RIAA Arrests Pro Artist for Making Mixtapes

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

Comments

why so onerous, technology, redux

[yagu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[questionlp]

yagu wrote:

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

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

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

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[jythie]

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

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

Re:why so onerous, technology, redux

[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

[nschubach]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[James McGuigan]

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

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

[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]

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.

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).

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.

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.

All part of a strategy

[dsanfte]

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

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

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

Re:All part of a strategy

[dsanfte]

Congrats, you missed the point.

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

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

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

[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.

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?

[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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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?

[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: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.

Legal reform for gray areas?

[uqbar]

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

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

Disingenuous article...

[PFI_Optix]

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

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

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!

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?

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

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: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: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.

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:hmm

[Kazoo the Clown]

Karaoke bars are in real big trouble here...

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.

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?

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: it's called civil disobedience

[xjmrufinix]

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

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

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

Re:And I have bad news....

[moxley]

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

Re: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.

10 Years from now...

[thorkyl]

RIAA
        Freeze, you are under arrest.

John Doe
        for what?

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

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

Confusing? Why not at all!

[lymond01]

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

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

Re: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!

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: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).

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.

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.