - it's priceless:

"The association makes no distinction between counterfeit CDs and unlicensed compilations like those that DJ Drama is known for"

I don't give a toss what they think - we supposedly live in countries that are ruled by law!

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

[shark72]

"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."

I wouldn't even go so far as to use "little guy." He had 80K units in inventory. Mixtapes and promo CDs have a short shelf life (the outfit that my company buys from gets a new one each month in each of several genres), so his annual volume was likely way more than that -- perhaps needless to say, far more than the sales volume of many indie labels. And, he seems to have profited handsomely.

There are plenty of ways that he could have engaged in the mixtape or promo CD business while respecting the rights of the performers and the record labels which funded the production (and had exclusive distribution rights to) the music he was selling. That might have meant that he cleared less profit on each sale, so I suppose it's his greed that got in the way.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[asleep79]

to put it simply the RIAA is a conglomorate of talent-less, soul-less, money-grubbing, megalomaniacs who seek nothing more than their own profit through the total control and exploitation of the industry they claim to be protecting. rather than adapt to a changing marketplace they batton down the hatches and declare war decent folk who's only real crime is not being wealthy enough to pay the outlandish prices they feel the product they didn't even create is worth. as for me, i'll never have the guts to do anything more drastic than gripe about them on a forum where no one will ever read my rant. but on that fateful day in the hopfully not too distant future when some lunatic gets sued by these greedy, inhuman, hypocrites and he loses it ... i will let out a chuckle and a sigh of relief in the knowledge that for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. the RIAA can only push society around for so long ... eventually something will give.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[smellsofbikes]

KF *sucks* and that was one point.
TD saw that in a week, the song had *half a million downloads* and that's a second point.
I think TD is entirely within his rights. He's still alive, he's still producing music, he created the original riff, and it should be his, for a decent period of time.
Another thing: he bought back all the copyrights to all his materials from his old record label, so they are truly his. It's not like when the RIAA is going out on the warpath on behalf of an artist, when the artist in question isn't actually getting a damn thing from the RIAA for their supposed protection. See George Clinton's fights with his record labels for examples of that.
Clearly, the RIAA is interested in protecting themselves and their profit margins. Artists who do work that isn't associated with the RIAA, and whose work threatens the RIAA, will be targetted even more furiously than the people who are just consuming in a way that doesn't maximize RIAA profits, because artists are leveraged more heavily.
The problem (probably) is that the RIAA is clearly mutually beneficial to pop phenomenons, so there's a big financial incentive on both sides, besides just self-preservation, for the RIAA to continue existing. But for small artists, not so much, and for innovative artists, the RIAA is a threat (since they're a threat to it.)

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Chineseyes]

Ok since this is slashdot home of people who know nothing about hiphop but love to comment on it, let me explain to you how this works. Mixtape DJs as popular and DJ Drama get FLOODED with demos from artists popular and unpopular mainstream and underground; they also get flooded with demos and samplers from record labels. Most mixtape DJs take the best of that material they do get to listen to and distribute it on whatever mixtape series they are putting out at the moment. VERY rarely does a mixtape DJ as popular as DJ Drama put out an album with material they didn't receive from the artist directly in fact a DJ as popular as he is probably has artists pyaing him to put them on his mixtape just so they can have a little "Street Cred".
How do I know this? I was a low level DJ in NY during college created a few of my own mixtapes, mixed in a few clubs, and met a few A&Rs in the process. I was a nobody in the mixtape scene and after only a year I started receiving so many albums from record labels and artists that the post office refused to deliver them to my home address and I had to get a PO Box. When I moved from my apt half of my moving truck was filled with albums.
Anyone who knows anything about hiphop knows a guy like DJ Drama didn't use any material without permission.

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

[Hatta]

Not a bit like drug dealers...exactly like drug dealers...

Hey hey hey. The majority of drug dealers are well meaning people trying to provide a valuable service to their community and making a little profit meanwhile. In the War on Drug Users, they are the freedom fighters. Don't mix them up with thugs like the RIAA.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[twiddlingbits]

I wish I had mod points today..I'd give you ALL of them.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[budgenator]

Well its just that when promotional materials get distributed, the RIAA wants to be able to deduct the $16.95 from the artists share of the record profits; with independant mixes they can't.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[bechthros]

"and that's even more of a reason for him to ask permission first... surely no-one would turn him down, he'd have a legit license to use the recording"

sounds good in theory, but if you even consider this remotely possible, then i feel safe making the assumption that you have never been involved in any business in hip-hop or rap. by the time the paperwork was done all those tracks would be half a year old. these mixtapes are made within weeks of the original 12" being released, or sometimes even before the track is officially released (see also "dub plates"), and on the street within weeks of the compilation being made. and it's STILL a struggle to stay fresher than the next guy. business being business, corners get cut, and nobody gets hurt.

this guy is nothing more or less than a kingmaker. who you see on MTV in the next year will be determined in no small part by this man's business and artistic decisions. but our tax dollars are feeding him in jail.

this is, to say the least, a counterproductive punishment for a victimless crime.

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

[ebyrob]

Ya, the GNU credo is something like:

"We think copyright is bad, but since we're stuck with it, we'll use it against itself wherever possible."

Copyleft was always meant to be the opposite of copyright... Of course, sometimes people forget the fundamentals.

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

[Divebus]

DJs as popular and DJ Drama get FLOODED with demos from artists popular and unpopular mainstream and underground; they also get flooded with demos and samplers from record labels.

Ahhhhh.... I think that's called "entrapment". The labels know full well what these DJs are doing with the material.

It's probably time for the labels to reel in the RIAA dogs because they're hurting business.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[ebyrob]

Good points but:

That might have meant that he cleared less profit on each sale, so I suppose it's his greed that got in the way.

So, the difference between pulling in a slightly better than decent living and losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year making exactly the compositions you want can be attributed to basic human greed?

I guess so. I'm a pretty greedy bastard myself. I regularly go to huge lengths to avoid running up millions of dollars of debt, and then on top of that I try to make enough to pay the bills and keep my girlfriend and I solvent enough to eat dinner out a couple times a week.

I'm just saying. If he followed the rules he'd either have a highly negative profit, or he wouldn't be turning out the same tapes he's been turning out. Some folks are OK letting politics affect their creations, others aren't. And, still others are greedy and will do anything to make a buck without giving anything back to the community. Since I don't personally know the guy, or his work, I'll reserve judgement for those in the know. (Apprantly some people think he had something artistic to contribute according to the article...)

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[budgenator]

None of the artists complained, most likely the artists don't own any of the rights to their music other than performance rights The real reason for the police involvement is.it give them some credability, you can only sue so many 12 year old boys and 90 year old grandmothers before you lose street cred.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Chineseyes]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up I meant to say without permission of the artists as the parent had mentioned and you are very correct. But this begs the question are the record labels and the RIAA now obligated to arrest the artists themselves for giving their music for illegal distribution?

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[d34thm0nk3y]

I am really starting to think compulsory licensing is the solution. Copyright is an agreement with the people, which is apparently allowed to be retroactively changed. It is not so outlandish, it would be just like ASCAP. Allofmp3 would be legal under this type of situation as well as digital libraries etc.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[shark72]

"I'm just saying. If he followed the rules he'd either have a highly negative profit, or he wouldn't be turning out the same tapes he's been turning out."

Sorry, I lost you. There are plenty of purveyors of legitimate, authorized mixtapes and promo CDs. Music licensing is a healthy business and the rules and procedures are pretty straightforward. It takes time and effort to be successful, (as do many, many things) but it's not rocket science. He took the easier and quicker "don't get authorization for content" route which provided short-term gain but he's running into some steep consequences.

If you can't see a way to build a business of producing mixtapes or promo CDs with authorized content -- perhaps you have no idea where to even begin, or you can't fathom doing it without a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, as you put it -- that's fine... the important thing is that there are others who do. The universe sort of balances out; I'm sure there are lots of folks in the music biz who know fuck all about, say, load balancers.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[spoco2]

"Ok since this is slashdot home of people who know nothing about hiphop but love to comment on it, let me explain to you how this works."

Look, very true, I was merely commenting on the information available within the article, no more, no less... if the article had included more of the information as you state it, it would be a stronger case against the RIAA.

If he's being sent the material then all power to him... the article never mentioned either way.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[veganboyjosh]

you know drug dealers who make below minimum wage?

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[veganboyjosh]

which brings up the issue of what dj drama would think of someone else mixing his music.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[fuzzix]

I've always had mixed feelings about hiphop and mixing from other artists

I haven't. I never understood the controversy over sampling... It's not as if some enterprising soul with a lot of patience is going to attempt to recreate the original piece from a series of seconds long samples. I'm not really a fan of the sort of music that relies on sampling but I understand the artistry.

Art is hard to pin down in legal terms. This is no accident - the law deals with matters of business, property and personal space - quantifiable and measurable phenomena. It tries to squeeze its way into morality and music but this rarely works out - creativity and emotion don't lend themselves to reasonable debate.

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.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[horn_in_gb]

Read freakonomics. Really. In addition to being a generally a good book, it does talk about the wages that drug dealers make.

All but the highest rungs of drug "employees" (i won't say dealers, since dealers are usually not in the high echelons) do not make much money, and in fact do live at home with their parents and barely survive on their wages.

If you are truly interested in questions like "what kind of money do drug dealers make", I do highly suggest reading this book. I'm not affiliated with them or anything, I just think it was interesting and really insightful regarding a lot of these social taboo subjects.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[horn_in_gb]

um, joe haydn was well dead for a good half-century before brahms wrote those variations..

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[veganboyjosh]

you know, i will check it out. i saw the author when he was on the daily show, and i've had it recommended to me several times. it's been on my list for a while, but havbing read _reefer madness_ by eric schlosser, i'm interested in the freakanomics angle...thanks!

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[nobaloney]

"This is John Cameron Cameron, downtown Mars ..."

So begins what may be the earliest "mix" though the word hadn't been invented and the format is quite different. I don't remember the name of the comody piece; it was a so-called "radio report" from Mars, with pieces of lots of songs making up most of the interviewees quotes.

I think it was Buchanan and Goodman who produced it. I don't think the RIAA sued them :) .

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[stony3k]

The link does not work in Firefox. I wish enough slashdotters using Firefox hit the site that they start supporting standards instead of particular browsers.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[horn_in_gb]

Lucky day. I found a copy of the relevant chapter at the following URL, which I am not affiliated with:

Freakonomics Ch. 3

It is in nasty RTF format, but readable; you will certainly want to buy the book to get full effect. That said, nothing like a little instant gratification...

If you are vegan, you may be interested in the non-cheesy parts of the following URL at the same random domain:

barcelona gorditas

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[dastardly_villain]

Well, since he's a DJ...and he understands how beneficial promotion is, he'd probably love it.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[kripkenstein]

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.

Exactly. But to be the single source of exposure is exactly what (1) copyright law is supposed to give the RIAA, because (2) they have the artists' consent for them being the single source. Now, the RIAA are assholes to be sure, but let's blame the real culprits here: (1) copyright law, which is ridiculously behind the times, and (2) the artists, without whom none of this insanity would be happening.

And before anyone says "but the artists have no choice" - they DO have a choice, there are independent labels. If an artist cares about music more than profits, the independent labels are a perfectly reasonable option.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[1u3hr]

a) He's doing it for profit, he SELLS the mixtapes, therefore he's making a profit from someone else's material WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION b) He doesn't have permission from the original artists. Now, the article goes on to say that many artists are thrilled when they make one of his mixtapes, and I'm sure many are, and that's even more of a reason for him to ask permission first

Did you actually RTFA? According to that, he DOES (usually) have the artists' permission, and sometimes active participation. However, of course the record companies have signed contracts with these artists giving them control. So legally, the original artists can't give that permission. Financially, the artists and companies supposedly benefit fomr the exposure and get more sales of their releases.

The problem is that while it was accepted for DJs to mix tracks live at a gig, or on the radio, once they started making recordnigs of these mixes they were making a derivative product. What this suggests is that mix tracks, not just rips complete tracks, should have some kind of compulsory licensing, as for radio play. Then the DJs could make mixes, pay a fair cut (10%? ) to an agency, who would disburse it.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Kierthos]

I believe it was "Santa Claus versus the Martians". It was on one of the Dr. Demento Anniversary albums.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[kevinbr]

this is a real point here. There is compulsory licensing of the song in the US, but to license the actual recorded music is a nightmare. My opinion is if there was a compulsory license WORLDWIDE on both the lyrics music and the recorded version of the music, we would have a better and more lucerative world.

For small people it is a F...ing mightmare to get licenses. You need big bucks and time.

I have started a small record label for local artsists and I wanted to produce ringtone covers of tradionial and modern Jazz/Funk/Soul using local musicians to cover them. Being in Europe I need to license ( i.e. GET A LECENSE ) in each country. What a mess.

You cannot have it both ways: the Recording industry moans about bootlegs, but them makes the process effectively impossible to get a license.

Digitial music is GLOBAL - the process for licensing is back in the 18th century.

All forms of licensing should be compulsory because copyright is a MONOPOLY. Under compulsory licensing, the label/copyright owner gets paid, there is no lag..

The reality is that the makers of Mixtapes would be very happy to pay a compulsory fee that is payable on tapes/vinyl/CD's that get sold.

In the end this about making sure the owner of copyright gets paid. But this is not about this. This is about makiing sure that the sitting tennants keep their effective monpoly stranglehold on music and it's distribution.

The RIAA and major labels could give a fuck if their musicians starved. I mean really - Universal is releasing a large back catalogue to download - the cost of production was written off years ago but if you believe that the performing artist gets any real and meaningful share of these tracks is smoking a crack pipe.

I actually ( as a musican and well as a struggling startup label ) believe copyright is stupid now.

If the earth suddenly lost all oxygen there is no sense bleating and demanding that you need oxygen - you have to deal with the new reality and figure out how you are going to breath.

Same with digital music. No matter what people are going to copy it. For free. So shut up and figure out how to make money - like ...maybe....go out and play tothe public for money.

The stupidity is that acts like U2 now make wannabe stars believe that some how musicians should be able to make a billion from one song. Um......no. That model is finished.

People have to work for a living. So go and work. Compose, create, play, make money. people are happy to pay to see you.

Something like the top earning 34 bands in the world, only 4 now make more from recorded music, The other make it from performing.

Recorded music is becoming an EXTRA, a BONUS to what you do.

No one is owed a living. Get over it. So lets at least change the laws supporting this stupid monopoly and allow people to work and get paid but to allow MORE people to work and get paid.

Earning a living does not mean automatically someone deserves a billion.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[kevinbr]

".....That might have meant that he cleared less profit on each sale, so I suppose it's his greed that got in the way......"

Go try getting clearance from 20 copyright holders all at once. Impossible Would take a year at least. Do you not get it? The licensing process is effectively broken. The copyright holders want 100% of everything. If there were a license in place, he would possibly pay 5-10 cents per track as a fee. He is not greedy cause I guarantee he would pay it if he COULD. Big corporates like Coke have huge legal departments that can go to work to get licences but even so their advertising is often delayed by the process.

Lets look at the the economic scenario. he has 80K CD's = 800K gross revenue. That would be ...say 80K payable in licensing fees. yet the COST of attainting this license might be 150K and take 12 months. This is yet another case of how MONOPOLIES are bad.

"......There are plenty of ways that he could have engaged in the mixtape or promo CD business while respecting the rights of the performers and the record labels....."

Perhaps your obvious grasp of this can explain to me and others who cannot afford the process of licensing, either in raw time or gross legall fees what are these PLENTY ways.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[kevinbr]

".....DJ Jazzy Jeff's "Hip Hop Forever" series as recent examples of successful, non-copyright-infringing releases in the genre........"

What plaent are you people on? Can you imagine that very few artisits have the clout and budget of Jazzy Jeff.......? Can you imagine that most people do not have access to the large legal team that Jazzy Jeff has via his label?

You meant to say that Mixtapes can exist if you are already rich and successful and have a large legal team.

Monoplies mean lack of diviersity.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[silas_moeckel]

The artists and fans thing will not happen until the consumer is not swayed by throwing a few 100 mill in advertising to get a new star. That is the value in big music they can make anything a money maker (only to there accountants though to the artists they never seem to make much comparatively)

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[zakezuke]

Hey hey hey. The majority of drug dealers are well meaning people trying to provide a valuable service to their community and making a little profit meanwhile. In the War on Drug Users, they are the freedom fighters. Don't mix them up with thugs like the RIAA.

What's sad is this is moderated funny when it's pretty much true. I have had friends who's first apartments were in the "not so good" inner city part of town. Their opinion of drug dealers changed when they discovered the friendly neighborhood street dealers were the best form of neighborhood watch. Think about it, who else is it who's business is to stay on the street, who's acting in their own best interest preventing the sorts of crimes that the cops would be called for.

I know it's hard to understand, this is slashdot, where I'm willing to wager most when teens bought computer equipment and not drugs. While moraly questionable, it can easily be argued that some street dealers peform a valuable community service.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Magada]

Let's hope this happens again. And again, and then again, until enough famous artists' and powerful labels' toes are stepped on to create the backlash needed...

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[indifferent children]

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.

A better analogy might be a dairy farm. Once the artist has become part of a certain farmer's herd, she gets branded. The farmer milks her as often as possible (profitable). The farmer, not the cow, owns the milk. Sometimes the farmer looks at the market and decides to pour the artists perfectly good milk down the sewer. The cow has a few (very few) protections against cruelty, but the farmer has the whip hand.

You can try being a free-range cow, but it's a hard scrabble life of break-even shows in scuzzy venues. Alfalfa is sweeter than prarie grass, though in a horrible mix-tape analogy, sometimes the farmers feed you 'parts' of earlier artists and you go mad.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Maximum Prophet]

And the thing is, if the record label that you've sold your soul to decides to just sit on your music and not promote it, it goes nowhere. Most new artists don't know enough to put a "use it or lose it" clause in there contracts.
So when the young artist tries things like this to self promote his stuff, the record company can come down on him and his friends, even though the company will make more money in the end. It's not about the money, it's about the control.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Maximum Prophet]

When you cross the RIAA, they try to ruin your life, and in this case, throw you in jail.

When you cross the FSF or RMS, you get a letter or phone call asking "How can we make this right?"

Big difference. Stallman might call you names and has hurt people's feelings. The RIAA goons leave the legal equivalent of a horse's head in your bed.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[jez9999]

I know it's hard to understand, this is slashdot, where I'm willing to wager most when teens bought computer equipment and not drugs.

I think you'll find most Slashdotters think the War on Drugs is a terrible mistake, or worse.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[admdrew]

I *am* using Firefox (2.0.0.1), and the link works just fine for me. I middle clicked, and it opened in a new tab. Are you having problems clicking?

I used a standard HTML anchor tag, with the url as the href attribute and as the body of the anchor. Slashdot added a space inside the body, presumably to make it page-width friendly.

Here, I'll try it again:
http://www.darkknight.ca/images/Peanuts_1954_318.g if - href and body are the same
the image - href still links to the image

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Slashdot Parent]

Read freakonomics.

Somehow I knew this was coming.

Have you ever watched a movie that tried to depict something with computers and was so completely wrong that you wound up screaming your fool head off at the TV? That's how I felt when I read that truly awful book.

The good professor takes perfectly valid data and draws wild and crazy conclusions from them, when simple explanations will do. Are there really crack dealers out there risking their lives for pennies? Perhaps there are... but given his sloppy methods in the rest of the book, I find myself taking the entire shebang with a bushel of salt.

Good example: That whole bit about Realtors. As an economist by training, and a real estate investor by trade, I can tell you that his conclusion that there is some conspiracy among Realtors (I work with several of them) to pressure clients to sell for less, while selling their own properties for full market value, is a truckload of crap. I would say that Realtors do get more for their properties on average than their clients, but so do investors. The reason for this is that people in the industry don't shoot ourselves in the foot and do things that prevent us from getting full market. A Realtor or investor:

1. knows that trying to do a quick sale will normally net you a lower selling price
2. won't get in a situation of being a motivated seller (must sell by 2/1/07, or lose the new house, new job, kids, wife, whatever)
3. won't try to sell in the dead of winter when nobody's buying
4. won't refuse to properly stage a home to make it more appealing to buyers
5. is more willing to rent their home out if they can't get their asking price
6. is more willing to carryback a note on the property to help get the asking price
7. and many, many more mistakes

Don't get me wrong, it's good to see him asking the funny questions, but I don't like reading answers that are so blatantly wrong.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[numbski]

Steep consequences, perhaps.

Being arrested for a civil matter? No. That shouldn't be happening. Perhaps he gets a court summons, and loses his shirt in court, but being raided and tossed in jail? Hm.....no.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[horn_in_gb]

I think you're being a little harsh. Regarding the realtors, I think you have a couple good points, but this does not negate the forces of self-interest, described in Freakonomics, that would be likely to motivate a realtor, e.g.

The study found that an agent keeps her own house on the market an average ten extra days, waiting for a better offer, and sells it for over 3 percent more than your house--or $10,000 on the sale of a $300,000 house. That's $10,000 going into her pocket that does not go into yours, a nifty profit produced by the abuse of information and a keen understanding of incentives. The problem is that the agent only stands to personally gain an additional $150 by selling your house for $10,000 more, which isn't much reward for a lot of extra work.

So there is a clear reason why real-estate agents would hurry to sell someone else's house for a little less (because the commission is about the same). It's not a conspiracy, it's a simple force of the market. If I got into being a real-estate agent without ever contacting another real-estate agent, these kinds of tactics would be clear to me if I ever actually thought about how to maximize my profits.

Regarding drug dealers, you say the following:
The good professor takes perfectly valid data and draws wild and crazy conclusions from them, when simple explanations will do. Are there really crack dealers out there risking their lives for pennies? Perhaps there are... but given his sloppy methods in the rest of the book, I find myself taking the entire shebang with a bushel of salt.

First of all, I don't think he drew any conclusions at all regarding the wages of drug dealers. Instead, he presented the actual data from the drug lord's financial notebook. A little division and rounding, e.g.,

Here are the monthly totals for the wages that J. T. paid his gang members:
Combined wages paid to all three officers: $2,100
Combined wages paid to all foot soldiers: $7,400
Total monthly gang wages (excluding leader): $9,500

So J. T. paid his employees $9,500, a combined monthly salary that was only $1,000 more than his own official salary. J. T.'s hourly wage was $66. His three officers, meanwhile, each took home $700 a month, which works out to about $7 an hour. And the foot soldiers earned just $3.30 an hour, less than the minimum wage. So the answer to the original question--if drug dealers make so much money, why are they still living with their mothers?--is that, except for the top cats, they don't make much money.

The top 120 men in the Black Disciples gang represented just 2.2 percent of the full-fledged gang membership but took home well more than half the money.

Please let me know what kind of crazy conclusions he is drawing from those numbers, or what the sloppiness you see in that method is.

Also, if you see any "blatantly wrong answers", let me know. I have the entire book with me, searchable. I have no strong reason for defending it except that I enjoyed the book and think about the conclusions a lot. If there are gaping holes in that, sure, I'd like to know, but so far you haven't really presented a strong case for that.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[Slashdot Parent]

So there is a clear reason why real-estate agents would hurry to sell someone else's house for a little less (because the commission is about the same). It's not a conspiracy, it's a simple force of the market. If I got into being a real-estate agent without ever contacting another real-estate agent, these kinds of tactics would be clear to me if I ever actually thought about how to maximize my profits.

Except it doesn't really work that way. Ask any Realtor. The real money as a Realtor is not made in any one transaction--it's in word of mouth advertising. Ever wonder why your Realtor sends you flowers every year? It's so you remember his name when one of your contacts is looking for an agent.

If you got into selling real estate, without ever contacting another real estate agent, you'd realize that if you get your seller more than he was expecting for his property, he's going to tell everyone he knows what a genius you are and how much money you made him. That's worth tens of thousands of dollars to the agent. That $150 gained or lost doesn't even factor into the equation in his mind.

The Realtors that I work with are constantly reminding me to tell my investor contacts how great they are. They give me discounts. They send me crap in the mail. They do all kinds of things to keep me happy. But they have never once pressured me to sell for less than fair market. There's a string disincentive for them to do that. Does he want me, at investor meetings, to say, "Oh, yeah, Don. He's a real crackpot. He tried to get me to sell for $10k under market. I had to force him to leave it up for another week and, duh gee whiz, wouldn't you know it, I got my price. What a moron."? Or does he want me to say, "Oh, yeah, Don. I've done several transactions with him. They've all gone smoothly, and on the last deal, he netted me an extra $3k. I'm goin' to Hawaii!"?

Do the math.

Please let me know what kind of crazy conclusions he is drawing from those numbers, or what the sloppiness you see in that method is.

Oh, gee, I dunno. Maybe assuming that all drug rings operate on the same payscale as J. T.'s? I buddy of mine in college did a lot of drug runs, and I can assure you that he made well in excess of $3.30 or $7.00 per hour. This was a number of years ago at this point. His dealers made well in excess of those figures as well.

Also, if you see any "blatantly wrong answers", let me know. I have the entire book with me, searchable.

30 seconds of googling proved my suspicions to be correct.

He had to rewrite the chapter on the KKK, since it was historically inaccurate.

The supposed link between legalized abortion and a drop in crime was quickly discredited by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. I was never quite comfortable with his methods on this one, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

It's been a while since I read the book, so I don't remember which other chapters I found to be slipshod in order to google for them as well. At any rate, we've already got 4 chapters that suffer from substandard research and/or analysis. Why should I take seriously anything else in the book?

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[poot_rootbeer]

You meant to say that Mixtapes can exist if you are already rich and successful and have a large legal team.

It's always been the case that the tools with which one can create music are necessarily limited by how much money the musician has.

Any chump can buy a student violin for $40, but if you want to use a Stradivarius to create your art, you better have eight figures in your bank account, or have the backing of an organization that does.

Can music be created on that $40 violin? Can mixtapes be created with free or near-free musical materials, such as works under a Creative Commons license? Sure.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[ebyrob]

If you can't see a way to build a business of producing mixtapes or promo CDs with authorized content

Don't be silly. I could easily (if I had the pre-requisite taste, talent and drive) build a company selling authorized mix tapes. My point is that if I built one company which made authorized mix tapes and one which made unauthorized tapes, they would differ significantly in their content. This is because authorized compilations are subject to copyright holder whim. (Not need, not reasonable compensation... mere whim. Copyright is a monopoly pure and simple, especially when implemented the way you seem to view it.)

If it were just a matter of paying some reasonable and regulated fee based on revenues to resample a work, rather than getting permission from a finicky and picky artist type (or worse their label), then there would be no reason to have unauthorized mixes. But. This isn't the case, and there *are* reasons to allow unauthorized mixes. So we have a legal grey area on the subject. Obviously it can be taken too far by greedy mixers, just as it can be taken too far by greedy or picky rights holders.

I guess you could argue that mixers should give royalties to the original artists, but doing so wouldn't put them on any better legal footing, further, I'm not sure it would help because it would be open to several other types of abuse.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[horn_in_gb]

I hate being refuted as much as the next guy, but, nice job.

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[El Long]

"When you're listening to Funk, you're listening to James Brown [referring to himself in the 3rd person]. When you listen to Rap, you're listening to James Brown. When you listen to Hip Hop, House, or even Rock and Roll, you're listening to James Brown. If you hear a beat... and it gets your toe tapping... you're listening to James Brown."

"When you're listening to Funk, you're listening to James Brown [referring to himself in the 3rd person]. When you listen to Rap, you're listening to James Brown. When you listen to Hip Hop, House, or even Rock and Roll, you're listening to James Brown. If you hear a beat... and it gets your toe tapping... you're listening to James Brown."

You are so wrong. I've seen him give basically that exact speach in interviews before, he isn't upset about it in the slightest, he's GOD DAMN PROUD that he is the direct inspiration for most of the music of the latter part of the twentieth century; that he is the most sampled musician in history and generally one of the most important musicians ever to walk this earth.

Also he gets paid every time one of his songs is sampled in a commrcial record, netting him HUGE amounts of cash.

RIP JAMES BROWN, GODFATHER OF SOUL - WE WILL NOT SEE HIS LIKE AGAIN

Confusing

[poticlin]

I'm confused

If there is no complaint from the copyright owner, why was he arrested?

Re:Confusing

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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

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

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:Confusing

[voice_of_all_reason]

Yeah, but then the police don't get to go through his house looking for bonus points. Finding some weed would be the equivalent of a 1-up.

Re:Confusing

[Rydia]

Most jurisdictions have crimes for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted work. The feds are most famous for this.

It's sad that this isn't known; both sides cloud the debate so horribly, people can't tell what's going on.

Re:Confusing

[kilgortrout]

When you start illegally selling copyrighted works as opposed to gratis distribution, it moves from civil to criminal.

Re:Confusing

[xantho]

Thanks for giving us a link so that we can educate ourselves on the subject.

On the other hand... yeah, man, it felt good to abuse someone on an internet message board, didn't it? You can tell me.

Re:Confusing

[Ucklak]

Also, getting him off the street protects me somehow. I don't believe it but the authorities see fit that he is a threat to me.

I hope the rap labels boycott the RIAA.

Re:Confusing

[Overly Critical Guy]

What's confusing about it? It's illegal to copy music owned by someone else. I don't get the "confusion" here except for yet another anti-RIAA article posted by Slashdot to distract everyone from their guilty conscience and make them feel better about pirating.

Re:Confusing

[Hatta]

What's confusing about it? It's illegal to copy music owned by someone else. I don't get the "confusion" here except for yet another anti-RIAA article posted by Slashdot to distract everyone from their guilty conscience and make them feel better about pirating.

Do you really think we all have guilty consciences over it? Have you considered that we honestly believe that copyright is unjust and therefore have no ethical problem at all violating an unjust law?

Re:Confusing

[shark72]

"I'm also confused. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one."

