Slashdot Log In
Backlash as EMI Hunts Down the Grey Album
Posted by
michael
on Sat Feb 14, 2004 06:51 PM
from the to-promote-the-progress-of-science-and-the-arts dept.
from the to-promote-the-progress-of-science-and-the-arts dept.
An anonymous reader writes "DJ Danger Mouse's The Grey Album, a remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles White Album has become a online music sensation, even getting reviewed in Rolling Stone though only 3,000 CDs were ever made. Now EMI, which controls the Beatles copyright, is trying to shut the album down. They've sent cease and desist letters to Danger Mouse, a handful of record stores, and websites that have hosted the songs. Wired News is reporting on the backlash that has ensued, led by anti-music industry group Downhill Battle, who insists that the major record labels are stifling creativity."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Danger Mouse Releases Blank CD-R To Spite EMI 296 comments
An anonymous reader writes "DJ Danger Mouse famously fought with EMI over his Beatles/Jay-Z mashup, 'The Grey Album,' and now seems to be battling with the label again. Rather than release his latest album and face legal issues with EMI, Techdirt is reporting that Danger Mouse will be selling a blank CD-R along with lots of artwork, and buyers will be responsible for finding the music themselves (yes, it's findable on the internet) and burning the CD."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
From the reviews (and prices on eBay) the albums been getting they could certainly make a good profit.
Seems these days the first response is always intimidation rather than considering other possibilities.
Re:How stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Any further sales or downloads are not Danger Mouse's problem... that's somebody else doing that. EMI's going to have to go after a few hundred people to grab that money.
Clearly, the path that leads to the most money for EMI would be a deal that leads to the legal release of the record. But, guess what, that's going to take Danger Mouse's approval in order to do that. If Danger Mouse is not willing to license his share of the project at any price, then this is dead on arrival. (And who's to say DM didn't reach out to EMI before and they refused to contribute their part at any price?) This could set up the ultimate irony... big money in front of a major record company that is just out of its reach.
If anything, Danger Mouse is getting his name out, and it'll likely lead to future work for him...
Parent
Statutory damages (Score:5, Informative)
They're not going to be able to get much money as damages in court from [leftovers after a 3000-copy pressing].
They can get 150 grand [cornell.edu].
And who's to say DM didn't reach out to EMI before and they refused to contribute their part at any price?
Every public corporation has a price, usually about one-third of its market capitalization. It would be possible to buy a controlling interest in EMI, but such a hostile takeover would be cost prohibitive.
Parent
Re:Statutory damages (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How stupid (Score:5, Funny)
James
Parent
Way to original thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for the record, I don't think anyone at EMI is really that smart.
Just finishing up downloading the first couple of tracks, and it's actually pretty good. I'm thinking that I'll burn a couple of copies for some folks in my office who share a similar taste in music. I don't like screwing artists so I don't usually do that sort of thing, but in this case I figure I'm just screwing some rich asshole music executive. That actually makes me feel all sort of warm and fuzzy inside...
Parent
Re:How stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
From the reviews (and prices on eBay) the albums been getting they could certainly make a good profit.
In the same spirit, Danger Mouse could have approached EMI after he created the remix but before he released it to the general public.
Granted, I think this is yet another example of the knee-jerk reaction created by our "modern" litigous society. But given that there are copyrights (I, like many, believe that copyright on 'artistic work' is counterproductive), it's not necessarily fair for Danger Mouse to negotiate with EMI after he released his music to the public.
Let me make the point obvious: suppose some unscrupulous advertiser decided he wanted the Beatles 'Let it Be' used for his commercial. He releases the commercial before getting permission and gets rave reviews/consumer reaction. Even though the band/EMI may not have wanted the song used to promote that particular product (say a political ad), they are in a bind: they can no longer prevent the action, only haggle over the appropriate 'payment.'
That said, EMI should go after the people who explicitly profit-ed from the "sale" of the remix. If all Danger Mouse did was release the music to the public (presumably for free), then he should be afforded the same protection as garage "cover" bands performing at the local bar (for free) and student artists practicing by recreating past masterpieces.
[ Yes, I know, Beatles songs get used for commercials all the time even though the living Beatles members hate the practice
Parent
Re:How stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
A run of 3000 is not much of a public release, but it's about average for that class of underground record. You have to remember that this is basically a guy in his bedroom with a sampler, not someone whose record your going to find at the mall.
If he went to EMI, they might say something like "We want $100k and 15%.", he'd be fucked, because it'd only cost him $3000 to get CDs pressed. Where he might be expecting to pay rent for a few months, or get a new bit of gear from the profits, it's not even worth EMI's time to talk to him if he can't come up with some big money.
