RIAA Arrests Pro Artist for Making Mixtapes 426
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."
why so onerous, technology, redux (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org] the irritation factor alone may be enough to push consumers away.
I'm always reminded of a favorite Peanuts cartoon [darkknight.ca] (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 n
Re:why so onerous, technology, redux (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this is a good analogy, because the artists have willingly signed a c
loosely structured boycott (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why so onerous, technology, redux (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 underdo
Re:why so onerous, technology, redux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:why so onerous, technology, redux (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
"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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
"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 co
Re:why so onerous, technology, redux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Confusing (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is no complaint from the copyright owner, why was he arrested?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Confusing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that this isn't known; both sides cloud the debate so horribly, people can't tell what's going on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope the rap labels boycott the RIAA.
Re:Confusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confusing (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that it would be strange for them to get an actual cut, but that's just me.
Re:Another example (Score:4, Informative)
They used a SWAT team (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They used a SWAT team (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonderful. How long before an 80-year old granny is arrested at gunpoint for letting her grandson use the computer to download music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its the result of too much misplaced money. Every little podunk town is getting federal funding for swat nowadays, so the big ones get proportionally more money. When you've got all those resources sitting around idle people start to question if the money was well spent in the first place. Thus pressure to justify their existence i
Confusing Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there IS no distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Got Things Right (Score:4, Funny)
What Confusion? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Come on, people, know what you're talking about.
Re:All part of a strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
* Dumb artists signing with big record labels, dumb artists signing away all their rights, record labels bankrolling
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm...no. It is right for this guy to commit copyright infringement. In fact, in this digital age, pretty much any copyright infringement is ethically right! But in this particular case, it was right for a whole lot of other reasons as well.
I'm quite certain he was aware that he was operating in a legally murky area. Then again, even if the area was legally murky,
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, actually you do, accordingly the guys who set all this up. When the laws have become corrupt, it is the people's right to alter or to abolish them.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil issue.
I initially had misgivings when I saw RICO being invoked, but this is far more than your average teenager downloading a few songs. He was continually committing copyright infringement on a massive scale (80k discs!) to make a profit. It's the combination of massive scale and intent to profit that push it beyond a simple civil matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree with you. From what I understand, this guy makes mix tapes which is the norm for the hip hop s
Re: (Score:2)
Okay bad example as many artists would. But it is still fair use. I hope not only does this guy get free, but that he counter sues the RIAA for a couple hundred million and t
Re: (Score:2)
RICO Charges? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like the RIAA isn't even sure what to charge people with anymore...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RICO Charges? (Score:4, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Its simpler than all this seems... (Score:5, Informative)
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] [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] [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 (Score:2, Interesting)
RICO and not infringement, this is really serious. (Score:5, Informative)
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?
From wikipedia.org:
Promotional Use (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Promotional Use (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The law was there before this happened (Score:2)
Further proof... (Score:2)
Those who download a couple songs off a peer to peer network are more likely to do one or all of the following:
a) Purchase more music from the artist
b) Attend a performance featuring said artists
c) Recomend said artist to a friend
The more exposure an artist receives, the more money an artist will make. In fact artists make more money off of live performances than they do off of record sales. Personally, I
remember what happened to danger mouse? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Good Business Move... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotta love how the music industry has become just that, an industry.
Legal reform for gray areas? (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
81,000 Mix-cds (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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#Samplin
This had to be done (Score:4, Funny)
This is totally wack (Score:5, Informative)
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.
iTunes - traffic stolen property? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Confusing? Why not at all! (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
NOBODY read the NYT article (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
MAFIAA (Score:2)
Well, it goes to show that they don't care about talent; they care about control of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. It shows they're going after someone who broke the law by infringing their copyright. There is nothing either ethical or legal about mixtapes, so it seems pretty reasonable to me. Of course, I'm not denying that the industry don't give a shit about talent, and are hell bent on keeping control of the market. That's all true. But that's incidental, and it's not the obvious conclusion to draw from th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit! Mixtapes are derivative works, but they're also new creative expressions in their own right. Not only is it ethical to make mixtapes, being able to do so (i.e, being able to build on previous works) is the entire fucking point of copyright!
Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd rather you dropped the Misogyny... (Score:2)
In fact, there's a lot more misandry going about than there's misogyny going about these days.
All one has to do is open their eyes and look about at what's being done.
And, it doesn't make it any more okay because it's "part of the culture".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
Re:Not confusing (Score:4, Interesting)
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_.
Re:And I have bad news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And I have bad news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:The RIAA are HEROES!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Did you grow up under some power lines?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)