I don't follow you. The threshold is $1K retail value in 180 days. Are you of the belief that in the past six months he sold less than $1K worth of CDs? He had 80K CDs in his possession and as you know mix tapes are only really good for a month or two; even if you (inaccurately) placed the value at $1 per CD, he was likely selling at least $80K of merchandise every few months. That's over the criminal threshold by an order of magnitude.

Re:Confusing

[falcon5768]

What's confusing about it? It's illegal to copy music owned by someone else.

except for that whole thing about it not being illegal if the person who owned it didnt complain about it, which is why the arrest has confused everyone. The artists in this case owned the music and where not complaining, the RIAA went after the guy anyway making up charges as they went.

Then again reading your sig I can see your the type of guy who has no problem making up charges and arresting people just cause you said so.

Re:Confusing

[pod_sixer_jay]

I am an artist on a number of recordings published by various RIAA members. I don't hold the copyright on that performance; the publisher does. As part of the deal to distribute my work, I had to sign over my copyright to them. I have no standing to enjoin against illegal use of that recording, nor to license others to use it.

To make matters worse, one of those recordings is a modest artistic success. But the publisher (in his infinite wisdom) has decided that it's no longer financially viable to distribute it. So when people ask where they can get a copy of it, I have to tell them they can't. I can't legally make them a copy of my own performance, and they can't buy it from the publisher.

I have asked the publisher repeatedly to sell me back the rights to my own work so that I can distribute it myself, but so far they have not budged. Needless to say I do not record for them anymore. So much for my big break.

A lot of the proposals for dealing with the RIAA presume that the business model centers largely around selling physical or downloaded copies of the recordings themselves. That's not quite the business model.

Selling discs (or even legal MP3s) requires a capital outlay for production, promotion, and distribution. Those costs are relatively fixed. They vary somewhat depending on the number of items produced, and vary considerably depending on the mode of distribution. But they do represent a substantial, inflexible cost. Retail prices are also relatively fixed by market forces. So you have a relatively inflexible margin. Thus it all depends on whether you sell enough discs to cover your costs. With a fixed capital outlay and unpredictable revenue, you risk losing money.

Instead consider licensing fees. Activity not allowed under Fair Use requires a license from the copyright holder, and there is no limit imposed on how much the copyright holder can charge in licensing fees. He can essentially charge as much as he thinks the licensee is willing to pay. And since granting a license requires almost no actual work and no capital outlay from the copyright holder, a license fee is pure profit. There is essentially no business risk associated with holding on to out-of-print material in hopes of licensing it. Therefore it's considered a valuable revenue stream.

Remixes constitute derived works that are not generally allowed under Fair Use. So in this case the RIAA is likely trying to recover license fees. If the derived work is expected to be successful, the copyright holder will typically charge a higher license fee. So the fact that this particular DJ is very popular actually works against him because the RIAA is missing out on higher license fees. They have a greater incentive to go after him than to let him do his thing in peace. But you can see why the RIAA is not placated by the notion that remixes help sales. They'd much rather have the license fee.

Make no mistake. If you sign over your intellectual property to a distributor, he will treat it simply as a commodity to be bought, sold, and manipulated in any way he can in order to make money, whether or not your side interests are served in the process. The fact that the commodity is something in which you have an intellectual and emotional stake, and which represents something to which you may wish your name to remain attached, does not even enter into their thinking.

Re:Confusing

[OECD]

You may be able to recover your rights. See this: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7163

And good luck.

Re:Confusing

[budgenator]

He was busted on a RICO charge, FTA DJ Drama (whose real name is Tyree Simmons) and Mr. Cannon were each charged with a felony violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization law(known as RICO) and held on $100,000 bond. in other words the gangstra was busted for being a gangster!

Re:Confusing

[Maximum Prophet]

Big time artists, like the writer, Harlan Ellison, have a "Use it or Lose it" clause in their contracts. He put that in their because the bigest problem small, out of print works had in the 60's was inertia. Suppose the copyright for a Science Fiction paperback, long out of print, was worth $100, and you want to buy the copyright and publish a few copies. There's nobody at the big publishing house who can authorize a release that small. You aren't going to spend $1000 for the copyright to a book that's only worth $100, but for the publishing house to just do the legal review, it'll cost them more than $100.

So, when Harlan became the biggest name in Science Fiction short stories he started making deals to get the copyright back on his old stories, and introduced use it or lose it clauses. For awhile, he was also the president of the Hollywood screenwriters guild, so he helped other writers put similar clauses into their contracts.

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.

Re:Another example

[un1xl0ser]

I'm ignorant, how does the RIAA make money. Do they get a cut of albums, or do artits/labels pay them dues?

I think that it would be strange for them to get an actual cut, but that's just me.

Re:Another example

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

They ARE the lables. They are the policing, enforcement, and lobbying arm of the lables. Intead of each label doing these things seperately, they pool thier money into the RIAA to work together on these things.

Re:Another example

[horn_in_gb]

The labels get MOST of the money from album sales. The artists get a really small percentage, actually.

Here is an interesting article on digital vs. physical music purchases and the artist's cut:

Re:Another example

[Chandon Seldon]

The RIAA is a consortium of "Music Labels", which each do distribution and marketing. The way it works is this:

An artist signs his copyright over to a music label. In exchange, they agree to give his work wide market exposure and give him a cut of the proceeds. But... the artist has to pay for all the CDs to be made. For the vast majority of musicians (everyone but the superstars) this comes out to somewhere between them ending up *owing* the label a couple thousand dollars to getting enough money in royalties to buy a used car.

It comes out to something like "The artist makes $0.07 for every album sold after the first 20,000".

Re:Another example

[Overly Critical Guy]

Of course the RIAA doesn't profit from mixtapes. They're simply a representative lobby group for the record labels. The record labels have ownership rights to the music this "Pro Artist" was pirating. The summary assumes no artists were complaining simply because the article doesn't mention any, which is a poor assumption that's likely to be incorrect.

This is nothing more than yet another anti-RIAA propaganda hitpiece on Slashdot, intended to make pirates feel all warm and fuzzy inside for pirating music. "I'm not stealing from the artists. I'm stealing from the RIAA! Slashdot tells me they're bad, so it's justice! Artists who?"

Re:Another example

[rachelstorm]

Nah, pirates don't need validation to feel "warm and fuzzy." The plunderin' will do that fer 'em all on its own!

Safe to say, justice is the last thing on a pirate's mind. It's more like, "Want... Take... Have!" (I'm borrowing the concept from BTVS, but what the hell. It works.) Who cares who we be stealin' from? ;) Savvy?

Re:Another example

[altek]

Hmm... On the other hand if, as you say, the "artists may get exposure from such tapes", and in the same sentence say that the RIAA doesn't get profits, then how does the artist benefit from the increased exposure? I assume by the benefit of increased exposure you're claiming increased current or future record sales, then by definition the RIAA is benefiting too.

So.... what I'm getting at is that the RIAA does profit from these mixtapes, but since they didn't control their creation, they are like children destroying someone else's art.

They used a SWAT team

[flanksteak]

Tech Liberation Front is also reporting that the raid was carried out with the help of a SWAT team. Cripes, what exactly did the lawyers tell the police was happening in there?

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Anonymous Coward]

A black male aged 18-35?

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.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[NetDanzr]

They used the SWAT team because, according to a guy in a RIAA jacket who spoke to a FOX reporter on camera after the raid, copyright infringers usually carry drugs and weapons. Video from the raid can be found here.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[HTH NE1]

Maybe they thought there might be people with guns inside who were willing to use them. I have no idea where they could have gotten that idea, but that's usually why you have a SWAT raid rather than a polite knock and serving of a warrant.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[ganjadude]

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. Let me correct that for you I guarantee you that if it was classical or elevator music being mixed, the presumed white guy would have gotten a letter.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Jherek Carnelian]

Tech Liberation Front is also reporting that the raid was carried out with the help of a SWAT team. Cripes, what exactly did the lawyers tell the police was happening in there?

Its the result of too much misplaced money. Every little podunk town is getting federal funding for swat nowadays, so the big ones get proportionally more money. When you've got all those resources sitting around idle people start to question if the money was well spent in the first place. Thus pressure to justify their existence is great and every little situation that might possibly require it gets a SWAT deployment.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Mad-cat]

The police involved probably had a search warrant. Nearly every search warrant served means SWAT will go in first to make sure the area is 100% secure. It's standard procedure with almost all major departments.

It doesn't make it look any less silly though.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[jimicus]

according to a guy in a RIAA jacket who spoke to a FOX reporter on camera after the raid, copyright infringers usually carry drugs and weapons.

Wonderful. How long before an 80-year old granny is arrested at gunpoint for letting her grandson use the computer to download music?

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Halo1]

Afaics it was a cop who said they usually find other contraband such as weapons and drugs when executing a search warrant concerning counterfeit goods, not the RIAA guy.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[kseise]

B.S. Everyone knows pirates only carry swords. That's not even threatening because you can out run them and their stupid peg legs. It looks like the *AA is just wasting more of our tax dollars.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[poopdeville]

Associate with a culture that talks about killing cops, lose your right to complain about heavy handed police raids. Where's the problem?

Uh, no. The "problem" is the First and Fourth Amendments. They are inalienable rights, specifically to protect those whose opinions the government doesn't like.

The police probably didn't violate the letter of the law, but they certainly violated its spirit.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Afecks]

Well he got the drugs part right!

Re:They used a SWAT team

[James McGuigan]

The national guard are no match for a veteran suicide bomber like myself.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[andphi]

Unfortunately, a number of Guardsmen have also been detained for questioning because their children download music, burn compilation discs, and watch copyrighted stuff on YouTube.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Anonymous Coward]

What a poorly presented news story. DJ Drama was made to sound more like a bootleg CD copier, not someone who actively made compilations with contributions from the artists themselves. It's not exactly a small-town DIY scene, but it's not a bootleg CD market as portrayed by Fox News.

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:They used a SWAT team

[idonthack]

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

-- Captain Obvious
 
  That's the point. He is saying that the people setting up the raid were racist, and assumed black people == bad people.

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.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Sloppy]

Of course they needed the SWAT team. Have you tried opening a CD case lately? SWAT has special equipment to get the tape off the top.

Think of the alternative, "Atlanta PD! Open up, this is a raid! Open up! Open up!" Cop hits CD case with a battering ram. "Open up, dammit!"

Re:They used a SWAT team

[Sloppy]

Yes, but it would have been a somewhat threatening letter. And if he had ignored it, he very likely would have gotten another much more serious letter. So it's not like they're soft on whites.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[nurb432]

Hes an evil pirate, you cant be sure about those guys.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[veganboyjosh]

i know you're (mostly) joking, but methinks it's a good time to share the secret... i used to work in a record store, and whenever people bought cds, and would complain about that stuff, we'd show them this trick: 1.remove the cellophane. 2.push a thumb/fingernail into the hinge part of the jewel box, the part where the front piece meets the back piece--specifically, that little tab that tends to break first when you drop an opened jewel box. 3.seperate the front piece from the back. 4. pry the two apart, being careful to keep the label/artist/sku tape in one piece. 5. ta-daa. and since this be slashdot: 6.??? 7. profit!

Re:They used a SWAT team

[killjoy966]

As an avid hip-hop fan this kind of comment always bugs me the most. As with any genre of music, if you want to get at the good stuff you just gotta dig deeper. None of the commercial rap is really any good and unfortunately that's the only rap most people are exposed to. There is a flourishing underground scene that includes some very talented MCs who have more interesting things to say than how many guns they've got.

Saying Nelly and Bow Wow accurately represent hip-hop is like saying Moby and The Prodigy accurately represent techno.

Re:They used a SWAT team

[jez9999]

Indeed, quote the RIAA shill:

"These guys are actively advertising online and they've got a website they're advertising from; that's where you place your order and that's how the orders are shipped out."

That sentence was presented on its own, as if it were a valid criticism of 'these guys'; thing is, advertising and selling online isn't a crime, and pretty much all RIAA record labels do BOTH of those things (selling as in selling CDs). They clearly want to paint the picture that any non-RIAA approved store selling music should automatically be treated with the utmost suspicion.

It's depressing if people in the US form their opinions based on these retarded kinds of news stories.

Confusing Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The mixtape industry is rife with payola straight from record label pockets.

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).

Re:Well, there IS no distinction

[jez9999]

So smoking weed is legal but hash isn't? Weird.

Oh, the Irony!

[jpetts]

DJ Drama (whose real name is Tyree Simmons) and Mr. Cannon were each charged with a felony violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization law(known as RICO) and held on $100,000 bond.

Got Things Right

[Anonymous Coward]

For once, the RIAA got things right. If rap music isn't a crime, it should be.

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".

Re:Got Things Right

[jo42]

Remember kids, "rap" is 3/4s of the word "crap". :-p

Re:Got Things Right

[Hatta]

You ain't kidding. I've listened to some of these "mixtapes". They sound like a 10 year old with ADD scanning through radio stations. But really, what do you expect from people who don't bother to sing in key or play an instrument?

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:What Confusion?

[FMota91]

There's a free software movement. Why isn't there a free music movement?

Re:What Confusion?

[zenasprime]

there is....

http://creativecommons.org/

also shameless plug http://zenapolae.com/

Re:What Confusion?

[Night Goat]

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

You talking about Berkhalter? That Kraut knows you don't roll on Shabbas! He can fuckin' unpost it!

Re:What Confusion?

[RegalBegal]

If you will it, it is no dream, dude.

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

[Rydia]

There are already crimes for certain types of copyright infringement! There's no plan! It's done!

Come on, people, know what you're talking about.

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:All part of a strategy

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yes, it's currently a criminal act to infringe a copyright

Sorry, but you're full of shit. It's only criminal when done on a large scale for money.

Re:All part of a strategy

[Eskarel]

I reckon most folks who've had to tangle with the RIAA wish it were exactly the same as walking into a walmart and pocketing a jewel case. The penalties for actual theft of music are much, much, more lenient than the penalties for copying it. Plus of course as the RIAA has already been paid for any jewel case you steal you're much less likely to be pursued by anyone with money or power.

Re:Common Denominator

[ubrgeek]

> Apartheid Israel

Um, right. I'd suggest researching the difference between Apartheid, where the whites made no effort to bring blacks into society, no effort to help them, little to no effort to improve their living conditions and zero effort toward living in peace together, and Israel, where there were constant offerings of sharing land-recovery techniques, allowing arabs living in Israel the right to vote, making constant sacrifices of land in the hopes of achieving peace, etc. etc. Just because you're able to read a headline about Jimmy Carter doesn't mean you have any idea what you're talking about. In fact, your 4th bullet proves you don't.

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:Two wrongs don't make a right

[shawn(at)fsu]

You are 3 minutes away from being totally unpopular. For what it's worth I agree with you.
It doesn't matter how popular you make the original artist, if you aren't getting permission from the right people (in this case the RIAA) you have to be prepared to face the consequences.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[joto]

doesn't make it right for this guy to commit copyright infringement.

Uhm...no. It is right for this guy to commit copyright infringement. In fact, in this digital age, pretty much any copyright infringement is ethically right! But in this particular case, it was right for a whole lot of other reasons as well.