Parent
Kinda mediocre (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kinda mediocre (Score:5, Informative)
What is interesting however is the reaction to it. I've been anticipating this for a while now; ever since "2 Many DJs" became popular, bootleg remixes have pretty much entered mainstream music. Here in the UK there are radio stations who promote it, and MTV even has a show now called MTV Mash. Note that the latter has to limit itself to licensed tracks, kinda ignoring the "dirty, unauthorised" appeal of some mashes.
When 2 Many DJs released their album "As Heard on Radio Soulwax Part 2", they had to cut out half of the tracks due to license restrictions. Since then, parts 1-8 of the series have appeared on-line, without restriction. The style is really an extension to hip-hop turntablism, but created entirely digitally. Tools like Acid allow you to pull loops from songs, reorder them, remix them and resequence them into something entirely different. Mainstream music has been doing this for years, a listen to the "Sampled" album collection shows some interesting sampling loops done years ago in well-known tracks you'd never think were based around a few samples. You could actually do this years ago on machines like the Atari ST, but the software now is incredible.
Tech is also entering the turntable world. "Final Scratch" puts PCM encoded vinyl onto standard decks, allowing a Linux PC to play mp3 as if it were on the disk. Entire electronic systems are available with scratch pads. However, you will never get the respect of a real DJ, they don't go for blinking lights!!
There are loads of websites with new mixes appearing daily from all over the world. Some of them are incredible, others are accapallela rap lyrics over something else. Like this album. Yawn, might have been interesting about three years ago...bootleggers, mixing rap over another song isn't big or clever. Mix two songs with similar chord-sequences and clever name/band connections, then I'll be impressed. :-)
If this sort of thing appeals to you, check out the following names: Freelance Hellraiser, 2ManyDJs, Eclectic Method, Osymyso, etc. See you on p2p!!
Parent
Re:Kinda mediocre (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one who was trying to figure out who this band Acid was and why them allowing you to take sample from their songs made them tools?
Parent
Re:Kinda mediocre (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's obviously an art to matching samples to the vocal track, and a good mash-up can be a remarkable thing.
But given all the hype, when I gave it a listen I just didn't think it was all that great.
As always, when it comes to art, mileage may vary...
Parent
Re:Kinda mediocre (Score:5, Informative)
It's not A + B.
BitTorrent rocks.
Parent
Re:Kinda mediocre (Score:5, Insightful)
Mixing's a lot harder than it sounds, and a good job is really good stuff to listen to. But I bet you're one of those people who dislikes any song already performed by anyone ever, regardless of who wrote it originally.
Parent
Re:I agree with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I'd say that 3000 pressed is a very big run, given that he knew that he was violating copyright when he mixed in the Beatles' tracks as he did.
He didn't just make a mix to play, he made something to sell.
I mean, isn't this well beyond your typical non-profit copyright infringent type issue?
Parent
Re:I agree with this (Score:5, Informative)
I'd sure like to know how that's copyright violation. That's like calling me to the carpet for drawing an Akira poster and giving it to my little brother."
Well, from Danger Mouse's own site [djdangermouse.com]:
"This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004."
How non-commercial does that sound to you? ;)
Parent
Re:I agree with this (Score:5, Informative)
The Grey Album is an art project/experiment that uses the full vocal content of Jay-Z's Black Album recorded over new beats and production made using the Beatles White Album as the sole source material. Danger Mouse insists he can explain and prove that all the music on the Grey Album can be traced back to the White Album and its musical content via sampling. Every kick, snare, and chord is taken from the Beatles White Album and is in their original recording somwhere.
This Incredible re-interpretation will be one to look out for and will be made available worldwide around Feb/March of 2004. The resulting record is a unique hybrid of work from one of hip-hop's fastest rising production stars via two of the most important musical and cultural forces ever.
In an incredible year, Danger Mouse has already received critical acclaim from his status as the Producer and DJ of the DM & Jemini duo. His work on their 'Ghetto Pop Life' debut showcased his enormous potential and 2004 will see Danger Mouse involved in several further projects.
Both the Beatles own remix project ('Let It Be... Naked') and Jay-Z's retirement Black Album are in stores now. At the time of writing, neither Jay-Z nor The Beatles were available for comment.
---
3000 copies, eh?
