I really dislike the way our course book addresses the ethical issue of illegal downloading. It’s felt it was one sided. On the other hand, I can’t disagree that it captures the excuses typically given by people who illegally down load. The battle of the record industry versus the consumer on making illegal copies is not new. As pointed out by some of my class mates there is little difference from taping a song off the radio (which is what was done before technology advanced to downloading) and the same with borrowing CD’s from the library to rip into MP3’s. Now comes another turn on the ethical question of the use of music illegally.
A few days ago I was listening to NPR on the way to work and overheard an interview with writer Kelefa Sanneeh of The New York Times discussing the arrest of a popular mixtape producer named DJ Drama (Mixtapes are remixes that feature unreleased remixes, previews from forth coming CD’s, causal freestyle rhymes, and goofs, according to Sanneeh). These tapes, actually CD’s, are created and released without permission of the record companies. There release violates copy right laws and piracy laws. Hip Hop artist according to Sanneeh will frequently use the mixtapes to promote their music. In some cases the production of a mixtape is funded and distributed legally by the record companies.
What peeked my interest about this story was that DJ Drama’s mixes were still available on iTunes, Amazon.com and other online sources after his arrest. I could understand shutting down the source that produces the music, but why didn’t the record companies go after iTunes or Amazon.com? Instead they are choosing to target DJ’s and the local record stores that sell these CD’s. For Promotion Only CD’s, which these are labeled, have been sold for years and obviously the record companies are to understaffed to chase down every record store that sells these CD’s.
I am really beginning believe this is not about artist rights, legality or ethics. It’s about squeezing money out of the consumer and making them feel guilty for how they chose to access music based on a moral standard set but an industry that has little respect for artist in the first place.
Other questions that arose for me from reading this article:
Are DJ’s allowed to be artist? Why does their art have to be legal? Who benefits? Why can’t the money be worked out?
Interview on NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6939435
Article on NY Times (unfortunately no longer free…that’s another story) so I am attaching the full length article below published New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)).
Copyright New York Times Company Jan 18, 2007
In the world of hip-hop few music executives have more influence than DJ Drama. His ''Gangsta Grillz'' compilations have helped define this decade's Southern rap explosion. He has been instrumental in the careers of rappers like Young Jeezy and Lil Wayne. He appears on the cover of the March issue of the hip-hop magazine XXL, alongside his friend and business partner T.I., the top-selling rapper of 2006. And later this year DJ Drama is scheduled to make his Atlantic Records debut with ''Gangsta Grillz: The Album.''
Now DJ Drama is yet another symbol of the music industry's turmoil and confusion.
On Tuesday night he was arrested with Don Cannon, a protege. The police, working with the Recording Industry Association of America, raided his office, at
DJ Drama (whose real name is Tyree Simmons) and Mr. Cannon were each charged with a felony violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization law(known as RICO) and held on $100,000 bond.
The compilations produced by DJ Drama and his proteges are known as mixtapes, though they appear on CDs, not cassettes. Mixtapes have become a vital part of the hip-hop world. They are often the only way for listeners to keep up with a genre that moves too quickly to be captured on albums. On a mixtape you can hear unreleased remixes, sneak previews from coming CDs, casual freestyle rhymes, never-to-be-released goofs.
Mixtapes are, by definition, unregulated: DJs don't get permission from record companies, and record companies have traditionally ignored and sometimes bankrolled mixtapes, reasoning that they serve as valuable promotional tools. And rappers have grown increasingly canny at using mixtapes to promote themselves. The career of 50 Cent has a lot to do with his mastery of the mixtape form, and now no serious rapper can afford to be absent from this market for too long.
As mixtapes evolved from a street-corner phenomenon to a cornerstone of the hip-hop industry, record companies tried to figure out ways to cash in. Mixtape D.J.'s like DJ Clue, DJ Kay Slay and others have released major-label compilations full of tracks that abide by copyright rules. But it's not easy to turn a mixtape into something you can legally sell: part of the fun is hearing rappers remake one another's songs and respond to one another's taunts; a great mixtape captures the controlled chaos that hip-hop thrives on.