If he was too dumb to know there might be consequences, sucks to be him.

I'm quite certain he was aware that he was operating in a legally murky area. Then again, even if the area was legally murky, he had the benefit of hindsight, as there were other people who had produced mixtapes before him, who did not get a SWAT team on their front door. Yeah, it sucks to be him, but nobody expects the spanish inquisition

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[voice_of_all_reason]

Just because the RIAA does things wrong doesn't make it right for this guy to commit copyright infringement.

Uh, actually you do, accordingly the guys who set all this up. When the laws have become corrupt, it is the people's right to alter or to abolish them.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[peragrin]

what both of you fail is that it's called FAIR USE. You can mix tapes that way. it's legal and always has been. You have the right to reproduce PARTS of a copyrighted material. You can't do the whole thing, or even signifcant amounts. Weird Al is another example. Do you want to see them send out SWAT teams to arrest him as well?

Okay bad example as many artists would. But it is still fair use. I hope not only does this guy get free, but that he counter sues the RIAA for a couple hundred million and then donates the proceeds to the family you have had to pay off RIAA extortion. I am sorry. but suing someone for $500,000 dollars and then settling for only $2,000 is extortion.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Elwood P Dowd]

Just because the RIAA does things wrong doesn't make it right for this guy to commit copyright infringement.

It doesn't make it wrong, either. He's been charged under the RICO act. If that isn't morally repugnant to you, you're soft in the head.

Civil issue.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[MalleusEBHC]

It doesn't make it wrong, either. He's been charged under the RICO act. If that isn't morally repugnant to you, you're soft in the head.

Civil issue.

I initially had misgivings when I saw RICO being invoked, but this is far more than your average teenager downloading a few songs. He was continually committing copyright infringement on a massive scale (80k discs!) to make a profit. It's the combination of massive scale and intent to profit that push it beyond a simple civil matter.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[MalleusEBHC]

This is not fair use, unless fair use has been rewritten to allow you to make 80 thousand backups and redistribute them to your closest friends and anyone who will pay. Also, Weird Al is a bad example to bring up. Parody and satire are long established and protected exemptions.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[zakezuke]

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.

I'm not sure I agree with you. From what I understand, this guy makes mix tapes which is the norm for the hip hop scene. Further, this guy profits from other people's work, and credits them for their work. This in turn promotes and increases sales.

The real question is, do these artists object to being included on hip-hop mix tapes? If so then yes legaly they have every right to object and seek remedies under the law. But, I suspect that this person was encouraged to create these hip-hop mix tapes for the express purpose of promoting other people's work. For example, I have every reason to believe that mix tapes I got off the neighborhood dj, while technicaly pirated, were offered with the firm belief that the artists and copyright holders would agree promoting music served their interests.

It's rather like Weird Al, except he's protected under the law as his works are parities, and in most cases he gets permission to spoof other people's work. It's more like the anime piracy scene, where in most cases piracy of unlicensed series and movies is not discouaged for it serves to promote works that otherwise would be unmarketable in other regions. But at least in the case of anime, the copyright holders "ask" people to stop.

I can see where someone can easily be confused, something that was tolerated and encouraged in the past suddenly being considered a violation.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[mjeffers]

Uh, actually you do, accordingly the guys who set all this up. When the laws have become corrupt, it is the people's right to alter or to abolish them.

True, though usually that altering or abolishing is done through either political means or through civil disobediance. This guy was caught with 81,000 CDs that, at best, exist in a grey market. That's a bit like me saying that the 200 kilos of cocaine in my trunk is part of my plan to protest the war on drugs.

I'm not sure that mix-tape's shouldn't be something that we allow. It certainly sounds like there are benefits to the DJs, the artists, and the record companies but as long as it's (at this scale) a crime you need to accept that their are certain consequences to your actions. If you still feel that following your principles requires you to act contrary to the law then have some guts and be willing to take the punishment so that you can show society how unjust the whole situation is. But lets be clear, this is not an example of civil disobediance. This is someone with a profitable (though allegedly illegal) business who got busted.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[cayenne8]

"...what both of you fail is that it's called FAIR USE. You can mix tapes that way. it's legal and always has been."

For personal use..yes. However, it has always pretty much been against the law to do this, and sell it for your own personal profit.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Evilest Doer]

Weird Al is another example. Do you want to see them send out SWAT teams to arrest him as well?

Actually, not to pick too many nits, but Weird Al does generally get permission to parody songs (IIRC), even though he doesn't think he needs to from a legal standpoint. I guess he wants to make sure he covers all his bases.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Sancho]

Lots of people misunderstand the parody aspect of the Fair Use doctrine. For parody to be a Fair Use exemption, the derivative work must be commenting on the original work. For lots of "Weird" Al's songs, this would be difficult to show. Many of his parodies don't really reference the original at all, though they use the music and lyrical structures. Phony Calls comes to mind as one example, and I'm sure there are others.

And as it turns out, Al usually pays royalties on the works he uses, anyway. He always asks permission (even if it is believed that he does not need it) and he does not produce the song if permission is not given (barring miscommunications).

There are also compulsory licenses, which is a whole separate ball of wax. The Wikipedia article on copyright discusses compulsory licenses briefly. Very simply, compulsory licenses allow for creation of a derivative work regardless of the copyright owner's wishes on the subject, though royalties or other license fees might be required. In general (in the US) music can be licensed under these terms, though the use has to be registered.

Getting back on topic, my guess is that if the use of this music had been registered for compulsory license, this wouldn't be the criminal matter it has become. It would be civil, arguing over reasonable fees for the license.

(end disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor is my knowledge of copyright absolute. If I got bits and pieces wrong, please let me know)

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[voice_of_all_reason]

Is flaunting a law through non-violent means the definition of civil resistance? Music pirates, crackeads, heck -- even most dealers aren't (physically) hurting anyone.

If you still feel that following your principles requires you to act contrary to the law then have some guts and be willing to take the punishment so that you can show society how unjust the whole situation is.

Um, they do that already, don't they? But if you can get away with it first, all the better. The Boston Tea Party dudes specifically dressed up as Indians so they wouldn't get caught so easily.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[poopdeville]

I'm still sickened by this invocation of RICO.

Let's do a little comparison. When SCO determined (for the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume good faith on their part) that Linux violated their copyrights, lawsuits were filed. No one was arrested, despite the massive scale of Linux distribution.

Most notably, Linus was not arrested under RICO. Neither was IBM's CEO, or the president of their Linux division. Or anyone from RedHat.

In summation, SCO compares favorably to the RIAA, and that is very damning.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[mjeffers]

Flaunting your law breaking through non-violent means is a method of civil disobedience but that's not what this guy (or most people who download music) was doing. He didn't get up and say "Copyright unfairly enriches the music industry at the cost of artists, the public and our cultural legacy. Take my CD of copyrighted songs and play it in protest and let the RIAA try and stop me." instead he sold lots and lots of CDs full of music he didn't have the right to use and got busted for it. Boo hoo.

Getting caught isn't the result of a failed attempt at civil disobedience. It's the point.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[RexRhino]

So you are saying, that if you don't pay your next parking ticket (which is like totally against the law), a SWAT team should assault your house, confiscate and destroy your property, and hold you on a $100,000 while they process criminal charges?

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[Elwood P Dowd]

It's the combination of massive scale and intent to profit that push it beyond a simple civil matter.

Your argument doesn't make a whit of sense to me. Massive scale and intent to profit would make it a massive, profitable civil matter.

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.

Re:81,000 discs confiscated

[gsslay]

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.

Why do you think he has the right to create his own profit using other people's copyrighted work?

Let's say I decide to produce 81,000 crappy counterfeit Rolex's, sell them, and send Rolex 1 penny for every watch I sell (cos I've decided that's "reasonable"). Is that ok? Sure, I'm basing my whole business on someone else's work and reputation without their permission, but I deserve the opportunity to produce a derivative work and licence them as I see fit! And every Rolex I sell is good publicity for them, so why should they complain?!

Re:81,000 discs confiscated

[xantho]

Ok, three glaring issues with your reply.

1. Who said anything about you deciding what's reasonable on your own?
2. You making a knockoff and claiming that it's the real thing is defferent from someone making a derivative work and distributing as a derivative work.
3. If your product is blatantly inferior, but people confuse it for the real thing because you tricked them, then it's not good publicity.

If I were the devil, you would not be my lawyer.

Last I checked, the right to use a song licensed by the Harry Fox Agency was $.08 per distributed copy per song licensed. I don't know if that's an open offer to anyone for any use, but assuming these guys are using 20 tracks on their mix cd, that's $1.60 per disc, which is plenty of margin to make a little money and get your stuff out there. ...

Ok, I just looked it up. The new rate is $.091 for up to 5 minutes, and $.0175 per minute or fraction over 5, which means that 20 tracks now cost $1.82 per disc, assuming that they're all less than 5 minutes. That's only for up to 2500 units, though. Presumably, the rates are different once per client high volume negotiations are finished, but I have no idea if the cost would go up or down from there.

Anyway, the point is: sure these guys may have been violating copyright, but the precedent is still there for licensing things, and even licensing after the fact. 81000 cds sounds like a lot, but we have no idea what's on the 81000 cds, whether a ton of them were blank cdr spindles, whether they counted cds and jewel cases or sleeves seperately, or anything else. All we really know is that some cops with big guns and small dicks rolled a couple of DJs, and now they're in jail, charged under RICO.

Re:81,000 discs confiscated

[gsslay]

Who said anything about you deciding what's reasonable on your own?

So who decides then? Remember, this is a decision after the fact. These people made no effort to reach agreement before selling their mix. What if no agreement can be reached on what's reasonable? Do they just get to keep the money?

You making a knockoff and claiming that it's the real thing is defferent from someone making a derivative work and distributing as a derivative work.

Of course it is. Most comparisons fail at some point, otherwise they wouldn't be comparisons. They'd be the same thing. But in this case the point is they're both making unlicensed use of other's work and reputation.

If your product is blatantly inferior, but people confuse it for the real thing because you tricked them, then it's not good publicity.

The point is that with music "inferior" is a matter of opinion. People have been defending these mixtapes as good publicity. What if you're one of the original artists and you think the mixtape stinks and is inferior. In your opinion the whole thing is a ripoff. Just your opinion, others may think it's great, but as the owner of the work it's your opinion that counts.

So what if these guys did licence everything as you suggest? Again the point is that the creators and owners of the work may not want their work used in this way, and may not want the money. You might disagree. You might think it makes no financial or artistic sense on their part, but it's their decision. No one should have the right to force them into it.

So lets say the original artists are happy for their work to be used this way. Unfortunately these guys have still jumped the gun. You can be happy with the end result and still annoyed they didn't ask first. What if you hadn't been happy?

MAFIAA

[User 956]

So, they've stopped arresting their customers and started in on their own talent.

Well, it goes to show that they don't care about talent; they care about control of the market.

Re:MAFIAA

[Tet]

Well, it goes to show that they don't care about talent; they care about control of the market.

No it doesn't. It shows they're going after someone who broke the law by infringing their copyright. There is nothing either ethical or legal about mixtapes, so it seems pretty reasonable to me. Of course, I'm not denying that the industry don't give a shit about talent, and are hell bent on keeping control of the market. That's all true. But that's incidental, and it's not the obvious conclusion to draw from their actions here.

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:MAFIAA

[Puk]

It's funny that you chose to call them "derivative works" in an attempt to show that making them is legal. "[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . . (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" 17 U.S.C. 106. That's exclusive, as in "no one else can do it without permission."

Note that I'm not making any judgments/commentary about the subject of the main article here -- just any implication that this is "the entire fucking point of copyright" or that it is, in the absence of fair use, legal.

-puk

Re:MAFIAA

[melikamp]

It's funny that you chose to call them "derivative works" in an attempt to show that making them is legal. Great quoting from the think book of law. Now if you were so keen as to read three damn lines of the GP's post just to make sure that he never states or argues that mixing is legal. He is saying that it is a creative act, it is ethical, and is exactly the kind of act that is supposed to be encouraged by the copyright.

Re:MAFIAA

[Puk]

And as I said, I'm taking issue with the idea being able to make mixtapes is the entire point of copyright. If being able to make mixtapes, which are derivative works, is the entire point of copyright, then why does the language of the statute say essentially, "you can't make derivative works"? In fact, the point of copyright is to encourage creation of works by granting a temporary (ha ha) monopoly in things like derivative works, and specifically not to encourage unlicensed derivative works until the end of that monopoly.

I'm sorry if my reference to "any implication" of legality can be construed as accusing the parent of "stating" that it's legal. He did not state that. I simply wanted to counter the possible conclusion that it is legal, or even that it was intended to be legal. The intent is pretty clearly that it not be legal.

We won't, of course, go into the "limited times" copyright issue -- that's another (huge) problem.

-puk

Re:MAFIAA

[xero314]

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!

I'm guessing you don't completely understand the "fucking point of copyright." Sure "making" mix tapes is protected under copyright law (I always assume US law when I'm talking). The problem is that distribution and public performance are not protected. You do realize that technically, based on prior copyright rulings since fair use is so vague, that a DJ mixing live music is required to pay royalties for to the publishers for any music they use in their mix, unless the music is otherwise licensed. I think you need to look up what does and does no qualify as a derivative work. For example taking a Picture that you did not create, and then adding a circle around it, or even a line through it, does not qualify as a significant enough change to be considered a new work.

I'm not taking any particular stance on this particular issue, just trying to stop the ignorance of some people.

Re:MAFIAA

[mrchaotica]

...then why does the language of the statute say essentially, "you can't make derivative works"? In fact, the point of copyright is to encourage creation of works by granting a temporary (ha ha) monopoly in things like derivative works...

The key words there are "encourage creation" and "temporary." First of all, that monopoly is supposed to last no more than what, 14 years? And that was back in the 18th century, when information traveled slowly. Nowadays a reasonable duration is much shorter, like maybe 5 years. Therefore, making a mix tape ought to at least be legal with music produced before 2003 (although making it legal in general would be ideal).

...and specifically not to encourage unlicensed derivative works until the end of that monopoly.

Remember, that monopoly only exists in the first place because Thomas Jefferson (et. al.) couldn't think of a better way to encourage creativity (in fact, it's pretty clear from his letters that he despised monopolies, and considered them to be a necessary evil). If those "unlicensed derivative works" provide more of a benefit than the monopoly would, it makes sense to allow them. Since, based on other people's posts, it seems that they are indeed of more benefit (e.g. one person mentioned buying the original "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf because he heard a mix that included it), they should be legal.

The intent is pretty clearly that it not be legal.

I think I've just "clearly" explained why you're mistaken.

We won't, of course, go into the "limited times" copyright issue -- that's another (huge) problem.

Sorry -- I composed the beginning of my reply before getting to this part.

Re:MAFIAA

[mrchaotica]

I'm guessing you don't completely understand the "fucking point of copyright."

On the contrary, I do completely understand. The point of copyright is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." No more; no less. The bit about monopolies is just a means to that end, and IMHO it was a mistake to codify that part in the Constitution. Instead, they should have left the issue of how best to accomplish that goal open to debate.