Parent
A natural correction to excess (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot itself is full of these extreme types of worry. People get all het up over copyright holders locking down 1+1=2 (or Intel's version, 1+1=1.999998; perhaps Intel was merely ahead of its time, eh?), and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent. It always seemed a silly take to me. But this has all been worry for nothing. The more any system gets out of whack, the more natural corrections pop up. The farther out of whack, the more intense the corrections.
I like the looks of this, we have more and more natural corrections all the time, little ones and bigger ones. GPL is a natural correction, quite ingenious, the ultimate hack to make a system subvert itself. Remixes like this are great, they put the big labels on notice that they can't control everything. Kazaa is helping.
Let the big boys waste their time and money on copyrights and patents. When they control too much, everyone else will ignore them, just as they do with Kazaa, just as they do with this album. These big boys will go the way of all dinosaurs.
Re:A natural correction to excess (Score:5, Interesting)
and the world of creativity coming to an end, where it is not possible to write a program without every line infringing somebody's copyright or patent
For an interesting perspective on this phenomenon, please read "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson [baen.com]. And yes, it has actually begun, in fact involving a late Beatle [columbia.edu].
Parent
Danger Mouse? (Score:5, Funny)
Wherever there is danger he'll be there,
He's the ace, He's amazing,
He's the strongest, He's the quickest,
He's the best, Danger Mouse,
He's terrific, He's magnific,
He's the bravest secret agent in the world.
Danger Mouse, Danger Mouse,
Danger mouse.
I think that's all of it. Or maybe not. Crumbs, DM!
----- ----- -----
Linux 2000 (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be stifling on my creativity, man.
Take these words of wisdom... (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, EMI is stifling creativity, but it's their right to under the present laws. It's a great case to highlight what could be if the copyright laws were different. But since they're not, it's illegal and this is gonna get shut down. If it ever is mass released, EMI will be getting more profits than the original author. Sorry, Danger Mouse, Penfold can't get you out of this one...
Re:Take these words of wisdom... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seemed a fair compromise, even with the rights of the public, since the maximum span of 28 years isn't really that long.
Anything more than 30 really isn't reasonable. Write another decent song/book/movie if you want more money.
The rest of us actually have to work every day too, it won't kill you.
KFG
Parent
Re:Take these words of wisdom... (Score:5, Insightful)
See how that could work? Public domain, and yet they'd still be making money from it by leverage the work.
But I'll tell you what I can't live without. Public domain Robert Johnson, Mississippi John Hurt, Jelly Roll Morton, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Huddie Ledbetter, Woody Guthrie.
All long dead. They don't need any money. But corporations are still making money from them, and the corporations would keep renewing, and renewing and renewing.
And suing, and suing, and suing.
Disney can have Mickey, but music is something eveyone gets directly involved with, even if it's only whistling your favorite tune, and music is a group cooperative art. Every generation builds its own musical identity on the foundation of the previous generations.
Only under current law music is protected unto the seventh generation. People in high school today will be dead of old age before the music of Nirvana would become their public property.
And that's death to musical arts.
No. Copyright needs to expire automatically, and it needs to do so within a reasonable fraction of a single human's life.
KFG
Parent
Highlights broken copyright system (Score:5, Interesting)
If the copyright system worked as it was designed to, this wouldn't even be an issue. Does anybody seriously claim that the Beatles wouldn't have made the White Album if they thought that it wouldn't be profitable almost 40 years later?
If the copyright system worked as it should do, this album would have entered the public domain at least a decade ago, opening it up to this kind of reinterpretation without fear of lawsuits or special permission from anybody. The Beatles have been rewarded for their contribution to the public domain substantially, and so has the record company that signed them. They don't deserve to have a stranglehold on it any more.
Re:Highlights broken copyright system (Score:5, Informative)
Given the notoriously bad business decisions that they made back in the 60s, I would guess that they didn't really care that much if it was going to be profitiable the week after it was released.
Parent
Re:Highlights broken copyright system (Score:5, Informative)
The Beatles (Specifically John and Paul) made a hugely bad decision when, in 1970, upon the breakup of the band, they sold the rights to the entire Northern Songs Catalog for less than 2 million pounds.
Paul spent years trying to buy it back, only to have Michael Jackson swipe up the entire catalog in one swoop.
Parent
Anti-Music? (Score:5, Funny)
"anti-music industry group"? Is that
1. A group in an industry that makes anti-music?
2. An industry group that is against music?
3. A group that is against the music industry?
I guess you meant #3, but I prefer meaning #1. What does anti-music sound like? If music and anti-music meet, will they annhilate each other?
