[atlantaprog] Re: Fwd: [ARTNEWS] I share, you rip off, they pirate

Allen Welty-Green wrote:

He mixed the vocals from Jay-Z's Black Album with music elements sampled from The Beatles' White Album and circulated a few thousand promotional copies before EMI, who own the copyright, notified him that the album was in breach of their copyright and it was withdrawn.

Danger Mouse wants his music to be heard and is being stopped by a large corporation and its lawyers: his only route to an audience is through the web.

Well, look at the 2 quotes. It's not really "his music" is it? It is his creative process for sure, but it is not his music er se, any more than Trent Reznors remixes of Megadeth songs now belong to Trent Reznor. Either way you look at it, it is still a "derivative work" at best. There are specific copyright laws governing "derivative work", and those probably should apply rather than "regular" copyright laws. I think in that case, it is rather like doing a cover song and putting it on a CD. You pay a fee per number of CDs manufactured, per song covered. Since he is not manufacturing CDs, the fee should apply to those sold. Since he is not selling it, but giving it away for free, any percent of 0 is 0. That is *probably* how it should work Possibly since only *1* real copy was made (the one on the website) he should pay royalties for 1 copy. Not sure...



The Grey Album is clearly a new work of art, inspired by its two sources in the same way as Cezanne influenced Picasso. Yet EMI believe they can stop it, and are using copyright law to do so.

Well, it is a new FORM of art at least... It is NOT " the same way as Cezanne influenced Picasso". To make THAT analogy you would have to refer to something like Willie Dixon inspiring Jimmy Page, or Albert King inspiring Stevie Ray Vaughn, etc. Or if they are referring to a more direct derivative work, possibly comparing Hendrix's Voodoo Child to Muddy Water's "Rolling Stone" would be more appropriate. But the Grey album does not really fall into any of these categories, though I do get what the author intended when he made this statement.


It is hard to see how EMI's suppression of the Grey Album helps anyone.

It helps the egos of the execs at EMI and helps EMI's lawyers put even MORE $$$ in their bank accounts! :-) If Jay-Z or any of the remaining Beatles or their estates don't like it, it helps them ease their conscience. But we cannot assume that they don't like it.

Anyone ever heard of the group/album (1 album, self titled) "Beautiful People"? It is an incredible album! The guitar player in that album went on to join the band Bush (it's the bald guy, Nigle Pilsford, or whatever his name is). The album is remixes of Hendrix smaples and loops. It's not techno though. When I was working at Relativity records my boss turned me on to the album. He said it was "dance remixes of hendrix songs" and told me I should listen to it. Being somewhat of a Hendrix snob, I thought "dear god, this is going to be absolutely horrible." Well I listened to it, and the album is absolutely BRILLIANT!

In fact, before the album ever came out, these guys had put together some demo songs in the same manner. Eric Clapton heard the demo song and liked it enough that he got the group in touch with Al Hendrix (Jimi's father) and the Hendrix Estate. The Hendrix family liked what they heard so much that they gave the group unprecedented access to much of the vaults of hendrix master tapes, unreleased stuff, etc. So the album is totally derivative (it also includes much playing by the group "Beautiiful People" to the loops as well), but the copyright owners LOVED it, and gave permission. The point is that just because it is derivative does not mean that the copyright holders do not approve. So, unless Jay-Z or the Beatles dissaprove, EMI is doing it purely for their own egos, etc.

Whatever their legal rights, EMI have no moral right to limit Danger Mouse's creativity in this way.

This is really an iffy statement at best. If Jay-Z and/or the Beatles don't like what is going on and talk to EMI about it, then EMI has every "moral right" to do it. All they did was threaten and send cease and desist letters. It's not like they just filed million dollar lawsuits w/o even trying to do a cease and desist!

What EMI *should have done* was contact Jay-Z and the Beatles and see what they think. And if everyone approved, maybe they should have signed a deal w/ DJ for EMI to officially release the album. THen everything would have been nice and legal, EMI would have gotten their piece of the pie, DJ Danger Mouse would have gotten his piece, and Jay-Z and the Beatles would have gotten their piece. Emi could profit off of this, but instead took the offensive,antagojnistic, short-sighted route. THAT is the problem! (of course this is all assuming that EMI did NOT hear from Jay-Z and/or the Beatles).

Alex F/Brain21




Other related posts: