The Grey Area of "The Grey Album"

Copyright laws are in existence so that someone can’t take someone else’s work and pretend that it is their own, and get money or recognition from it. This is not what Danger Mouse did. When remixing songs I think it becomes copyright infringement when some one can listen to that song and not feel like they need to get the original song because so much of it is in the remix. I feel like that could be the case with Jay-Z and The Grey Album, but Jay-Z encouraged this. No one is going to listen to the The Grey Album and think “Oh sweet, now I don’t have to go get the The White Album because this sounds so much like it.” What I do think is copyright infringement is Coldplay ripping off Joe Satriani with their song Viva la Vida.

The music industry is trying to stifle technologies for several reasons, the main one of course being economic. With the technology that is out there a kid in his bedroom can do what many people in the music industry do for a living, at which point the kid releases his into the world for free, and several people are out of a job. Personally, I love remixes and I don’t think it takes away from the original. To put it in other terms: If someone found out that if you overlapped a Picasso painting and a Michelangelo painting it made something awesome, you would still give credit for the two originals, but you would also give credit to the person who combined them.

"The Grey Album" is not so Black and White.

On first thought about copyright laws, it seems difficult to blame the music industry entirely for raising trouble about the legality of certain sample/mash-up projects. After all, the industry is concerned about their well-being, and this is very much dependent upon the profit they receive from the "traditional" manner of distributing music: selling it to consumers who pay to receive it. If obtaining music were still as simple as buying and selling cd's, there would not be much of a problem. The music industry would simply sell what it owns, turn over a cut of the intake to the recording artist, and retain a profit for themselves. The economic drive behind copyright laws is certainly present; by preserving the media content for their use and distribution, the music industry is ensuring its continued success and profit as sole provider of this content to the public.

Similarly, the music industry has a logical argument; they have cultivated a relationship with an artist who, in turn, trusts them with the distribution of their media and receives a nice cut of all the profits. It seems to be a win-win situation for the artist and the industry producers. Copyright laws seem to protect this system; if something belongs to one, another must ask permission before they take it or use it. Any college student with a roommate, or even a kindergartner with a marker, understands the basic premise of sharing. When working with a more complicated content like music, where the nature of the "ownership" can easily be taken away by copying, copyright laws make sense to hold off prohibited copying or sharing.

The side of producers might be the clearest point in the entire debate about sampling and mash-ups. Unfortunately, the music industry as a whole is not so simple. Like Danger Mouse proved in the debacle over "The Grey Album," life isn't always so black and white (the pun is definitely intended). This controversy about "The Grey Album" is certainly a strong example of the tension between record producers, or those who own the rights to the music, and artists who want to make a new creation with pre-existing materials. As it comes down to it, I believe that DJ Danger Mouse technically violated copyright codes, but he also actively complied with EMI's cease and desist orders.

Picture HERE

The real issue in this situation came from the public who already had access to media content that they loved, and could spread it around the world without ceasing. To them, the album wasn't just the center of a particular lawsuit, but was representative of the freedom to creatively act in the music industry and continue to enjoy the gift of music left by The Beatles.

In the video spotlighting the issue of copyrighting as related to "Girl Talk," DJ Spooky made a powerful point about the use of media as creating the culture we live in. In a paraphrase, DJ Spooky noted that society "will use the media around us," as we live in a "media cloud." Whether we like it or not, we are exposed to this content and it will come into play in the way we live our lives and express ourselves. According to Spooky, "we create a culture from media, and so their has to be an exchange," between producers and consumers. There must be a place for this kind of artistic, cultural creation to come to fruition. If artists are truly creating music for the purpose of fulfilling a passion and contributing to the cultural scene we create, the use of that content shouldn't be limited to solely making a profit for a producer.

There is clearly no excuse for maliciously stealing another's work and using it to further one's own name or wealth. Also, the rights of producers need to be considered and not stomped upon. However, in the case of "The Grey Album" and so many others in the genre of samples/mash-ups, intentions are not to be malicious, but to further the original contribution of the artist in a way that adds to the culture of our time. It is time for a reconsideration of the intentions and legitimacy of copyright laws, so the media industry can arrive at a place where the rights of all artists and producers are heard.

Danger Mouse, Mashups and Copyright Laws

This reading focuses on the issue of Copyright laws and how artists such as Danger Mouse, and Girltalk are using older music in their "mash ups". The music industry as a whole is restraining technology because it continues to create different forums for people to access the music legally and illegally. These new forums can cause big problems in terms of copyright laws, where artists may use music that they do not own and then pass it off as parts of their work. Economically, researching and discovering these new forums can be very expensive limiting the abilities of music companies to research and create new technology. Another reason for the music industry to restrain technology is the new technology is taking control from the labels such as EMI and giving it to the fans, by giving them the ability to access the music in many different ways.

Even though the DJ's themselves may not be charging people for their new music there are individuals who are profiting from the "mashups". This whole dilemma brings into question whether or not these artists are in fact breaking copyright laws or if their work is simply art. In my opinion, there is a very fine line which must be walked here. Artists such as Girltalk and Danger Mouse, need to be careful with their work because it depends completely on other artists work. I feel that works such as the grey album need to pay some royalties to the label companies from EMI because they are using parts of their work these labels own. These royalties should not be too great though, I believe the labels benefit from the use of their songs whether or not they are paid for directly through royalties or not. This is because anytime a song is heard in one form or another it may help draw more fans in leading to more record sales for the original work. So there needs to be a balance in the royalties which are paid because record labels can benefit from the use of their music regardless of the royalties.

Artistic Expression Versus Copyright Laws: The Debate Surrounding DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album

As the mash-up has become one of the most popular forms of music in the past few years, thanks to artists such as Girl Talk, Super Smash Bros., Norwegian Recycling, etc., the issues surrounding the legality of this type of musical expression have gained attention throughout the years. We can see this in the example of DJ Danger Mouse’s mash-up creation of Jay-Z’s Black Album and The Beatles’ White Album. The issue that is debated in this article centers upon the opposition that exists between musical corporations, such as EMI, and the musical artists who utilize sampling as a creative means of production.

As we learned from Havens and Lotz, it is not uncustomary for the “big-wigs” of corporate America to restrain technological developments in order to maintain power, both economic and social. This was done with radio when FM technologies began to achieve new heights (Havens & Lotz). In my eyes, the primary reason for this opposition to such developments comes from an economic perspective: why spend money in an industry that is continually evolving? Would this not result in excess spending for years to come, if not forever? Socially, however, it seems that these corporations are simply stifling such forms of artistic expression, such as The Grey Album, in order to maintain their power. We can see this especially in the note that Capitol Records sent to many of the individuals who participated in Grey Tuesday, in which they “’demand[ed’” (151) that these participants contact the corporations immediately.

Should these corporations not be more concerned with the ways in which sampling could benefit them economically if they are so concerned with maintaining such a position of power? As was noted by the executive director of Creative Commons, Glenn Otis Brown: “’Why not just sign the guy…and have everybody make a bunch off of it?”’ (154). The Grey Album was not being used for commercial purposes to begin with, so in that sense, this production should have been untouchable to EMI. How is one to consider projects such as these as “copyright infringement” if the works are not meant to make a profit off of? It seems that, as noted in this article, the corporations are simply taking such drastic action in order to censor and stifle artistic expression in order to assure themselves that the power they have is not being taken by everyday DJ’s and musical artists, or even simple members of the general public.