Eponymous Mallard
Re:Anti-Music? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Princeton senior thesis on sampling & copyrigh (Score:5, Insightful)
It starts off with an interesting history of the development of folk music in this country and how new words were put on standard melodies or lyrics were appropriated into new songs. Continues on to give an overview of the history of sampling. Best quote I've seen thus far: "the current system of copyright misrepresents the creation of music, considering it a purely original act rather then an event in a cultural tradition".
The thesis goes on to propose that fair use laws should be revised and a compulsatory licensing system put in place for sampling similar in structure to current "cover" style licensing to help avoid just the kinds of lawsuits while constructing a creative artistic environment. The application of copyright law in the US is so twisted these days that perhaps a system like this is needed. We really as a country should start some serious rethinking about how old concepts should apply to the modern world.
ed
Go 99 Tigers!
Copyright protection and remixers. (Score:5, Interesting)
The twist comes from the definition of derivative works in the copyright law. I'll start with the definition:
17 USC 101
Ok. So far so good. The definition of derivative works appears to give DJ Danger Mouse copyright protection over the use of his remix. In other words, if EMI wanted to release the album, they would have to negotiate with DJ Danger Mouse.
However, take a look at section 103(a):
17 USC 103 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. [cornell.edu]
The notes on the Cornell site explain:
[cornell.edu]
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of the preexisting work was not ''unlawful,'' even though the consent of the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the unauthorized reproduction of a work might be ''lawful'' under the doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work incorporating it could be copyrighted
Since, by his own admission, every single second of the Grey Album is sampled from one of the two source albums, DJ Danger Mouse has absolutely no copyright claim to any of his own creation.
Of course, once DJ Danger Mouse is stripped of his copyright interest in his own creation, there is no legal barrier to EMI and Roc-A-Fella simply releasing the album, because they own the underlying copyrights to the source albums.
Whether or not they do this, it is interesting that copyright law has the effect of excluding remixers from any copyright protection whatsoever over their own work. It appears that by taking legal action to shut the album down, EMI is not merely seeking to enforce their copyright as they claim. They are laying the groundwork to deny copyright protection to DJ Danger Mouse over his own creative work and steal his album. They are in effect muscling him out of his own copyrights over his own work.
Grey Album review (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept is clever. The execution seems mediocre though. There's not enough diversity in the loops per track. There are a few amusing spots, such as how Danger Mouse manages to make Jay-Z come off totally gay in "Change Clothes" with a sample from George Harrison's "Piggies".
If you're a Jay-Z fan and you like the beatles, you'll dig it. If you're a Beatles fan and you're not into Jay-Z or rap, save your bandwidth. If you're into creating or producing music, you can probably do better. Nonetheless, I think it's a worthwhile attempt.
Re:BitTorrent (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Did Wacko Jacko hock the Beatles? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, if we're going to encourage musicians to similarly release their works for stuff like this, then don't we also have to respect decisions by musicians who choose otherwise?
And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm one of those poor young fools who believe it should all be free, that there is no "choice". (It's a complicated issue and I've got no grudges against those who think otherwise.)
So no, me-and-my-friends-copying-the-record-wise, it does no difference.
But if someone actually goes and says "please, give copies to your friends" (or the same, more formally, by using a free license), then I know that that person is aware of the situation. (I also think that this is a person at least partly sharing my view on a topic, which is always cool.)
If someone, believing (unlike me) that Intellectual Property is valid, and spends money on a record intended as an investment depending on copyright enforcement, then it's a rude awakening to that artist to find out that her or his record is being copied essentially against her will. That's only a small, not really consequential argument against copying the record, but it certainly makes it less fun.
Some artists, like Bran Van 3000, informally but rather explicitly say "sure, give copies of the album to your friends, even though our record company might not legally allow it, but if you can afford it, also buy the CD or otherwise support us". Of course that makes me feel much better digging them as compared to a band that says/wishes something like "don't reproduce our lyrics, people should buy the CD". It doesn't change anything in practice, since the music is still being (in some cases illegally, post EUCD) reproduced, but it does change how we feel about the artists, and it changes how they feel about us.
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Interesting)
I downloaded some of said tracks and while its fairly tight, nothing I have heard (after 6 songs or so) really impressed me. I love remixes, but frankly, I think the originals are much better and I'm not necessarily a huge Jay-Z fan.
You want to hear unbelievable Jay-Z tracks? Listen to those where he plays with the Roots. They play behind him live and *they* are so tight, it makes tears come to your eyes. They make Jay-Z sound unreal and that's why he brings them on tour at times.
Frankly, this guy is doing nothing new. Diggable Planets were sampling their label's old music 12 years ago, legally.