In other words, the point I'm trying to make is that copyright law is screwed up, because it's prohibiting actions that are consistent with the Constitutional goal of copyright.

Sure "making" mix tapes is protected under copyright law (I always assume US law when I'm talking). The problem is that distribution and public performance are not protected. You do realize that technically, based on prior copyright rulings since fair use is so vague, that a DJ mixing live music is required to pay royalties for to the publishers for any music they use in their mix, unless the music is otherwise licensed.

First of all, I think we're operating on two different definitions of "mix tape." A "DJ mixing live music" is just arranging the songs in a particular order without really modifying them. I was under the impression that in this context, "mix tape" meant a remix of the song(s), where the result is significantly different in character than the original (e.g. the Crystal Method remixing "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf).

I think you need to look up what does and does no qualify as a derivative work. For example taking a Picture that you did not create, and then adding a circle around it, or even a line through it, does not qualify as a significant enough change to be considered a new work.

By my interpretation, the change in question is "significant enough."

Re:MAFIAA

[pod_sixer_jay]

No, the point of copyright as it touches this matter is to enjoin people from profiting inappropriately from the intellectual work of others, or diluting the profits to an original creator. That means that when someone creates a work that substantially includes the work of someone else, the success of that derived work is due in some measure to the appeal of the original work, and the original creator deserves to share the success. The original creator receives consideration for his contribution, and the derivative creator receives consideration for the portion that is unique and original to him. Under copyright, all the involved creators profit -- not just the last one in the chain.

Limits on derivation under copyright also recognize that a creator of a work has an intellectual stake in it and wants some measure of control over how it is published and perceived. Just because someone publishes an original graphical creation doesn't mean he has consented to someone else's depiction of Calvin peeing on it. Copyright recognizes a limited right of a creator to control how his work is framed and presented by others.

If I spend six months in the studio recording an album, I might hope to recover my costs for that six months through the sale of my album. The $10 or $15 I charge for it would be expected to recompense the actual costs I incurred while producing it. Without limits on derived works, some teenager could rip my carefully-prepared album within minutes of its release, add a cheesy techno drumbeat to each track, and put it out on his bit torrent or sell/give away copies of it under the notion that his addition constitutes a "new creative expression" of which he is the sole owner.

Not that I have anything against techno drumbeats in general, but in this case I might take intellectual issue with the artistic rape of my work. If the derived work is presented as a new serious offering, I have the legal right not to consent to that use of it. But, for example, a parody of it would be allowed under Fair Use, and the parody naturally would have to include or allude to enough of my work to make the parody identifiable. A creator of a work does relinquish some control over it by publishing it.

I take commercial issue with the loss I might suffer from having my work made available (albeit in altered form) in ways that don't generate revenue for me. The availability of the work, or portions of it, from a different source dilutes demand for the real thing, whether the teenager charges money or not. The addition of a cheesy drumbeat does not create a new creative work in which its creator enjoys sole intellectual ownership and can do with what he wants, especially if the act of derivation entails far less work than the original creation.

Copyright is not about creative freedom; it's about commercial protection for those who make their living being creative. Copyright is not about protecting the rights of people to build upon the creations of others; it's about paying people for the convenience of building sbustantially upon their work.

Re:MAFIAA

[Puk]

I realized my response started to ramble, so here's a summary: Policy-wise, I think we have pretty similar views on what copyright should be like, or at the very list which direction it should be taken in. I just think that it's still relatively clear that those who wrote the current copyright laws intended that derivative works like mixtapes be covered -- me, you, and TJ notwithstanding.

Remember, that monopoly only exists in the first place because Thomas Jefferson (et. al.) couldn't think of a better way to encourage creativity (in fact, it's pretty clear from his letters that he despised monopolies, and considered them to be a necessary evil). If those "unlicensed derivative works" provide more of a benefit than the monopoly would, it makes sense to allow them. Since, based on other people's posts, it seems that they are indeed of more benefit (e.g. one person mentioned buying the original "Magic Carpet Ride" by Steppenwolf because he heard a mix that included it), they should be legal.

We're talking not about the intent of TJ, or the intent of slashdot readers -- we're talking about the intent of Congress when they passed the Copyright Act (in its current, relevant form). We can argue forever about whether copyright should cover mixtapes or be as powerful and lengthy as it is (or not argue, since I probably agree with you), but that won't change whether or not they were covered by the intent of those passing the law.

You could probably make a decent argument that even they would think that this shouldn't be covered, and couldn't have foreseen this particular type of use, and maybe you'd be right, but I happen not to think so. They didn't have any other carve-outs for specific types of derivative works, and there was a pretty strong legislative preference for providing copyright owners with strong control over the uses, especially commercial ones, of their works. I doubt (but of course, this is pure opinion on my part) that they would have (or the current Congress will) recogniz the potential societal benefits that we recognize from allowing this type of work to be freely created.

(Another question we probably shouldn't get into, but is worth thinking about, is how to create a principled exception that covers mixtapes without creating a very ugly line-drawing problem.)

-puk

Re:MAFIAA

[budgenator]

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

A reasonable argument could be made that the remixes of copyrighted works is actually a fair-use; it would depend on exactly how the remix was done and the whims of a judge or jury. If the mix consisted of small musical phrases rather than whole or large portions of songs and how the portions were tied together a fair use arguement could be credible

Re:MAFIAA

[horn_in_gb]

I don't think this discussion is really about remixes, which could potentially fall into fair use. Instead, it is about mix tapes, which are compilations of various tracks put together by a single person.

E.g., if I make a CD for a friend and put some Madonna on there, some Radiohead, a Metallica track, I am putting whole copyrighted works (entire songs) on a compilation.

As far as I know this is clearly illegal, though many many people (including myself) think they are ethical, and thus continue to break the law. Usually no legal action is taken, but in this case the RIAA has taken some very serious action against this hip-hop dude.

Re:MAFIAA

[kevinbr]

"......We're talking not about the intent of TJ, or the intent of slashdot readers -- we're talking about the intent of Congress....."

Um. In the US Congress MUST act within the boundaries laid out by the constitution. Thus is seems reasonable to delve into the mondeset of those who were involved in the framing of the constitution. Politicians ( i.e. congress ) are always passing short term laws that are ....wait for it.....unconstitutional.

Copryright extension is one of those that is clear even to an idiot that the laws do not mesh with the intent of the constitution.

Congress should represent You, Me and the RIAA. Congress in passing laws MUST comply with the constitution. However defacto congress represents not me but the RIAA.

Re:MAFIAA

[budgenator]

OK now it's clear as mud, these are more like what we did in the old days with our real to reals we called them party tapes. No wonder the RIAA is going ballistic, in a world where they are conditioning us sheople to buy CDs with one or two listenable tracks per, these guys are selling 13; quick grab your BFG 9000, it's fragfest time!

Re:MAFIAA

[JesseMcDonald]

No, the point of copyright as it touches this matter is to enjoin people from profiting inappropriately from the intellectual work of others, or diluting the profits to an original creator. . . .

Not according to the United States constitution, the only basis by which Congress can possibly claim any authority to grant copyright monopolies in the first place.

Re:MAFIAA

[horn_in_gb]

When it comes to the RIAA, I'm more of a chainsaw kind of guy. But, yeah, other than that I wholeheartedly agree...

RICO Charges?

[Neovanglist]

He was prosecuted on RICO charges? As in, the same RICO that was designed to help fight mafia families? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_ and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

It's like the RIAA isn't even sure what to charge people with anymore...

Re:RICO Charges?

[Svartalf]

Shouldn't THEY be brought up on RICO charges, hm?

Re:RICO Charges?

[Rydia]

Yes, RICO makes sense. All you need is 2 predicate crimes in the furtherance of a criminal or corrupt organization to get hit with it. Since this is federal, unauthorized distribution of copyrighted work is a crime. I'm sure he's done it more than twice in the past twenty years, and he has suppliers and distribution channels. Bang, RICO.

Re:RICO Charges?

[norton_I]

RICO can apply to any felony carried out as part of a commerical enterprise. Since this guy was most certainly a commercial enterprise, accused of making money by illegally selling copyrighted music, I would say RICO is applicable.

This case is probably a mistake for the RIAA, but it certainly sounds like legally they are on firm ground. It is unfortunately that given our current copyright status quo, it doesn't seem like there is a good, legal way for him to work, despite the implied positive effect on the artists (and probably record labels) he is accused of ripping off.

The RIAA will likely say that even if artists were not being harmed, they are entiteled to some royalties (possibly correct, though I doubt any legal licensing would lead to that) it is important to not allow a "culture of piracy" to exist.

Interestingly enough, they probably have to push for criminal charges, since civil charges might not stick since the RIAA would have to show actual harm, which there allegedly is not. For the criminal case, you only have to show that the law was broken, which it probably was.

Creating music is tantamount to stealing!

[Lethyos]

Of course, whenever you create music, you are actually stealing from music labels. Think about how much artists suffer when you make new music that someone in the industry could potentially have made and profited from. Will you not think of the arists?

Re:Creating music is tantamount to stealing!

[heinousjay]

So playing other people's music is now creating? Interesting. I've been creating music my entire life and didn't even realize it!

Re:hmm

[Suriyel]

A lot of venues (atleast smaller ones like bars) pay what is basically "music insurance". They pay a blanket fee to cover all the royalties that would be owed by any band they have in. Of course, this is insurance in the same vein as paying Vinny his money to keep your business from "accidentally" starting on fire, this week.

Its simpler than all this seems...

[zappepcs]

I read somewhere that the **AA are not about money, or even copyright infringement; they are trying to create scarcity where there is none. That artificial scarcity will then create a demand for content that ONLY the *AAs will be able to satiate. This is typically termed manipulating the market in most circles, but they have paid the lawmakers to make it look legal.

The only people who will continue to lose out in big ways are the content creators who sell their copyrights to big business like the **AAs of the world. Right now, we are seeing the beginning of content creators starting to distribute their products without the help of the **AAs of the world, and its working. The more that happens, and the more that we, the people with a clue, name the companies responsible for bad laws, jacked up prices, market manipulation... the more chance there is of John Q Public understanding what is happening and voting appropriately.

So, who is responsible? Sony? No, there are way more than a few. Here is the RIAA's board of directors:

Polly Anthony Geffen Records
Mitch Bainwol RIAA
Glen Barros Concord Records
Steve Bartels Island Records
Victoria Bassetti EMI Recorded Music
Jose Behar Universal Music Group
Tim Bowen SONY BMG
Bob Cavallo Buena Vista Music
Mike Curb Curb Records
Joe Galante SONY BMG
Ivan Gavin EMI Recorded Music
Charles Goldstuck RCA Music Group
Zach Horowitz Universal Music Group
Dave Johnson Warner Music Group
Craig Kallman The Atlantic Group
Lawrence Kenswil Universal Music Group
Michael Koch Koch Entertainment
Mel Lewinter Universal Music Group
Kevin Liles Warner Music Group
Alan Meltzer Wind-up Records
Deirdre McDonald SONY BMG
David Munns EMI Recorded Music
Jason Flom Virgin Records America
Tom Silverman Tommy Boy Records
Andy Slater Capitol Records
Rob Stringer SONY BMG
Tom Whalley Warner Bros. Records

http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/board.asp [riaa.com] Board of directors

If you want to know if someone's music is safe from **AA, try http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]

I am certain that there are plenty of other resource on the Internet as well. So, lets all join together and try to make sure that content creators understand what the **AAs are doing to their business... namely killing it and any chance of real revenue.

Re:Its simpler than all this seems...

[OctaviusIII]

Oh please, market scarcity? As in, "You can only buy music, you can't get it free"? Yeah, because it's illegal to protect your market from piracy and robbery. The *AA, as you call them, are industry associations that work to protect their industry. Of COURSE they're run by companies - that's how they were founded to be run; it's why they exist.

The RIAA is a voluntary association of mostly big fish whose members naturally compete with the little fish as well as with each other. They aren't a cartel, and they sure aren't DeBeers. The RIAA is looking out for industry interests. A rising tide floats all boats, the old saying goes, and the RIAA just tries to make sure that the tide stays in. Who stays afloat, though, is another story. But creating scarcity? No; if they were going to create scarcity, they would operate more like a cartel and edge out indie labels and artists. The market forces going against them are found in the radio and broadcasting corporations, which are unaffiliated with the *AA. And in the movie business, the rise of indie films as viable and the existence of arthouse movie theaters means there is no artificial scarcity. Stop fear-mongering and buying into someone else's doomsday conspiracies.

Re:Its simpler than all this seems...

[no_opinion]

Feel free to exercise your critical thinking skills. Look, I work in the music business and I know some of those people and you need to think about what you read before you parrot it. If you look at the board members, you'll notice that the independents have representation and the RIAA is not the music majors promoting some secret agenda to kill the music industry. And they are certainly not about creating scarcity. Maybe you should have looked at the list of labels that belong to the RIAA instead: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Come on, wake up and smell the coffee; this is about protecting copyright and anyone who tries to sell you some conspiracy theory is full of it. What will be interesting is the reaction from the artist community. If we don't hear anything from them, then we can guess how they feel.

Re:Its simpler than all this seems...

[Hinhule]

I guess the best way to run a cartel is to hide it in an "agency".

and while they're at it...

[n1hilist]

Arrest me for getting a lift in a friends car, not paying for the listening permission to hear what is on his CD player and getting the song stuck in my head, then whistling it down the street, thus pirating illegally distributing whistle-tabs!

Re:and while they're at it...

[Evilest Doer]

Arrest me for getting a lift in a friends car, not paying for the listening permission to hear what is on his CD player and getting the song stuck in my head, then whistling it down the street, thus pirating illegally distributing whistle-tabs!

Just give them time. All they need is for the US Gov to set up microphones everywhere like they have now in Britain, get access to them (easy to have written in to law), and presto! you can be fined for whistling while you walk.

its about that time

[jeremycobert]

for years these wannabe musicians (hip-hop DJ's) have been stealing tracks and music from people who actually make music and then going back and paying them after the fact.i hate to be on the side of the RIAA, but this is one time i am.

Re:its about that time

[RexRhino]

for years these wannabe musicians (hip-hop DJ's) have been stealing tracks and music from people who actually make music and then going back and paying them after the fact.i hate to be on the side of the RIAA, but this is one time i am.

Yeah, not to mention wannabe musicians like the Beatles ( http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm ), and The Verve ( http://www.superswell.com/samplelaw/horror.html#ve rve ), and Led Zepplin ( http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/historic.html ), who were all punished for stealing music... Rock musicians are nothing but a bunch of talentless thieves!

Re:If it'll kill rap I'm all for it

[heinousjay]

Shh, you've gone against the culture of sharing* other people's work.

*taking

RICO and not infringement, this is really serious.

[monkeyboythom]

So this is guy is being held on RICO charges and I am assuming that the RIAA is using the provision that allows private parties to sue. They are saying that there is an enterprise involved in the direct theft of material? This is quite different than them going after grandma and one computer.This is racketeering and a serious federal indictment.

But it will be funny when the defendants get to cross examine and no one will say they have been infringed upon except the RIAA itself. Maybe we might get a Johnny Dangerously quote in the court?

I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy corksuckers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes... like yourselves.

From wikipedia.org:

Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment. [citation needed] There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or State court.

I'd rather you dropped the Misogyny...

[Svartalf]

Because while there IS misogeny about it's not as "prevalent" as people would have you believe.

In fact, there's a lot more misandry going about than there's misogyny going about these days.
All one has to do is open their eyes and look about at what's being done.

And, it doesn't make it any more okay because it's "part of the culture".

I agree ... arrest him

[Anonymous Coward]

So this guy had 81,000 discs (containing other people's works?), presumably sold them for profit (he had 4 vehicles !!) and what, we're complaining that he was nabbed?

Screw him for getting wealthy on other people's talent and hard work. Would he try to stop me if I tried to drive off in one of his 4 cars ?

"before the raid, DJ Drama ... [was] sent cease-and-desist letters from a local lawyer."

So he's not only selfish and greedy, he's arrogant as well.

"most of DJ Drama's mixtapes begin with enthusiastic endorsements from the artists themselves."

1. Most (not all) artists !!
2. Does he have written proof? Did a naive artist nod stupidly and say "oh yeah, go ahead"? If so, then fine, they both should have confirmed that with a contract. (In particular the DJ, who left himself exposed.)
3. Did SOME of the artist need the okay of their studio producers? (You know who I mean, the companies that put their cash at risk by backing them?)

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.

If you disagree with a law -- and choose to break it -- it's just tough luck if / when you get caught.

(Ironic: just noticed that my captcha is the word "divisive".)

Re:I agree ... arrest him

[ct-zero]

The industry takes a "blind eye" approach to the mixtape thing - it helps them promote their artists in most cases. The issue here is the 80K+ copies. Once you're distributing on levels like that, the labels want their cut. They'll likely try to cut a deal for the licensing revenues since DJ Drama is pretty well known on the mixtape circuit and recently signed to a major-label production deal.

Re:I agree ... arrest him

[_LORAX_]

Especially once you consider the fact that it's dirt simple to license the music. Mixing can easily be done and sold with a per-minute cost that gets paid back to the original artist. It's cheaper to license the rights directly from the artist for bulk work like this though. If this is really a benefit to the artist then it should have been easy to get licensed cheaper that the statutory default.

Mixing can be 100% legal... all you have to do is pay the appropriate license and you are good to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_license

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.

Re:I agree ... arrest him

[Em Adespoton]

They'll likely try to cut a deal for the licensing revenues since DJ Drama is pretty well known on the mixtape circuit and recently signed to a major-label production deal.

In any case, it sounds more like a contract dispute is at the core, even if he did forget to cover himself by getting written permission. I have a feeling both parties have something to hide in this, which makes it curious that the RIAA would risk a RICO arrest.

Re:I agree ... arrest him

[Em Adespoton]

Silly me, not hitting Preview and missing a bracket....

They'll likely try to cut a deal for the licensing revenues since DJ Drama is pretty well known on the mixtape circuit and recently signed to a major-label production deal.

OK... this made me stop and re-read the sentence... An RIAA label recently signed him for production, and suddenly he's raided on RICO charges? I think there's more going on here than what the general public is hearing about. For one thing, who mass produced those CDs that were confiscated? For another, was this raid conducted based on an internal RIAA investigation triggered by the signing?

In any case, it sounds more like a contract dispute is at the core, even if he did forget to cover himself by getting written permission. I have a feeling both parties have something to hide in this, which makes it curious that the RIAA would risk a RICO arrest.

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.

Re:Promotional Use

[bkr1_2k]

Record labels have literally thousands of artists under contract. Not many of them "make it big." There are plenty of artists who don't get any promotion other than what they do themselves, even when they have a contract with a major label. These are likely the artists described in the summary. Effectively the artist is trying to promote their work because the record labels simply don't. They send the work to the mix DJ who gets it to a new audience. The problem is, the DJ is then reselling the work instead of the "authorized" (by the label) CDs that the original artist actually paid the record label for. They don't get them for free, just at a "reduced" fee so they can sell them slightly cheaper at live shows. The artist still doesn't have the right (in most cases) to allow someone else to make additional copies though.

The law was there before this happened

[goldcd]

You didn't look at, or ask for the law to be changed before this happened, so quit whining when it was implemented.

Further proof...

[businessnerd]

This article does a great job in highlighting one of the biggest flaws in the RIAA's logic...

Those who download a couple songs off a peer to peer network are more likely to do one or all of the following:

a) Purchase more music from the artist
b) Attend a performance featuring said artists
c) Recomend said artist to a friend

The more exposure an artist receives, the more money an artist will make. In fact artists make more money off of live performances than they do off of record sales. Personally, I have bought more CD's because I illegally downloaded some of the songs on the album first. Why would I spend money on something if it was crap. I am simply researching the product before I buy so that I don't waste my money. These mixtapes do the exact same thing that an "illegal" fileshareing network does. The record companies should be praising them, just as they used to praise mixtapes. Not sure what happened to that though.

loosely structured boycott

[griffjon]

Wait, you mean you're still buying RIAA-tainted CDs?

Re:loosely structured boycott

[h2g2bob]

http://riaaradar.com/

biting the hand that feeds

[cyphercell]

This is the kind of stuff that will ruin the RIAA, they are poisoning their water hole. If the RIAA doesn't offer the artists anything other than lawsuits and slavery they will find a different way. Obviously, the artists can handle a certain amount of contractual servitude so long as they get something out of it, but when the RIAA begins feeding on it's upcoming artists there is no longer an incentive to sign, in fact there is a strong incentive to do something different. I feel bad for DJ Drama and hope he comes out of this ok, but I think this provides a very clear line for ways of distributing your art, you can offer it on the Internet on your own terms, or you can jump through hoops for a record label (hoping you don't get eaten by the sharks). The RIAA is forcing artists into the same space

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

Re:remember what happened to danger mouse?

[robgue]

talk about stifling creativity. there's a whole genre of rap. Screw music. Or chopped and screwed that is out of Houston that is based on these mix tapes. Look up Mike Jones, Chamillionare, DJ Screw. it's enjoyed recent popularity too.

Re:remember what happened to danger mouse?

[Stormx2]

What? You do realise that we here about more of these cases not because they happen more often, but because they are against the flow? Pointing out exceptions is bringing god-of-the-gaps to a copyright dispute.

Re:remember what happened to danger mouse?

[eMbry00s]

By the way, Grey Album was not for profit, this DJ Drama guy's stuff was. Seems to make a big difference to the RIAA.

Re:remember what happened to danger mouse?

[El Gruga]

YES! Great comment - you said it all. I like the RIAA sinking into the tarpits image - very good.

Re:remember what happened to danger mouse?

[Jherek Carnelian]

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)

And now, according to riaaradar he has signed with Warner, a big-time member of the RIAA. So it would seem that the RIAA created their own star. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:Not confusing

[A beautiful mind]

I take it, that you never violated any laws, like these:

You may not drive barefooted.
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.
It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.
You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.
Masks may not be worn in public.
Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men.

And these are only for Alabama!

My point is, just because something is illegal, it is not immoral and it should not automatically follow that people agree with the particular law or usag e of the law! Because you see, there are plenty of laws in effect, but not _enforced_.

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.

Re:Good Business Move...

[Fizzl]

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.

What a bloody shame, ain't it?
How about composing your own music you talentless hacks?

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.

rap music culture

[PigIronBob]

Now there are 3 words you don't see together often.

I am surprised it took that long, if I was one of these recording artists I would have sued long ago.

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.

Re:Disingenuous article...

[nuonguy]

WTF is insightful about this comment?

Walt Disney would never have been able to create Micky Mouse if had to live in your world.

http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-4.html

Re:Disingenuous article...

[TheViewFromTheGround]

Mixtapes don't exactly bring in the cash. They're distributed hypothetically for free -- "for promotional use only" -- but often for some money at underground hiphop shops and websites, by street vendors, and on Torrent sites and other websites for free. It is pretty unlikely DJ Drama is getting rich off of his mixtapes. Mixtapes serve a more socially oriented purpose than in the pure music sales market. They let MCs and DJs know about their peers, creating a social network. They help define trends and sounds. They serve as a battleground for skills and styles, where up and comers one-up each other. They let veteran producers and DJs experiment and take risks that they couldn't in a purely profit-driven big record style environment with marketing and sales chains.

Hiphop culture is just that, a culture. Even some of the most money-centric (judging by their lyrics) rappers also express deep concern about that culture as a culture, and work to sustain it. Jay-Z, a rich and powerful player in the industry, has put artists that he respects -- the Root, Talib Kweli -- in his lyrics, on his label, into wider circulation. While I'm sure he makes money off the new Roots album, it's unlikely that they bring in the kind of dough that a Young Jeezy or Chamillionaire bring in during their few months of fame.

Mixtapes rarely hurt anybody, nor do they or can they make anybody rich in any direct way in most cases. But they are an integral part of the social life of hiphop, a key way for people to share, be heard, and learn what others are doing. It may sometimes be a mild form of copyright infringement; it certainly is not the sort of "crime" that requires a SWAT team and racketeering charges.

Re:Disingenuous article...

[esmoothie]

if that is the case then why have none of the artists objected to what he does?

Re:Disingenuous article...

[PFI_Optix]

The artists already got their payday from the studios, it's the studios who own the copyrights and have the investment to protect.

The artists need to take back control of their art from the studios before they really have much of a voice.

Negativland

[Threni]

http://negativland.com/

This US band knows all about this sort of problem - they had problems with the RIAA 10 years ago. Things never change, huh.

BTW all there music is legally available for free - I recommend "A big 10-8 place" and "Death sentences of the polished and structurally weak" if you're into musical collage.

http://negativland.com/intprop.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativland

"an accepted and integral part..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, the article states that mixtapes such as those made by DJ Drama are an accepted and integral part of rap music culture

The prolific dealing and smoking of crystal methamphetamine "ice", plus drive-by shootings are also an "accepted and integral part" of the rap music (sub)culture too.

The cops are all very much aware of those things and how it affects the psychology of the people they are sent to bust.

RIAA 1 - Police 0

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Withstanding of the usual anti-RIAA sentiment, are the police a bunch of pansies that now take raiding orders directly from litigious collectives?

This should be a civil matter people, not criminal.

What about collages?

[Kidan]

When are we going to go after those arrogant artists who cut up other people's magazines and newspapers to create collages!

By jove, it's evil that they would use someone else's copyrighted work in their own artistic pursuits!

Frankly, I see no difference between someone making a mix CD from music he purchased and someone making a collage out of magazines he purchased.

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?

Confusing? No...

[rueger]

His arrest is confusing on several levels.

No. It's not.

He copied other people's work and distributed it without permission.

That's copyright infringement. There is nothing the least bit confusing about it.

It is certainly a common practice, and one condoned by many artists, but that does not change the existing copyright law and I'm sure that DJ Drama knew it.

One can debate the definitions of "Fair Use,", and the business model used by the entertainment industry, and even slam the scum that form the RIAA and MPAA, but it helps no one when article authors pretend that existing copyright laws don't exist.

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:Confusing? No...

[rueger]

I most certainly know what a mix tape is, and own more than a couple.

Calling it a "mix tape" doesn't change the legality of copyright infringement

If you can pass legislation that specifically excludes mix tapes from copyright restrictions, then yes it would be legal.

Sampling, a practiced by the Beasties, is a different matter

Atlanta PD is way ahead of you...

[GungaDan]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/116863.html

The Scoop

[psnail]

I think there's a lot of confusion on what DJ Drama is doing here.

Some people know what's going on but it sounds like most people think he's sampling big chunks of songs or ripping people off by just compiling a bunch of already released tracks (releasing pirated CDs). He's not really. He's sampling small, indecernable parts of a track to construct a new landscape and then having someone emcee on the track -- which is usually exclusive material on these mixtapes (a bit of a misnomer, they're usually CDs but they were once actually tapes).

So he's not compiling tracks he doesn't have a license to. The only thing he might be guilty of is on some of the mixtapes he'll remix a track with the artist (the emcee will appear on the track) and then include the artist he's working on the mixtape with. Also, it's possible, I think as someone mentioned above, that these emcees/artists he works with on the mixtape might need permission from their labels to appear. Yeah, they're doing the job of promotion for the record label but it's still a legal guideline in most recording contracts.

Also, here's a bit of information on the legality of sampling that fits into the context of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastie_boys#Sampling _Lawsuit

Re:The Scoop

[dlim]

Actually, what DJ Drama has been doing is not sampling. He makes compilations of music, continuously mixed, with additional scratching and effects, and MC freestyles.

An example of his work is Gangsta Grillz 8. One would assume there were seven before that, not counting other mixes. Play the sample of track 6. It should sound familiar.

Re:The Scoop

[psnail]

I wonder. The DJ Drama/Lil' Wayne mixtape ("Dedication 2"), while a DJ mix, contains a lot of elements that are obviously samples. You could be right here, however.

Re:The Scoop

[SonicSpike]

Actually sampling is still unlawful even if the size of the sample is not discernable.

This had to be done

[pestilence669]

If DJ Drama tells consumers what good music is, then the studios won't be able to push the new K-Fed album.

Re:Very Strange

[FunkyELF]

So, they've stopped arresting their customers and started in on their own talent.

Well, this guy was stealing music and making money off of it wasn't he?
I think they have more of a case with this one than with 16 year old kids maxing out their 60Gb iPods with mp3s downloaded from p2p networks.

This is totally wack

[jozeph78]

This entire ordeal is ludicrous. Mixtapes don't make album sales suffer. DJ's DO NOT harm the recording industry. I hope that DJ Drama wins a counter suit for the waste of time and efforts this will cost him. What a DJ does is their own creation. Most DJ's try to spin spanking new or unheard of (read unreleased) artists. The majority of mix-tapes (unless you are a really weak DJ) consist of a small portion of the song actually being on the tape, typically 1 verse or a hook. I've purchased more albums as the result of wanting to hear the full album version of a song after hearing a snippit or remixed version on a mix tape. They never use the full length of the song and the quality is usually degraded due to fact it's rerecorded, typically via an analog channel. Furthermore, they enhance the songs by mixing, scratching or doing voice overs to enhance the experience of the music. A mix tape is never a substitution for buying an album.

The recording companies would love to think the giant poster of the band is effective advertising, but it is not. New artists and new albums from existing artists are promoted exclusively by DJ's, be it mix tape or live mix. In Hip-Hop, House, Rave and other "underground" music mix tapes are the only valid form of advertisement. They don't make music video's anymore and if they do, please show me a channel that shows them in full length. Nobody listens to the radio, at least not for good hip-hop and other dance genre music. Plus radio typically censors music to the point it completely changes the song.

Now I concede that he may be violating copyrights to make money from copyrighted music. That's just a shame. If he purchased the albums he's mixing he isn't doing anything that should be wrong. The RIAA or RICO should be happy they landed an artist worthy of being on the mixtapes of established DJ's.

