Originally posted by thecubsfan>And to me, that is just as bad if one were walk into the >7-11 with an empty wallet, yet walk out with a week of >groceries
This analogy is kin to saying "because DJ Danger Mouse put out the Gray Album, every dollar spent by consumers on that it a dollar that would've been spent on the Beatles/JayZ", and I can't imagine that being true
DangerMouse isn't taking the groceries* out of the corner store. He's buying groceries (he did pay for the original CDs, I presume), then taking them back to his mad lab to create wacky combinations of food items (banapple! a bologna and rocky road sandwich! a lite beer that doesn't suck! insert evil mad scientist laugh here), and then giving a copy of his wacky creations to whoever drops by.
I do not argue the coolness of banapples, but, if I still want a nice Washington Apple, I'm still going to the corner Beatles grocery.
If you don't mind, let me poke some holes into this analogy, since rikidozan so skillfully poked holes into mine.
OK, I can buy food items and create banapple, with bologna and rocky road ice cream? But if I can only create whatever I have enough materials for. So if I want to create 50 banapples, I have to purchase 50 bologna slices. If I want to create 100, I have to buy 100 banapples. So the bologna company will be compensated for each and every slice of bologna that is used. However, in the case of music, it is easily copied. Therefore this Danger Mouse guy only has to buy one album at the most, whether he decides to create one or one million new albums. If Danger Mouse bought one White Album for every album he produced, I'm sure DMI would have felt a lot better about this whole project.
I do think there is an issue of whether or not EMI should even bother with this. I wouldn't attempt to argue that they lost any sales. And there are probably more people that have heard about this project now than ever would if EMI would have let it slide. (This is similar to my position on ROM's and old games like they have at Home of the Underdogs, and even most downloaded music. Do I think the companies have a legal right to pursue the action they take? Yes. Do I think they often waste time and resources pursuing and/or hassling people that really don't impact their business a heck of a lot? Yes. Do I think they often earn more goodwill for the people they are hassling than they do for themselves in the public eyes? Yes.) I also understand that EMI themselves may not have the legal right to pursue this for various reasons.
But all that aside, I guess this just boils down to this: Can you own the rights to the music you produce? I tend to think you can. This is not to say that I believe that music is not influenced by other music. Of course it is. But I do think there is a distinction between original music influenced by older music and music that is taken note-for-note and just plugged into a remix.
I thing I'm curious about is how often does the artist own the rights to their own music, and how often does the music company own the rights?
Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Originally posted by bitchfactorI know it's EMI and not the Beatles who are firing up their cease and desist orders, but since so many seem to be sensitive to artists' rights, we can further place this issue in historical context by recalling that the Beatles were among the first pop acts to use musique concrete/tape loops, a precursor to sampling, in their recordings. It's one of the elements that cemented the Beatles' reputations as groundbreaking artists, and fairly universally beloved ones at that (more stuff here) I'm sure there are plenty more examples to be found elsewhere but the point is, the Beatles themselves have set an example, if not a standard, as to the aesthetic benefits of using other artists' works toward the formation of a new creative order.
But then, wasn't it George Harrison who lost the "He's So Fine/My Sweet Lord" case? Or did he just go too far in ripping off that song?
THE FOLLOWING TAKES PLACE BETWEEN 2 AM AND 3 AM ON THE DAY OF THE CALIFORNIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.
Bitchfactor, you make an *excellent* point WRT The Beatles' own interest in what we would now call sampling. This project is very much in the spirit of those works. And, yes, George Harrison was sued over "He's So Fine" (and John over "Come Together", for its resemblance to Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me"), but that's all the more reason that they should respect what Danger Mouse is doing here; certainly George didn't think he should have lost that suit. (Not that it's a big deal: a little-known footnote to the great "My Sweet Lord" case was that after manager Allen Klein attempted to screw George over, George ended up OWNING "He's So Fine" and making a nice profit on the experience.)
To echo what others have said, the bottom line here is that this doesn't cause the Beatles to lose ANYTHING. If anything, it could make them money by turning young listeners on to the glory of the White Album. But it's certainly not going to stop anyone from buying a Beatles record. At worst, it's a violation of their rights with little practical consequence; at best, it's a new work of art that happens to use something sampled from them as a building block.
The bigger issue here is that there should be limits on copyright protection. One of these limits should be that at some point, you get to use existing works as a jumping-off point for your own. No one would seriously argue, I would hope, that no one should be allowed to rework the stories from Shakespeare, that Ran or Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead are ripoffs. The difference, of course, is that Shakespeare is long since out of copyright. But Congress has moved in recent years to extend copyright retroactively, a move that amounts to a huge gift to copyright holders (not conincidentally, including some rather influential corporations such as Disney). Does this impinge on our rights to a vibrant public domain? And, in the meantime, can people not make some new usage of copyrighted work? Consider, for example, the book The Wind Done Gone, which tells the story of Gone With The Wind from the point of view of the slaves. Does this not constitute a fair use? If it does, might some forms of sampling do so as well?
Something to think about, anyway. In the meantime, there are plenty of other interesting things going on with mash-ups and other forms of sampling. My favorite mash-up site at the moment is www.gohomeproductions.co.uk , which has some neat Beatle-related items, including a great mash-up of "Paperback Writer" over "Daydream Believer", and a joining of two of my all-time favorites, The Beach Boys' "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" over Paul's "The Back Seat Of My Car". There's also a killer mix of "Without Me" by Eminem over "Silly Love Songs"; there's only an excerpt of it on the site but I've been promised the full thing by e-mail. I've also heard good things about their Blondie/Doors mix, "Rapture Riders", but I haven't gotten around to d/ling that yet.
Sorry, I have no contribution to make to the legalities of the Grey Album but i do have a question regarding the album. I've just had a chance to listen to it for the first time after downloading last week. Is it supposed to sound a little distorted or "flat" at least? Or did i just grab a bad torrent of it?
THE TOP SELLERS 1. Glee: The Music, Volume 4 (The W at Amazon) Glee Cast (Columbia) 2. The Beginning (Deluxe Edition) [Deluxe Edition] Black Eyed Peas (Interscope Records) 3. Number One Hits Tim McGraw (Curb Records) 4. Beyonce: I Am...