Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media

So Amazing, So Illegal 492

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the something-to-think-about dept.
Jamie gave me a nice writeup of a mashup where the writer shares some random youtube mashup video that you maybe have seen before called the Mother of all Funk Chords. It's a pretty amazing artistic achievement and probably worth at least a quick glance of your time. But the larger point should be taken seriously. He says "If your reaction to this crate of magic is 'Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who "did this" with our IP?' instead of, 'Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,' it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page. Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So Amazing, So Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spiffyman (949476) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:09AM (#27167217) Homepage

    it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.

    Can anyone explain what the hell this means?

    • by eln (21727) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:11AM (#27167267) Homepage

      it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.

      Can anyone explain what the hell this means?

      I think it means CmdrTaco is off his meds again.

    • by Spazztastic (814296) <`spazztastic' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:13AM (#27167293)

      it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.

      Can anyone explain what the hell this means?

      I'm guessing the writer thinks that the diet of the readers is Ramen, so we should go buy it at 10 cents per package with financing and work on some mashups? Last time I bought Ramen noodles it came to be less than $5, and most small places don't allow charges under that to be put on plastic.

      • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:23AM (#27167519) Journal
        Where can I buy tickets to their live show?

        Funk isn't something you admire while you're sitting alone in front of a computer, it's something you groove to with a scotch on the rocks in your hand while surrounded by a bunch of classy ladies who like to shake what their momma gave them. The band isn't there to perform something they conceived in a dark room, they're there to play the crowd, to react and interact with the people as they get excited, antsy, tired, etc.

        If this is the future of music, then the future is bleak indeed.
        • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Spazztastic (814296) <`spazztastic' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:26AM (#27167547)

          If this is the future of music, then the future is bleak indeed.

          That bleak future is here when American Idol has the highest ratings and even the ones who get disqualified within one week of the premiere get record deals. Have you taken a stroll through the CD store and seen the mainstream music? It's almost as bad as Nickleback.

          • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by 2names (531755) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @12:01PM (#27168151)
            Nothing is as bad as Nickelback.
            • Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @12:08PM (#27168249)
              Creed. [offspring.com]
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Kokuyo (549451)

              Okay, someone help me out here... what's so bad about Nickelback? I like a few songs from them... not that many, I'll readily confess, but if you had seen the German version of American Idol you'd know teh evil that is mainstream music.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by m0nkyman (7101)

              Three words.... "Contemporary Christian music"

          • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @12:05PM (#27168225) Journal

            You can buy CDs with music already on them?

        • There was a niche just crying out to be filled, eh?

          If this is the future of music, then the future is bleak indeed.

          I share your sentiment, but am a bit more optimistic. There will always be geek pseudo-artists with more toys than talent, but just as PhotoShop didn't kill off photography, I'm guessing that this... this... whatever it is, won't kill off actual music.

        • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms.infamous@net> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @01:09PM (#27169269) Homepage

          The band isn't there to perform something they conceived in a dark room, they're there to play the crowd, to react and interact with the people as they get excited, antsy, tired, etc.

          Go listen to Frank Zappa and the Mother's 1966 "Return of the Son of Monster Magnet [wikipedia.org]", one of the most groundbreaking tracks of the twentieth century. It's "what freaks sound like when you turn them loose in a recording studio at one o'clock in the morning on $500 worth of rented percussion equipment" -- pretty much something they conceived in a dark room.

          I'm pretty sure that Beethoven, Mozart, et. al. conceived some of their music in dark rooms.

          Yes, live improvised music, or composed music varied in response to the crowd, is great too. But the fact that live stuff can be great doesn't preclude stuff conceived in a dark room by artists working alone also being great.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by cromar (1103585)
          First of all it's not exactly funk at this point, it's something akin to Turntablism but with digital equipment. This is the realm of the DJ. If you don't like it, fine, but know that you probably don't much about it/us.

          If you think you can't listen to DJ music in public or at a party... uh? There are so many people who do so many crazy parties doing this kind of music live I can only name a few big ones: Mick Boogie, KutMaster Kurt, Kid Koala, Kruder & Dorfmeister. Hell, take it back a decade or
        • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kazoo the Clown (644526) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @02:00PM (#27170081)

          Funk isn't something you admire while you're sitting alone in front of a computer, it's something you groove to with a scotch on the rocks in your hand while surrounded by a bunch of classy ladies who like to shake what their momma gave them. The band isn't there to perform something they conceived in a dark room, they're there to play the crowd, to react and interact with the people as they get excited, antsy, tired, etc.

          I'm sorry to break your balloon, but not everyone likes to listen to music in small clubs. Even those who like Funk (which would include me, BTW). I understand the crowd-rapport thing, but that only works if the audience is <300 IMHO (well, it may work for the BAND, but it doesn't work for me as an audience member). But in the smaller venues, usually the music is 1) too loud for the acoustics in the room &/or their PA system, 2) crowded full of drunk idiots (and at one time or in some places, drunk and smoking idiots), and 3) was accompanied by expensive parking in bad part of town & cover charge. If that's your idea of the future of music, I don't want any part of it.

          On the other hand, the last concert I went to was free, was at the local University music department, the sound system was right for the room and adjusted properly, and I got to sit really close without having to climb over drunk jerks (or vice versa) in the process. Parking wasn't cheap, but that's all the two venues had in common. It was for these guys. [tyvakyzy.com]. Not exactly Funk, I grant you. But somehow I don't think they are particularly threatened by the competition from YouTube mashups.

          But I don't go out for music all that often, as it's rare that a group I actually want to see will be in a venue I would want to go to. I don't care for the big mainstream bands that would book huge concerts, but the smaller bands tend to end up in crappy clubs that you couldn't pay me to visit. So, mashups like the one in TFA provide at least, some entertainment value now and then. But I'm over 50 so maybe that explains my low tolerance for aggregations of 20-something dipshits.

          Plus, I like a lot of electronica, which often sounds a lot better on my own tuned up home sound system than in public venues.

    • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bigbigbison (104532) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:14AM (#27167335) Homepage
      it took me a while to figure it out too. I think he means that you should buy a bunch of cheap food on your credit card and put some lies on your resume (or LinkedIn profile) because you are going to be out of a job soon
    • It is saying they will be out of a job.

    • Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ProppaT (557551) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:19AM (#27167415) Homepage

      The whole write up was stupid. I think that he was implying that you're getting old and need to get with the times. The whole "this is your new Elvis" is a little sensationalist. This is no different than hip hop producers who've been mixing stuff for 30 years, it's just progressed over the years from mixing vinyl, using samplers, using computer, using computers to mash up songs, to mixing youtube videos now. It's not revolutionary, it's the natural progression.

      Once in a while a transition in media is made quickly enough to where one person gets pegged as reinventing or revolutionizing the art. This is not that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Disco Hips (920480)
        agree. It was nice to look at, however I've seen this done before. On YouTube no less. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo&feature=related) This is DJ Shadow, using video footage. And people have been doing what DJ Shadow did for a while before that. Nice, but not revolutionary. As an earlier post pointed out, it's evolutionary.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by zappepcs (820751)

      I think you are supposed to give your passport to the FSM in tribute for the help he will give you in finding a new job, hence the lies on your linkedin page. The first of which would probably be 'that you understand what that meant' so you don't look so not cuil.

  • Mashups (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazztastic (814296) <`spazztastic' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:09AM (#27167223)

    I don't speak for most people, but I personally can't stand mashups. I don't find anything entertaining about it, there's maybe three I've heard out of all that have been good. It falls into the same group as artists like 50 cent taking "Crazy Train" and putting it into a song as background vocals or whoever did the same to "Riders on the storm."

    In short, get off my lawn!

    • Re:Mashups (Score:5, Informative)

      by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:21AM (#27167465)

      I don't like them much either, but this isn't like, "Michael Jackson Thriller vs. Enya Watermark" or some other odd thing... if you watch TFV(ideo), he takes a collection of single-instrument tracks from other YouTube videos and mixes them all together to make a Funk song. It's pretty neat, though I have to confess to liking funk.

    • Re:Mashups (Score:5, Informative)

      by Swampash (1131503) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:23AM (#27167517)
      Have you listened to these ones? They are good. REALLY good. Not just "clever" but really frickin' good COMPOSITIONS, and I'm not even taking into account the jaw-dropping editing skills this guy must have. If you haven't watched yet: http://www.thru-you.com/ [thru-you.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aftk2 (556992)
        Thank you. Well said. I think "the future of entertainment!!1!" is a bit overstating it, since entertainment has to be good on its face, rather than good based on how difficult it was to pull off - but that said, these are freaking amazing. Most Slashdot commentors right now are displaying are remarkable level of either knee-jerk negativism, get-off-my-lawn style myopia, or a shocking lack of understanding of just how difficult this was, technically.

        Seriously, slashdot: wtf? if you're not willing to appr
    • by krilli (303497)

      I despise the word "mashup", and people who use it too much, and the whole whiny hipster self-crucification feel of the discussion ...

      BUT

      Have you heard the infamous Cassetteboy records? They alone are worth all the hullaballoo about the genre.

    • Re:Mashups (Score:5, Funny)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:54AM (#27168033) Homepage

      Without mashups, we'd all be able to touch M.C. Hammer.

  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:10AM (#27167243) Journal

    nobody would ever produce music, art, or literature. Which is also why works need to be protected for a century or longer.

    • by agnosticanarch (105861) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:14AM (#27167317) Homepage

      nobody would ever produce music, art, or literature. Which is also why works need to be protected for a century or longer.

      This is, of course, why no one ever produced any music, art, or literature before copyright protection was in place. *ahem*

      ~AA

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Indeed, and also why nobody produces any cultural products in countries without aggressive copyright enforcement.

        Future generations will look back on this time in history and wonder why the recording industry was so hot to protect top 40 crap-pop.

        • by pla (258480) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @12:37PM (#27168731) Journal
          Future generations will look back on this time in history and wonder why the recording industry was so hot to protect top 40 crap-pop.

          Probably not. I suspect future generations will look back and ask, wide-eyed, "Wow, they could just steal arbitrary two-note sequences from other artists dead less than the full millennium required by Disney? Didn't they worry about getting the death penalty?"
      • by Splab (574204)

        Think your sarcasm detector needs a bit of tuning.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jafafa Hots (580169)

        It's also why without the Sonny Bono (Mickey Mouse) Copyright Extension law of 1998, Ub Iwerks would never have been inspired to create Mickey Mouse for Walt Disney 70 years earlier. And who can blame him?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        >>>why no one ever produced any music, art, or literature before copyright protection was in place

        They did produce music, but they also had crap jobs. Johannes Bach was little more than a choir director for his local church - and he hated it with a passion. At least today, with protection of songwriters' creations, they can live better lifestyles.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by LoverOfJoy (820058)
          Ah, but without that passionate hatred, his music would have suffered and we wouldn't even know his name much like those child actors that we wonder whatever happened to (and what their names were). =)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Scrameustache (459504)

          >>>why no one ever produced any music, art, or literature before copyright protection was in place

          They did produce music, but they also had crap jobs. Johannes Bach was little more than a choir director for his local church - and he hated it with a passion. At least today, with protection of songwriters' creations, they can live better lifestyles.

          I got news for you: Artists today still overwhelmingly need crap jobs to make ends meet.

          But businessmen get to buy exclusive rights for the couple hundred bucks the artist needs to make rent that month; and then get rich on the IP they conned out of the creator! Yay?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            >>>But businessmen get to buy exclusive rights for the couple hundred bucks the artist needs to make rent that month; and then get rich on the IP they conned out of the creator! Yay?

            I defer my answer to someone who knows the business better than me: J.Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5:

            You're missing the point. Several, actually.

            First, having talked to distributors, I can tell you straight up that if a show has had too much online exposure and too many downloads, if it's too much out there, they won't distribute it because the market that would want to see it already has. So you're helping to destroy any chance of a show getting picked up. The logic of "well if I watch it that'll help to create a market for that show" is a convenient untruth downloaders tell themselves that has not once ever been validated. It just never happens. It's just a justification.

            Second, when you download a show (and most of the shows that are downloaded don't fall into the category of "there's no other way to get it," they're downloads of popular shows and movies)..... it's not just that you're denying the producers/distributors of that movie or TV show the "price" of the DVD (or the commercials not watched). You're also having a direct impact on the creative people who made that show, and taking from them as well.

            Actors, writers and directors get paid a fee to make a project, and then they get residuals, which are not a bonus, they are deferred compensation. If the show does well, they share in that; if the show tanks, they share the risk. When shows are downloaded free, those creative people get nothing. Why should this matter? Residuals are what keeps actors and writers and directors able to survive the lean periods between jobs, and those are legion. Those periods can last a year or two sometimes, during which your ONLY source of revenue is residuals.

            They help to insure that the talent pool is available when needed and not out working day jobs to make ends meet.

            Downloaders think there's no difference between data and entertainment, that everything should be free. Great, it's free to YOU. Now, how do you propose paying the people who produce these shows at the costs of millions of dollars, and the people who need to put food on the plate when they are getting nothing in return?

            jms

            From: "jmsatb5@aol.com"
            Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
            Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:36:27 -0700 (PDT)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      You are so right. I have this fantastic Sci fi epic just waiting to explode from my creative body, and then I imagine someone, somewhere reading it (or listening to it) without paying me money, and my creative juices all dry up. I'm waiting for the death sentence for copyright infringement. then I will definitely start writing.. (after I finished fallout 3 again, obviously. using just a spoon) ps. you were being sarky, weren't you?
    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Especially after the artist has been dead for 50 years.

      And I say this as someone who's family still gets royalties from music my grandfather wrote in the 1940's.

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:10AM (#27167255)

    Theirs goes, 'ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.' Ours goes, 'ding ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.'

    The future of entertainment seems so old (so old).

  • by X_Bones (93097)
    Is there even a story here? What's your point?
  • Nice link, not (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pope (17780) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:14AM (#27167333)

    FFS, people, trim those goddamn YouTube links! This is all you need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprMEs-zfQA [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by internerdj (1319281)
      It wasn't my article, but being that I'm not very familiar with YouTube linking: the fact that you can trim that URL isn't immediately obvious from looking at the URL, thanks for the tip.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mctk (840035)
      FFS, all you need to do is click the colored words.
      • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:35AM (#27167699)

        We try not to use that kind of insensitive wording anymore.

        You mean "words of ethnic descent".

        • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:50AM (#27167951)
          Hi, Bureau of Political Insanity here. I'm afraid your phrase "words of ethnic descent" is no longer the preferred phrase. We believe that this is still too much of a segregation between "words of ethnic descent" and "words of non-ethnic descent."

          From now on all words, regardless of hue, palette, or Pantone reference, shall simply be refered to as "words." For instance, these words [capc.co.uk] are just words, they are not "coloured words", "words of ethnic descent", or "words which have been highlighted because they signify something different to any other word. They are just as useful as the other words, and we applaud their contribution to society without at all decreasing the contributions from all other words, regardless of origin."
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MightyYar (622222)

        all you need to do is click the colored words.

        LOL, that's what I was thinking... I can't believe anyone even NOTICED how long the link was!