The hustle is over for the recording industry and this is another demonstration they are losing ability to continue pimping artists. They had a good 50-70 year run of chewing up artists and spitting them out... they should just give it up. Amnesty is the last option before they totally fold. Most artists are smart enough now to do self-promotion and start their own label. Shawn Carter (Jay-Z) and Sean Combs (Puff Daddy, P-Diddy) proved how much more money is available to artists when it is done through a self label. As a result most "True" hip-hop has gone the way of indie labels such as Definitive Jux (to name one).

Sorry if the post jumps around or is poorly worded but I am at werk and don't have the time to revise my rant. And yes... I spelled werk right.

Re:This is totally wack

[psnail]

Word! The DJs play the songs in the club that often get big or they add to their popularity (I don't think Drama is that kinda DJ but does the same things they do). In fact, The Lil' Wayne/DJ Drama mixtape "Dedication 2" was so popular that apparently they were offered a major label deal for a REAL album. You can't tell me the labels don't recognize the value of his DJ work. They saw its power as a promotion tool.

Re:This is totally wack

[Heddahenrik]

It seems that you fail to see all the hoards of starving musicians who didn't get featured on the mixtape and therefore don't get their fraction of the money of CD-sales.

But if this "piracy" can be stopped, then no one can make mixtapes anymore, except the record companies. And that is a service, which the musicians have to pay a lot for, in one form or another.

So if you thought RIAA was evil, then rethink. It's really evil. It's only goal is to steal as much money as possible, without creating anything as almost any other organization with similar goals do.

Re:This is totally wack

[FrankNputer]

While I agree with most of your points, your post portrays a huge lack of understanding copyright laws. Specifically:

1) The amount of the song used is irrelevant - sampling must be licensed, or it is in violation. Personal mix tapes may a bit of a gray area legally, but not when it crosses over into creating them as a business. Even if they're using only snippets of other peoples' works, it still qualifies as sampling - and the legal status of that has been pretty clearly laid out.

2) Purchasing an album doesn't give you the right to play it publicly - you have to pay performance licensing to do that.

3) 'What a DJ does' covers a broad range of activities by people who call themselves DJs, who mainly play other peoples' creations, regardless of what they may or may not do to them in the process.

Your concession is basically the end of the argument - if he was making money from copyrighted music that he didn't pay to license for that purpose, he's in violation. Period.

Nothing in this post should be construed as support of the RIAA's bullshit tactics - but still, the law is what it is, and wishing it was different while screaming about The Man isn't helpful. You have to change the parameters within which you operate.

The real reason: counterfeit buttons

[adnonsense]

Reading between the lines in the article, it's obvious the RIAA has acted to take out a counterfeit operation flooding the market with illegally manufactured buttons of French design and the DJ / rapper thing was only a thin cover story.

Re:hmm

[Kazoo the Clown]

Karaoke bars are in real big trouble here...

RIAA arrests?

[Hoi Polloi]

"RIAA arrests pro artist..." Sounds like the RIAA now has its own police force. I'm waiting for the AMA cops to bust me for self-medicating with aspirin.

Re:RIAA arrests?

[McFadden]

I was about to make the same point and had to search almost to the end to find someone who had come to the same conclusion. Last time I checked the RIAA were an industry body representing the voice of the slugs^H^H^H^H^Hpeople who run the record industry. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the current administration had passed a law granting them powers of arrest, but I don't think it's happened so far.

Re:RIAA arrests?

[Hoi Polloi]

Wasn't that a Monty Python skit? "Lemming, Lemming of the BDA!"

Re:And I have bad news....

[Anonymous Cowpat]

We had a new law enforcement agency set up in the UK about a year back and the new chief of the agency was on the radio stating quite blatantly that the plan was to confiscate anything of value that the criminals owned (however acquired) and sell it on with the express aim of funding the department - nothing like your funding being provided by how much stuff you take to get you taking anything you can get near ("you're in prison but your wife and child still live in the house? pffft, out!"). IIRC I shouted at the radio, even though it was so early that everyone else was asleep.
Now, in the last few days, we have proposals to allow this to be done to *suspected* criminals who they haven't been able to secure a conviction for. They instead want it dealt with as a civil matter ("We can't prove you did it, but you probably did it, so we'll have your assets anyway. You won't have anywhere to live? pffft, out! Oh, and give us that shirt you're wearing too."). Also, there are proposals afoot to ban such people (who've had no case proven against them) from using computers or mobile phones (with court orders imposed, again, on a balance-of-probabilities basis. Breach the order; 5 years prison. Which smacks of handing out criminal sentences on civil evidence). Sadly all the opposition can do is claim that they'll be 'ineffective', like we want unjust laws like that to actually be effective.
Ministers who propose this sort of stuff should have a copy of the human rights act, with the relevant portions highlighted, stapled to their foreheads.

Prejudiced overtones?

[dkoulomzin]

I can't help but see some sort of prejudice, probably racial, in this. Think about the differences between the way the RIAA prosecutes their agenda when it comes to college students vs. "urban" hip-hop musicians. College students (or their parents) are hit with a civil lawsuit and settle out of court. This DJ has his place raided (by the SWAT TEAM?!?) and stuff confiscated and gets held on a 100k bail bond. I can't tell from the picture if this guy is black, white, latino, or whatever, but hip-hop has been a mostly african-american, urban phenomenon. Everyone knows the statistics on the ethnicities of college students. C'mon, slashdot, do these draconian measures smack of racism?

Re:Prejudiced overtones?

[JustNiz]

Jeez I love these people that cry racist at at every turn.

The difference between a college kid who has downloaded a few MP3s and a DJ is the latter is making his living (and probably millions if he's famous) from re-marketing other peoples music under his own name, as a business.

Also if he has a recording contract then his record company are also guilty and should have known better.

Re:Prejudiced overtones?

[dkoulomzin]

"Jeez I love these people that cry racist at every turn." Ok O'Reilly Factor.

Napster (and their copycats) made a living off this behavior. Were they raided by the SWAT team? No, they were sued. And they were making WAY more money. Face it: this is not an issue of degree. This is an entirely different attack strategy, where the only difference seems to be the perpetrator. I'm not saying it's definitely racist, but I'd like to see an explanation of why the SWAT team, why now.

iTunes - traffic stolen property?

[IflyRC]

As of yesterday DJ Drama was sitting in jail, but dozens of his unlicensed compilations were still available at the iTunes shop.

I know iTunes has deals with the record labels, but apparently these compilations are illegal. Now, considering iTunes may not have the license to directly sell these songs in the way that the contract they have with the labels intends isn't it possible to assume that they could *possibly* be brought up on charges or at least void part of their contract?

Re:iTunes - traffic stolen property?

[dlim]

Probably, but what would they do? sue? void the contract? pull all their music from iTunes? They wouldn't be able to sell protected, digital music to iPod owners. It probably costs less to send the police and your lawyers after the small guy who makes the CDs.

NET Act

[tepples]

See NET Act.

Re:NET Act

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

So the cops could've gone after DJ Drama even if he was giving all 81,000 mixCDs away...

Sonny Bono owns you

[tepples]

It's illegal to copy music owned by someone else.

What music is not owned by someone else? What music becomes no longer owned by someone else within the human lifetime?

Re:Law is also about equity

[jacksonj04]

If you're certain they're breaking a law, take em to court.

Re:Law is also about equity

[tepples]

As long as the RIAA break the law (and they do break the law every day)

citation needed

It all makes sense now

[krotkruton]

I finally understand what is going on. We've had it all wrong this whole time. The RIAA is actually an anti-copyright group pretending to be a greedy organization. The last decade or so of ridiculousness has all been an elaborate plan to destroy copyrights. This latest attack on DJ Drama takes everything to a new level, which the RIAA knows cannot be tolerated.

You see, their goal has been to screw over consumers and content creators to the point where everyone is so fed up that they revolt against the whole system. They want massive reform to take place and are showing how necessary it is by sueing and arresting people for things that are technically illegal (or the civil equivalent) but that most people would recognize are totally irrational, therefore exposing the problems with the system. This will all end soon when the RIAA sues itself for disrupting its abilities to distribute its artists music, or something more clever than that. I mean, this must be the motivation behind their crazy actions because at this point, what other logical explanation is there?

Re:It all makes sense now

[Akaihiryuu]

Hey...maybe that's it exactly. People said the same thing about SCO, comparing them to the chicken ahem..."lover" from South Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenlover

Potential side-effects

[AceCaseOR]

Well, if DJ Drama's gotten anything out of this arrest, he's got one more person buying his mixtapes - me (who isn't particularly into rap). That, and I would be interested to see if this ends up causing some ill will to be shown to the RIAA from some of the established rap labels (imagine, if you will, Suge Knight, Will Smith, Dr. Dre, and Jay Z joining forces against the RIAA, because of this... or something - Nahhhhh).

Re:The RIAA are HEROES!!!

[Divebus]

The REAL question remains unanswered after all these years:..

Did you grow up under some power lines?

Re:Promotional Use / EMusic Distribution

[dlim]

His stuff is on eMusic.

I'm a little unsure of my opinion of the whole thing. Typically, to sell and distribute a compilation of music, one must license each of the songs on a compilation. This includes mix CDs. Even with electronic compilations produced by independent artists, containing music by independent artists, the music on the CD is licensed. I believe Richie Hawtin, whose mixes manipulate the original songs so much that they might be unrecognizable, licenses songs and credits the producers of all of the original songs. Many of the songs aren't even available on CD outside of his mixes. On the other hand, the artists approve, and requiring approval for every use of every song goes against the core of hip-hop culture. (sampling / derivative use)

But yeah, Drama was definitely not under the radar. Many of the artists on his mixes would not have been distributed on eMusic otherwise, because the majors don't distribute via eMusic. He was too big to not license. He definitely had to see this coming.

Friends of Mine

[dastardly_villain]

These two guys are friends of mine here in Atlanta and they run a perfectly legitimate business. They're freakin signed to a record label! They aren't eating lobster with the Trumps but both of them have made a fair amount of money off music for their age. I'm surprised their label would even let this happen, much less let it blow up in the public like this. Although, I know Cannon and Drama can see the benefit in selling their own music outside of a record label (more money), I doubt they would need to continue to do so.

These are not criminals, they're good dudes who spin records and promote the crap that the RIAA feeds your dumb little sister and her Federline-like boyfriend. These guys are street DJs and satellite RADIOHOSTS....arguably among the Top Ten most popular hip-hop DJs in the US. This is such a bad move.

The stupidity of this whole situation boggles my mind. A move like this by the RIAA is like cutting off their own feet to spite their legs.

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.

Required Reading

[Bryansix]

http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml/xplunder.html

Also check out the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunderphonics

My response to RIAA

[macguys]

I recommend that you print out a copy of the members of the RIAA and put it in your wallet. Before you buy a CD, check to see if the label is a member. If it is, just put the CD back and go find an independent artist on CD Baby or GarageBand.com I quit buying stuff from Sony after their malware fiasco, but have since expanded my boycott to all RIAA members.

Advertising = culpability for piracy

[xjmrufinix]

I've seen a few posts sort of touching on this, but no one exactly spelled it out: I think the music industry is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They aggressively promote music, stick it in places where it can be heard whether you pay for it or not (hell, whether you want to hear it or not - I have top 40 songs I would never listen to willingly stuck in my head from people playing the radio at work).

I am a musician, and I believe its impossible not to create derivative works. Everything is based on someone else's work...it's more obvious in hip-hop because there's sampling involved, but it's arguable that (for example) Led Zeppelin's appropriation of blues music is far more blatant of a theft, in every way except that they don't use the actual recordings. I use Led Zeppelin as an example because I heard a DJ spin their records besides specific recordings which they "borrowed" from heavily, but I've played in plenty of bands and I think this feature of the creative process is pretty universal.

So I see the promotional wing of the music industry very aggressively trying to cram this music down our throats and get it stuck in our heads, and then their litigators are punishing us when we create something based off of all the pop culture they jammed into us. Hip-hop is an easy target primarily because it uses sampling instead of instruments to rip off other artists (though ironically what a DJ does with a sample is almost always more creative then what a rock band does with their influences), and I think also for all the other stuff it evokes for suburban Americans; scary negroes with guns.

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)?

Go vote!

[tentimestwenty]

Look here, not buying from these guys isn't dissuading them. They will sue and litigate until their last dollar is spent (and they have a LOT of money). The reason the RIAA has power is because of the legal system and the politicians who pass things like the DMCA. As uncool as it is, it's time to go out and vote for your president, senators, governors, mayors and school trustees. Vote for anybody that promises more individual and consumer freedoms!

Re:Go vote!

[cheater512]

Anyone smart enough to want consumer freedoms isnt stupid enough to become a politician.

"Home Taping is Killing Music"

[markbt73]

The record industry never "praised" mix tapes.

RIAA

[DragonTHC]

Mitch Bainwol makes Jack Abramoff look like Mother Theresa

RIAA Arrests!?!?!

[nurb432]

WTF? When the hell were they granted arrest powers?

What artists?

[C10H14N2]

Precisely which artists does the RIAA represent?

You're wrong

[tentimestwenty]

There are lots of decent politicians, and some actually have some good ideas. Every bit counts. If you don't vote for the best, you will get the worst which is what we have now.

Consistency FTL?

[infragilis]

If you switched the name "DJ Drama" with "Radiohead" or "Aphex Twin", nobody would suggest that they be arrested.

Re:Common Denominator

[Divebus]

Israel? It's remarkable how any topic here turns political within a few posts.

But now that everyone has warmed up the bed, I'll jump in. Israel started getting colonized by Jews in the early 1800's and in larger numbers in the 1880's. The Jews didn't invade Palestine. They were actually buying land from the Palestinians - who have had about 2,600 years to form a nation since the last time Israel was there but never did. That land was always administered by the Romans, the Arab neighbors, Turkey (Ottomans) or the British after WWI. Idunno why, it just was.

The Jewish settlers and Palestinians had frictions building but nothing huge. It was getting clear that the Jews and Palestinians needed to be separated so the U.N. partitioned the land into Jewish and Arab sectors in 1947. The Arab League preferred the Jews to be dead or elsewhere. The big one hit when Israel declared independence in 1948. All this time, nobody was getting "thrown out" of Israel until the day after its founding when all the Arab neighbor countries attacked. The Palestinians who were automatic citizens of Israel didn't drive the attack, the Arab neighbors did.

The attacking Arabs (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) told all the Palestinians (who hadn't figured it out) to leave the Jewish sector and let the Arab armies wipe out all the Jews. When that was finished, the Palestinians could come back and claim ownership of the Jews' land and possessions. It didn't work out that way. The Arabs lost the war.

All the Palestinians who "got out of the way" [~700,000] were not allowed to return but all the Palestinians who stayed in Israel were welcome to live in peace and take part in all of Israel's institutions. That's why there are "refugee camps" full of hostile, displaced Palestinians. If anyone is upset about that, then why not be upset about the 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries in that time period, or the thousands of Jews slaughtered, captured or expelled from Gaza and other parts of Palestine?