DJ Drama's mixtapes are often great. He has turned ''Gangsta Grillz'' into a prestige brand: each is a carefully compiled disc, full of exclusive tracks, devoted to a single rapper who is also the host. Rappers often seem proud to be considered good enough for a ''Gangsta Grillz'' mixtape. On ''Dedication,'' the first of his two excellent ''Gangsta Grillz'' mixtapes, Lil Wayne announces, ''I hooked up with dude, now we 'bout to make history.'' The compilation showed off Lil Wayne more effectively than his albums ever had, and ''Dedication'' helped revive his career. When some unreleased tracks by T.I. leaked to the Internet, T.I. teamed up with DJ Drama for a pre-emptive strike: together, they created a mixtape called ''The Leak.''
As mixtapes have grown more popular, they have also grown easier to purchase, despite that official-sounding declaration -- ''For Promotional Use Only'' -- printed on every one. Sites like mixunit.com specialize in selling them, and big record shops and online stores have followed suit. As of yesterday DJ Drama was sitting in jail, but dozens of his unlicensed compilations were still available at the iTunes shop.
Brad A. Buckles, executive vice president for anti-piracy at the Recording Industry Association of America, said, ''A sound recording is either copyrighted or it's not.'' And he said the DJ Drama case, like most piracy cases, began with illegal product, which was then traced back to the distributor. Chief Baker said that before the raid, DJ Drama and Mr. Cannon were sent cease-and-desist letters from a local lawyer.
There have been mixtape busts before: in 2005, five employees of Mondo Kim's, in the
It also seems clear that mixtapes can actually bolster an artist's sales. The most recent Lil Wayne solo album, ''Tha Carter II'' (Cash Money/Universal), sold more than a million copies, though none of its singles climbed any higher than No. 32 on Billboard's Hot 100 chart. That's an impressive feat, and it's hard to imagine how he would have done it without help from a friendly pirate.
10 comments:
The article doesn't say if law enforcement went after (or are going to) iTunes or Amazon. Obviously, one of the artists didn't want the DJ selling pirated music, and had been asked to cease and desist, but hadn't. He had an opportunity to respond to the affidavit, but didn't, therefore, he goes to jail. I don't believe Amazon would continue selling a product that was illegal. They have a reputation and too much to lose to sell remixes. Or, they could have license to sell. The article didn't say one way or the other. People just need to realize that illegal means illegal. Whether some have done it for a while, it's still illegal and can be upheld. The music industry needs to continue to make changes to their system, as the checks they have in place are not all working.
It appears as of the moment I am responding to your post Amazon.com and iTunes are still selling "unlicensed" copies of DJ Drama mixtapes. I disagree that the artist are the ones unhappy. Clearly the artist have no problem with collaborating with DJ's. It's the record companies who want to control the output of the artist on their label. They aren't making any money off of these collaborations.
You write "illegal means illegal". At one time helping fugitive slaves was illegal and during the 60's it was illegal for black people to drink from water fountains and to use public restrooms reserved for whites. -Does that mean it was immoral for a person to help a slave? Does that mean it was immoral for another persons or group to disallow a person access to water or facilities? Laws that are not made for the public benefit should not carry the weight of moral righteousness.
First, we’re talking about music and who ends up with the dollar. We’re not facing ethical issues of dehumanization and whether or not someone is allowed to drink from a fountain, or ride in the front of the bus. We’re talking about the ethics of who pays and who doesn’t. No matter what, we ALL are entitled to listen to any music we choose. There are numerous stations, free bands, youtube, and various other mediums in which to choose from to listen to music. And, it doesn’t matter what race you are.
The point is if the music industry wants reform, they will need to go through legal channels in order for it to change. As they are doing, as pointed out in the article. It’s not ok to steal, whether an individual downloading tunes because one may be too cheap just to buy it, or whether one is a conglomerate wanting to retain (and gain) every dollar they can by any means. Any way you slice it, the industry needs reform, and they need to seek reform by going through the proper channels.
We are living in an age when many of our most legitimate, socially relevant, dynamic and progressive forms of art reside on the edge of legality. Hip-hop is, at its roots, based on the artistry of the DJ, creating art from other recordings, not blindly stealing it for profit. Likewise, grafitti is, outside of a few sanctioned areas, illegal.