        Try this one! [youtube.com]

  • I suppose that this is just the kind of spark that you spend the first 15 seconds thinking "Wow, who would have thought of it?" And then spend the rest of the video realizing that it makes perfect sense. You take all of the individual artists, a guy with a web cam and some spare time, and combine them together into a one time use band or orchestra. We compile our kernels with individual modules, why not our music?
  • Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grapeape (137008) <(moc.rr.ck) (ta) (7epopm)> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:15AM (#27167357) Homepage

    Wow that made my morning, not usually a fan of mashups but that was truly inspired, like garage band on acid. Somewhere im sure there is a lawyer about to blow a gasket trying to wrap his head around a way to even approach something like this.

  • Hm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot <slashdot@ p u dge.net> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:20AM (#27167437) Homepage Journal

    For a long-lived career, does a boot-strapping indie artist with giant niche appeal gain enough from a big-company relationship to offset the loss in agility, equity, and flexibility?

    No, but you need to be able to actually do things live. Mashups won't make you any money, unless, of course, you can sell them, which you can't do if they aren't IP-clean.

  • He says 'if your reaction to this crate of magic is "Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who 'did this' with our IP?"

    Disclaimer: I watched the video. I also RTFA. Sorry.

    I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.

    I don't buy the 'this is your future Elvis' bit for a second. While entertaining, and technically/artistically well done, its not appealing enough to make me watch the other videos.

    • You thought wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by langelgjm (860756) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:32AM (#27167657) Journal

      I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.

      You thought wrong. This is commonly thrown around /. as if it's gospel, but the fact is there's no magic number that qualifies something as fair use.

      Traditionally, the fair use defense is based on four factors, one of which is the "amount" or "substantiality" of the work that's infringed. That language is as murky as it sounds. The movie 12 Monkeys got in trouble for showing less than a minute of a weird looking chair, and if things hadn't been worked out, it could have been enjoined from distribution. If you're unlucky enough to have infringed the "heart" of the work, even if it's only 5% overall, you might not have a fair use defense.

      There are a number of cases that involve sampling, and the way things have gone, it seems that the current consensus is "license it, or don't sample." Hell, even if you do license, you might not be off the hook - remember the whole "Bittersweet Symphony" debacle?

      It's unfortunate, but this is the current state of things.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613)

      I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.

      Fair Use is about HOW a copyrighted work is used, not simply HOW MUCH of it is used.

      If the source material is readily identifiable, and it is not clearly apparent that the re-user is engaging in a protected action like academic study, critical review, or parody, then the o

  • by krilli (303497)

    That is a pretty well written article. Yup. Merlin Mann is a smart guy, and I've seen him be a bit over-nice, but now he's fed up and hitting back. And it's quite the lashing. And he's absolutely right.

  • Gasp (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:27AM (#27167565)

    it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page. Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like

    Right! Wait. What?

  • Awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:28AM (#27167587) Homepage Journal

    I write music... well, modest little piano pieces. I haven't uploaded any videos of me playing to youtube (yet), but I would be THRILLED to find that my stuff had been reworked into something like this.

    Then again, I have considered issuing my tunes as open source (there's some places to do that online.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Eil (82413)

      Then again, I have considered issuing my tunes as open source (there's some places to do that online.)

      Yeah, there are a bunch of "free music" sites. Also if you haven't heard about it yet, check out Creative Commons [creativecommons.org]. They do open-source-like licenses for media and have taken care of all the hard work, you just pick the variant that works best for you and post your content somewhere.

  • by Consul (119169) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:36AM (#27167725) Journal

    These mashups don't appear in a vacuum. They have to get their source content from somewhere. There will always be a market for original work, if only to feed the mashup machine. Now, I would personally find it sad if the original creators were relegated to being raw material for commercially-successful mashups, but hey, it's a free market, and if that's what the kids want...

    I personally think Kitoboy's accomplishment here is more one of editing than one of actual creating. Still, an enormous amount of work went into it, if not creativity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fross (83754)

      I would disagree, you're implying the only value in a mashup is a sum of the creative value of the original pieces. When dealing with a mashup of well-known tracks, this is certainly true, but in this case, he is certainly not taking well-known riffs or tracks, just a huge bunch of anonymous samples and working them into something complete and awesome.

