EMI Hates the DJ
I am hopping the daypop bandwagon again on this one. It seems that DJ Danger Mouse has released an album called “The Grey Album.” A DJ, some samples, and a whole pile of whoopdy-fuckin-do, right? In a way, yes. In a way, no. The concept of the Grey Album is that the DJ took a lyrics only version of Jay Z’s Black Album, run over the Beatles’ White Album.
Conceptually clever, it got my attention.
On another level, it raises Copyright issues. Danger Mouse did nothing but mix other people’s works to create what is referred to as a derivative work. Unfortunately, U.S. copyright law prohibits the creation of derivative works copyrighted materials. Last time that I checked, both the Black and White albums were not in the public domain. I thought the case was pretty clear: the DJ released something without permission. He should retract. Case closed.
But one thing seems to be bothering everyone: According to Lawrence Lessig (Copyright lawyer extraordinaire) there has been a law on the books since 1909 that allows anyone to cover an album as long as they pay a nominal fee to the original copyright holder. Record companies have defended this right for years.
But, samples are not covers, and thus not covered by this law.
And here is the true greyness of the Grey Album: Is a derivative work the same as a cover? Legally is it better to prevent something new from being created or is it more important to defend the original creator’s content? I suppose it depends on how you look at it, how much money you have to defend it, and which side of the remix you’re on.
Honestly, the Grey Album is interesting, clever, and listenable. This DJ Danger Mouse guy is good. But for people to act as if the artistic future of music is contained in the bits of these downloads is as far-fetched as thinking that downloading it makes you a rebel.
I would like to hear the original Black album to do a little comparison, but I’m sure that it’s probably, what we refer to in the business as, “pure crap.”
The Christians Hate the Jews
Mel Gibson put out a movie about Jesus. The Jews portrayed on the news were up in arms at the movie being anti-Semitic. To me, if Mel Gibson makes a movie about killing Whitey, it’s no big deal. If he wants to believe in Zeus, and remake Clash of the Titans, I don’t care (Do it, you bastards! DO IT!). It’s a movie. It’s based on myth (don’t get me started), and besides robbing me of $8.75, this movie can’t do anything to anyone.
If you took all the religion in the world and flushed them down the toilet, then what would be the problem? Who would be up in arms except the dude spending $8.75 without seeing one single laser, boob, or laser guided boob with women attached to them?
No one, that’s who. Except maybe the Laser Guided Boob Women of Mars who would say that the lack of laser guided boob women in this movie clearly shows discrimination against women with laser guided boobs.
(The number of times that boobs was mentioned in the last sentence should, to the chagrin of teenage boys everywhere, provide erroneous hits to this site.)
The Christians hate the Gays
Bush is backing a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gays from getting married. I am proposing a constitutional amendment banning marriage altogether. My friend’s Grandfather and I will draft the bill to downgrade all current marriages to “shacking up,” as in his own words, “It’s the way to go.”
I will also propose an addendum that makes “green on Thursday means you’re horny,” official and legal, binding hitherto, quid ominous dominus.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of minor issues standing in George’s and my way, namely:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So, it seems that you can’t willy-nilly take people’s rights away, and if a state grants a right that is not mentioned in the constitution, the federal government can’t infringe.
And I was so looking forward to Thursday. Ladies, I’m talking to you.
Hi-Ho the Dairy-O
Ah, my point: I gathered the above two stories from 5 minutes of the morning News. What depressing, sensational crash / fire / murder / rape did you see that made the time sitting in front of the TV less wasted than simply staring out the window? What did you gain by watching the News today except a broader distrust of your neighbor and a deeper sense of sorrow for people you’ll never know? And why was that so important to you that you need to go back tomorrow for another daily dose?