Yet both are among our culture's most important forms.
In the case of mix tapes, making blanket, "illegal is illegal and therefore wrong" statements is short sighted and simplistic. The references to the civil rights movement are, appropriate. When one's right to express oneself through an accepted art form results in prosecution, the problem is with the system, not with the DJ.
That being said, I don't break many laws. I obey speed limits and cross walk lights. I don't download music illegally...
But this is with the understanding that it's not only my right to disobey unjust laws, it is my responsibility. It is also my responsibility to accept the consequences, as unjust as they may be.
In this case, I think that it is the DJ's moral responsibility to make mix cds. The distinction has to be made between the artistry of being a DJ and selling pirated copies of "Sgt Pepper" on a street corner.
Also, the book does present a condesending, simplistic and one sided perspective on the issue.
Dominick seems to regard us as ignorant, greedy kids without the ability to process complex moral questions.
Well, as "short sighted and simplistic" as I am, Joseph, it's not the DJs artistic form of expression. It's the artists'and their talent the DJ is ripping off. The DJs "art" is rather mixing the talent of others. I don't see that as a viable talent, nor do I find it worthy to equate their "art" to that of viable human rights.
Maybe if the roles were reversed, then you would have an argument.
Joseph, thank you for pointing that the creations by DJ's is a form of art. There seems to be some cultural bias happening here. As time goes by there is no way to differentiate between what's original and what's a copy or should I say inspired by others. Is there any difference between English musicians who admire blues music from the south who then turn around and utilize a blues riff of an southern blues artist? Eric Clapton, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones…Should we be disturbed they are making money and the southern blues artist is not? What about a young artist who creates a piece that looks very similar to a Picasso? Are they infringing on Picasso’s creativity or reinventing it into a new form of art? I also agree the book is very biased and goes nowhere into the level of all the intricacies of the industry.
I was providing an alternative perspective to what is considered legal vs. illegal and who determines what is legal or illegal. The slave owners were able to lobby that slavery should remain legal to ensure they would continue to make money. The record companies are allowed to do the same and create laws not necessarily with the artist or public consumer in mind. Again, the story did say the artist did work legitimately with the DJ’s and in the hip hop world apparently releasing a mixtape gives the album sales a boost (helps the record company coffer) and further legitimizes them as artist.
Just because you can access it doesn’t make it free. Radio stations are required to pay ASCAP and BMI fees for the music they play. These fees trickle down to the record companies and the artist if they’re lucky. Online radio stations who don’t pay these fees run into trouble. YouTube access is free but television and the movie industry became upset when their licensing rights were infringed on (they were losing money).
“Proper channels”-Again, who determines the proper channels and who can afford to go through the proper channels? Did the record companies (Sony) go through proper channels last year when they were downloading viruses onto people’s computers without telling consumers?
I feel as though there should be regulations on what is legal and what is not. For DJ Drama was arrested for mixes but like you stated why weren't the other companies such as iTunes, and Amazon in trouble. DJ Drama got the "short end of the stick" for it was he who was "wrong". I would like to know why he was the only person wrong in this case.
Brad Buckles made a great point saying "A sound recording is either copyrighted or it's not". He is so right. Even though DJ Drama is arrested and fined hugely I don't think this will affect his career for he has done a lot of good for artists in the past.
The problem is profit. It is hard enough to figure out who has done wrong when content is given away free on sites like YouTube, this however seems like an easy case. Does the DJ give away the music for free thus providing free publicity to the artists? No, he is profiting. If money is changing hands, then dues must be paid.
As long as arists are determined to get filthy rich via major lables, everyone must play by the major lable's rules. DJ Drama should be able to be signed as an artist to do just what he does. It would benefit the lables, the artists, and presumably the consumer. I see nothing unethical about mixtapes, as they are an integral part of hip hop culture and DJ Drama is an innovator, but he is breaking the law. There needs to be a music revolution. Damn the major labels, every artist goes independent. Will this ever happen, no. But, because of internet technology, it is happening on a small scale. OK, maybe not a revolution, but, how about a grassroots movement, where the consumer decides what's worth listening to and not a bean counter from a major label.
Post a Comment