I will give him props for spending what must have taken a long time to sample and arrainge these songs.
But at what point are you not really adding anything to the music? Much of the Beatles samples seem a little out of place. Yes, the Beatles were ahead of their time, but (comming from someone who listens to more hip hop and rap than anything else) so far all of DJ Danger Mouse's versions just aren't that good.
You want to hear examples of producers who REALLY accentuate an artist (in the hip hop genre), look for Dr. Dre, Timberland and Pharrell. They are absolutely nasty and have the ability to create music as well as sample.
I'm not sure how this guy has contributed more than his ear for music and his time to slice samples. This is nothing new. People have done this for 15 years now.
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
And do you really think that it's perfectly OK for a DJ to just take other musicians' work, and press and sell a commercial CD, and give them nothing in return?
Would it also be prefectly OK with you if the NRA just decided to use samples from "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?
"Besides, I dont' care for Jay-Z and I dislike the beatles (but I do like John Lennon's stuff) -- but the Gray Album sounds DAMN GOOD. Easily far better than the shitty Black Album rap crap."
And as for me, I think this Gray Album is a fun idea, but a pretty boring listen.
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Informative)
I have friends who are really into the hip hop scene, and they regularly get sent tracks of just the beats to songs from the artists themselves. Most of the time, the artist is hoping it'll get passed around and used and heard by multiple people for the publicity. Just because you can't buy it at Best Buy doesn't mean the artists don't release them.
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I decide I don't like the terms of the GPL, I can just take their software and violate their copyright?
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Informative)
The _whole_ point of copyright is to move works into the public domain. A copyright is not some all powerful ownership that you have. Copyright was setup as an agreement between "The People" and the copyright holder, and after a _limited_ time, that work would be part of the public domain. Big businesses have been trying to destroy that part of the agreement by making large bribes^H^H^H^H donations to congress critters and they have managed to get copyrights extended well beyond the _limited_ time that our Founding Fathers had in mind.
Parent
Jay-Z? What a relief! (Score:5, Funny)
"How," you ask? Well, imagine the lyrics of Big Bottom ("my baby fits me like a flesh tuxedo, I'd like to sink her with my pink torpedo" synch'ed to the tune of Rocky Raccoon. Scary stuff, I tell you!
Just the idea's enough to make me say: (Insert Dean_Scream_Remix.mp3 here)
Parent
Re:Jay-Z? What a relief! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Sounds like a corny idea in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What is "the Progress"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If DJ Danger Mouse wants to create his own music he's perfectly entitled too. However if he does not have the permission of EMI to use the Beatles music in this manner then that's not allowed to, and reasonably so.
And if EMI refuses to give DJ Danger Mouse such permission, then EMI has impeded "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by preventing a work from being created. What's the constitutional goal of U.S. copyright law again?
Parent
Then that means copyright is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
So the constitution grants the right to congress to pass laws to promote art and science by legally giving authors/creators rights to their work. To that end we got copyrights and patents. However, the system has been severly abused and suffers from a real case of not keeping up with the times. Record companies use it to maintain absolute control which is NOT what the constitution allows.
I mean look at copyright terms. They have been extened to a term of the entire lifetime of the autor, plus 50 years. That is completely in the face of the intent of the consitution.
The whole remix thing shows another huge flaw. IT has been law that you can do your own version of other songs (called covers) for low fixed royalties. It ensures that new bands can't be extorted and locked out of using popular songs. But this doesn't apply to remixes and the record companies won't let it happen. Notice how EMI never approached DJDM or talked about licensing, no, they just wanted it stopped.
This is NOT right. The framers recognised that information is not the same as physical property and therefore needs a different, more limited set of laws. The whole intent of copyright law was to encourge people to create and share and then, after awhile, for their work to become property of the public (14 years in teh beginning).
The constitution declares that the laws relating to copyright ought to be to promote the progress of the arts, which the Grey Album is, not to allow conglomerates to retaing exclusive control over their works forever.
Parent
Re:Didn't the brother of her that showed superboob (Score:5, Interesting)
If you sample the Beatles you owe EMI. If you record the Beatles you owe the brother of the boob. If you sing the Beatles you owe ASCAP.
Ain't the music industry grand?
KFG
Parent
Re:Oh you mean THIS album? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Why P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)
I join the other posters on this story in welcoming our EMI Overlords, who's actions both informed my ignorant self and piqued my curiosity enough to *cough* sample the album.
Maybe Amazon can add a "Publishers who banned this album also banned..." section so we can know what music is worth acquiring?
Parent