Q: Why don't the Arab states who started that mess accept the displaced Palestinians as their problem? A: The Arabs don't want them in their countries but they'll supply weapons and ideology to let them help destroy Israel. The Jews didn't do anything to the Arabs except exist - and embarrass them in 1948.

To the Arabs, being beaten by Jews [clearly sub-humans] was like being beaten by a woman [also sub-humans, eh?]. The Arabs lost face and that's why they'll never give up until Israel is gone. That's what all this nonsense is about. After that, everyone who doesn't look, act and pray like a Muslim will be attacked until they're gone... or until everyone comes to their senses.

I really fear for this planet over the next few decades.

Re:Common Denominator

[GuyverDH]

Well, considering that the RIAA has in effect been treating most artists as slaves, with no effort to help them or improve their living conditions - in effect forcing them to work harder (by doing Concert tours) just to make enough money to live off of.

While not the extreme that you are describing, there are quite a few parallels to be drawn from your statement.

The main reason they are upset is that his mix tapes are probably being sold (if sold they were) by an independent label, outside of the RIAA, so they didn't feel they were getting their *DUES*.

Counterfeit?

[zoeblade]

Thanks for posting the video link. Am I the only one annoyed that they called these mixtapes counterfeit? My dictionary defines a counterfeit item as imitating something else with the intent to deceive, whereas mixtapes by their very nature are original creative works made entirely from other people's original creative works. They're derivative art, but in no way are they pretending to be someone else's whole album. That's the whole point. First they call copying "stealing," now they call original creative works that are derivative "counterfeit." Where will it end?

R.A.P. ==

[Yiliar]

Retards
Attempting
Poetry

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?

RIAA arrests . . .

[binford2k]

Since when did the RIAA have its own police force authorized to arrest citizens?

Unfortunately

[iminplaya]

Those artists sold there souls and their "rights" away to the devil. They are no longer in a position to make a complaint. The new "owners" however, have the power to conduct raids with the police? And using RICO?...yeah, that's what those rules were meant for. This can't be happening. It must be the drugs. I need another hit.

Re:And I have bad news....

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Dunno. We have this lovely thing called the human right act which one would assume to have been enacted with the express purpose of being a final unmovable roadblock to dangerous legislation like this. Now, however, many politicians are calling for its repealing because it's, you guessed it, getting in the way of dangerous legislation like this which they want to push through. Clearly unjust laws are more important than human rights if the present bunch of ministers want the unjust laws instead. Remember these 600-odd MPs represent the will of the people without wavering for 5 years after election - it's the people's will to be oppressed, they elected the MPs so it must we what they want!
And you wonder why we still persist in having an unelected (and therefore not easily swayed by party whips) upper house - The House of Lords may be undemocratic but it's the last constitutional obstacle between here and the founding of the ministry of love. (The Queen is the last obstacle because she COULD refuse to sign a passed piece of legislation into law, but since that would trigger a constitutional crisis and probably result in the end of the monarchy, it probably won't happen.)

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!

Garageband & Loop Layering Tools Users Next?

[Bones3D_mac]

How soon until the **AA cartels begin accusing users of Apple's Garageband (or other loop layering tools) of similar offenses... especially once a few of these users songs that incorporate these loop fragments become part of the **AA's collection? Will other users who just happen to layer a couple loops in a similar manner suddenly be infringing upon the RIAA's copyrights, despite the fact that the loops themselves are royalty free?

And what of loop layering tools in general that can accept audio from sources other than those included with the software itself? Could these tools be made illegal since their existence both encourages users to sample external audio sources and facilitates the distribution of these samples in a user's "creation"?

Combined with the call for mandatory DRMing on podcasts, this could get very ugly for anyone who even thinks of trying to create music outside of the **AA's control.

Survey says...

[datdjrobp]

The fortune cookie from my sweet & sour chicken says, "The will of the people is the best law." Best is apparently a relative term.

Re:RICO and not infringement, this is really serio

[stubear]

"...and no one will say they have been infringed upon except the RIAA itself."

When an artist signs a recording contract they lose control of the mechanicals (the recordings themselves). If the artists don't care if people use their mechanicals for mixtapes then they shouldn't sign with a major label, period, end of fucking story. What is so difficult to understand about agreements between artists and labels? Artists want access to the distribution channels so they have to give something up in return. The labels aren't philanthropic charities who give their money away to needy artists, they're a fucking business out to make money. You don't like it? Start you own label and show the rest of the world how to make money for the artist through the sale of t-shirts and posters at local gigs. Until then, any comments to the contrary are simply bullshit speculation by idiots who know absolutely nothing about how the music industry works.

Financial viable NOT to distribute

[pbhj]

>>> To make matters worse, one of those recordings is a modest artistic success. But the publisher (in his infinite wisdom) has decided that it's no longer financially viable to distribute it.

It strikes me that it's probably in the interests of the publisher to cull the small fry from the market so that people are more likely to buy their latest promotions. I guess it's a sort of artificial scarcity.

I was thinking this is a bit like patenting a technology to prevent an opponents use of it. Except in that instance (at least in UK/EPC countries) you can have a compulsory license order served. Pity you can't have the same and force your publisher to license (with reasonable terms) the work back to you.

Of course if artists didn't give away all rights but instead signed away rights for as long as the publisher promoted them (or something) then we wouldn't get in this mess ... I guess you'd need a consensus of nearly all musicians though.

Re:Financial viable NOT to distribute

[rohan972]

Of course if artists didn't give away all rights but instead signed away rights for as long as the publisher promoted them (or something) then we wouldn't get in this mess ... I guess you'd need a consensus of nearly all musicians though.

I know someone who signed with a major label recently. She required substantial changes to the contract, including a much larger percentage of royalties. Much larger. They know they are not really needed anymore, and are prepared to negotiate terms with people who demand a better deal. She also did not give them sole distribution rights, I don't know the details more than that.

Re:Law is also about equity

[JoeRandomHacker]

IANAL, but you probably can't. I don't think you can sue over criminal matters unless you represent the government, and suing on civil matters requires that you have standing to sue, which can be hard to prove.

Wish there was a category...

[ScaryMonkey]

I'd love to mod this +1. Horrifying

Copyright and artistic reinterpretation.

[zerofoo]

I'm no copyright attorney, but I thought copyright laws had exemptions for artistic reinterpretation and satirical works. Isn't a remix tape an artistic reinterpretation of the original work?

-ted

Yet people still support these jerks.

[Lunarsight]

Look at it this way. Every time you buy an album from an RIAA-affiliated record label, you help support this sort of hypocrisy. The answer is painful, but I think it's about time we kicked the RIAA-affiliated labels to the curb. If they have absolutely no respect for us, why should we give them our hard-earned money?

Destroying his CDs (the evidence)

[Emetophobe]

Quoted from wikipedia

DJ Drama and DJ Cannon we're recently arrested on January 17 for selling illegal CDs on the internet. His recording studio has been raided for investigation. All the CD waiting to be sold will be destroyed while the other CD and mixtapes are being confiscated for investigation. His official website has been shut down until further investigation.

Not only did the RIAA use cops (supposedely a SWAT team), to break into this guys studio, they are also destroying the evidence?

Unbelievable...

Re:Common Denominator

[aevan]

Might I suggest you read up on the activities of the Irgun prior to 48?

Neither side is blameless and that history of bloodshed by both sides keeps the deadlock.

Re:hmm

[adrianmonk]

A lot of venues (atleast smaller ones like bars) pay what is basically "music insurance". They pay a blanket fee to cover all the royalties that would be owed by any band they have in.

Here's the really ironic thing. So do churches!

It's called the CCLI, and I'll bet you noticed that the domain there ends in .com rather than .org. It gives new, or at least additional, meaning to the concept of fleecing the flock. Not so much the CCLI itself, necessarily, but just the huge amount of non-free worship music. As the CCLI's web site says, they are "serving the church by providing legal, affordable solutions to the copyright issues surrounding congregational worship services".

I guess my main question here is, if you are someone who writes worship songs, don't you want people to worship God more? Wouldn't it even be fair to say that you want people to worship God as much as possible? If so, then why would you require them to pay money to use your song to worship God?

Once again, I think the answer lies with the record labels. The church has bought into the idea of for-profit Christian music so thoroughly and pervasively these days that basically all, or at least a lot of the music they choose comes from for-profit organizations, and that makes it a significant administrative burden to pay off all the copyright holders (like Word Records -- oh look, another .com domain) every week, hence the popularity of things like CCLI. If you want to use songs that the congregation recognizes, you are almost forced into using copyrighted songs. The bottom line (pun intended) is that churches don't pay tax to the government, but they do pay a "tax" to the record labels.

Of course, with churches, it's sold differently. It's sold as music that is "safe for the whole family". Notice that it's not "music that brings you closer to God" or anything like that. We're not talking about music that challenges you to grow spiritually here; we're talking about music that is safe, like a Volvo.

Also, notice that as dumb as it sounds, I'm not making up that "safe for the whole family" thing. I actually left out the "®". It should be written as "Safe for the Whole Family®", and it's the slogan of KLTY, also known as the "#1 Christian Radio Station in America". Because nothing brings glory to God like having higher revenues than everyone else, right? (No, I don't actually know that the #1 claim is based on revenues, but I do know that Salem Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: SALM) owns both that radio station, and also this marketing division. So that's at least part of the goal.)

Re:Common Denominator

[Divebus]

Irgun: They were a small group frustrated with Arabs attacking the Jewish settlers, so they fought back. That's the only thing the Arab attackers understood and it worked. The Irgun were reactionary and didn't exist until 1930 or so. They even fought the British for a while. Yeah, they were a catalyst for conflict but that was happening to them already. They weren't anything like Hezbolah today but they have the same roots.

There is a way around it all

[Dabido]

Technically any 'recording' is the copyright of the record company who paid for it. But, any Rap artist who wants to be included on a mixtape could either allow a recording of one of their concerts live, [by letting DJ Drama plug into the recording desk], or do a re-recording of their own tunes. This gets around the problem of the copyright on the recordings owned by record companies.

The only issue then might be if the rap artist signed a recoding contract which makes them only able to work for that one company exclusively. [Which is what stopped George Michael from recording for a while, as Sony had a contract with him and he was refusing to record with Sony, thus making it impossible for him to record with anyone]. However, if the rap artists only sign up for a One Record deal, OR puts a clause into the recording deal that allows them to release their own stuff on mix tapes, then that stops them breaching contract. [After all, if they've finished recording their One record deal, they can then do a quick re-recording and stick it onto the mixtape].

The only issues here are really those two - 1. the copyright on the recording (which any re-recording gets around) and 2. the contract the artist is under (which the artist can negotiate a 'mixtape' clause into).

But, I think the clever thing for the record companies to do (seems as mixtapes are such a good marketing tool), is to put DJ Drama on contract and get him to make mixtapes of their artists, thus providing publicity and boosting sales. Of course, I'd then recommend to DJ Drama that he has a 'non-exclusive' deal with the companies, else he'd end up being ONLY able to use one companies artists, so he could possibly work out a deal where he only has to do a certain percentage of artists.

How DJ Drama got his hands on 'unreleased' remixes is ... probably a security issue for the record companies. BUT, the article does say that the record companies have been known to BANK ROLL the mixtapes. Wouldn't it be funny if some of the ceased CD's fit into this category. Those CD's wouldn't be breach of copyright.

Cool...

[flyingfsck]

any action that reduces the amount of Rap music in the world must be good...

I am downloading DJ Drama now

[rhinokitty]

....I am downloading DJ Drama now

Re:Common Denominator

[c_forq]

At the time of the founding of Israel, while most of the people in the land were Palestinian, most of the owners of the land were Turkish, Egyptian, and of other Arab nations. Most of the people living in that land were regarded as cheap labour, and very few who lived in the region actually owned land. When first wave of Jewish settlers stated pouring in from Russia they bought land from mainly Turkish landowners. While Arabs may have owned the land they weren't the same Arabs that were living there (and if you think all Arabs are the same than you REALLY need to take a better look at the middle east).

Pedant time

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Forgive me for being pedantic, but "My Sweet Lord" wasn't recorded by the Beatles--just a Beatle, George Harrison. It's on his solo album All Things Must Pass.

Re:Not confusing

[TommyMc]

Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.

I knew this day would come.

Recording != Song

[monktus]

Remember that RIAA labels are in the business of selling licences to listen to recordings. They have nothing to do with the songs themselves which are either owned by the songwriter, or more commonly a music publisher. In some cases, the publisher will also be owned by the same group as the label but most writers have publishing deals with companies who aren't also their label (for example Jay-Z is with EMI Publishing IIRC).

Royalties for the songs themselves from recordings (mechanicals) are collected by an agency (MCPS in the UK, Harry Fox in the US), as are royalties from public performance (TV, radio, live gigs) which are collected by ASCAP and BMI in the US. This money usually gets passed on to the publisher who takes a cut and gives the rest to the writer. Bear in mind that the writer might not be the artist.

RIAA labels are of course entitled to take action against people or organisations distribute recordings they own without permission, but this has been getting out of hand for quite some time. The US (and to a lesser extent the UK, hopefully it won't be the UK for much longer) is creeping towards being a totalitarian state, nobody should be sending SWAT teams in to arrest DJs.

The RIAA is not anti-pirate....

[unsupported]

The RIAA is not anti-pirate, they are pro-copyright! According to the article, Brad A. Buckles, executive vice president for anti-piracy at the Recording Industry Association of America, said, "A sound recording is either copyrighted or it's not. So, if I understand correctly, DJ Drama's work may not have been violating someone elses copyright, it was that his original work was not copyrighted and therefore illegal? So, he must be stopped, at all costs! Think about the kids... think about 'em..

Reminds me of a joke

[Joebert]

What's the difference between a Cocaine Trafficer & the RIAA ?

About $2 billion a year.

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.

Re:hmm

[SonicSpike]

It's not insurance, it's a royalty payment plain and simple. Some people consider it extortion.
In the US these payments are made to all or either one of 3 orgs: BMI, SESAC, and/or ASCAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_or ganisation

Publishers vs Record Companies

[SonicSpike]

I think you are confusing a bit between the publishers and the record companies.

When you write a song, you own the copyright to that song. If someone (besides you) wants to record that song, you can say no unless it has been previously recorded. However once it is recorded and distributed the first time, you can't say no to someone else recording (covering) that song.

Generally when a songwriter writes a song, they shop it around to publishers. Then publishers will take that song and shop it around to producers and/or A&R types of record companies in hopes of getting that song recorded.

In order to record a song that has already been recorded, one must pay (in the US anyway) a compulsory license fee of $.07 per copy of that song.

After a song is recorded the record company will then distribute that song (CD/album/whatever) and will only own the copyright to the sound recording. There are two types of copyright here on this issue. The copyright of the song composition, and the copyright of the audio recording.

I am not a copyright attorney, but I have a degree in the recording industry and I took two copyright law course in college. Also, you might consider getting an entertainment attorney that specializes in copyright law to help get your work. These guys are a dime a dozen here in Nashville and often times all it takes is a letter on a law firm's letterhead.