      I have huge respect for the guy, I've been DJing for 15 years and done my fair share of mashups, and recently been getting into video editing. What he did i

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smellsofbikes (890263)

      >I personally think [Kutiboy's] accomplishment here is more one of editing than one of actual creating.

      I'm unclear on the difference.
      If I'm writing using the English language, aren't I just editing? since I didn't invent the language?

      Editing, in writing, is generally considered to mean changes intended to clarify a work or to make it adhere to some ruleset. I don't think TFV was aiming for either of those.
      That is actually the whole point of patents and copyrights: they acknowledge that any creation peop

  • Call me a Luddite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:47AM (#27167909)

    But the future of entertainment is not a 320x240 flash video with a "mashup" of random songs.

  • This Isn't New (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Goody (23843) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @11:51AM (#27167975) Journal
    It's called sampling. Many artists have done it, but one you should check out is DJ Shadow [wikipedia.org]. He takes old 45s, samples the smallest components and assembles them into songs. He admits that copyright laws haven't caught up with it yet, but they will someday.
  • by pz (113803) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @12:20PM (#27168467) Journal

    Kutiman, the artist who did the Thu-You audiovideo compositions, did a marvelous job. As other posters have noted, these songs are generally good compositions, beyond the novelty effect.

    But, seriously, there isn't that much new here. These really aren't even mash-ups, because such extensive editing has happened. The classic mash-up, Dark Side of The Moon played against The Wizard of Oz retains the originals in great part, and while their combination brings a sum that is greater than the individual parts, it would be difficult to argue that it would qualify for fair-use exception from copyright protection.

    The Thru-You project deconstructs the source material into individual components and re-assembles as an entirely new whole. There is no question of copyright violation because it is clearly a derivative work. It's an exceptionally cool idea, and in this case done very well, but collaging isn't new, even within the music industry.

    There are entire genres of popular music that are devoted to construction of new songs from sampled components of other songs. Perhaps the first genre where this happened with distinction was House music, starting, what, 20 years ago? Of course, the more technology advances, the more deconstructed-reconstructed the music can become, but still, someone like club master Stephane Pompougnac has been publishing his Hotel Costes line of recompositions for 10 years now.

  • S1, S2, S3, S4 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stonecypher (118140) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <rehpycenots>> on Thursday March 12, 2009 @01:06PM (#27169193) Homepage Journal

    There's nothing new or illegal about this.

    This is what subsampling law is explicitly for; the law even goes as far as to say how long each clip can be and still be legal (and he's way, way in the clear.) Intellectual property law explicitly allows things like this in the United States as long as they're within guidelines, and this is well within guidelines. This is how the TV news and rappers get through their day.

    As far as new, bands like White Noise, James Tenney and The Beatles were doing this in the early 1960s; your choice of "The New Elvis" is particularly apropos, as this was determined legal in 1961 regarding James Tenney's Collage #1 ("Blue Suede"), made out of Elvis samples (though some would argue that there are earlier examples.)

    Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like.

    This is what my old Elvis looked like.

    But the video is freaking epic, that much is true.

  • Worth watching. (Score:4, Informative)

    by schlick (73861) on Thursday March 12, 2009 @01:51PM (#27169917)

    The one link in the summary isn't the only thing this guys did. This isn't a fluke, this is a true artistic talent. These mashup artists are getting better and better. Listen to the whole set then you'll be in a better position to appreciate and critique. I realize there will be those that do not like it, but if you have a shred of appreciation for music you'll have to recognize the talent. BTW track 8 is the guy explaining the project.

    Track 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprMEs-zfQA [youtube.com]

    Track 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAvS0pc9NIw [youtube.com]

    Track 3
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsBfj6khrG4 [youtube.com]

    Track 4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JffZFRM3X6M [youtube.com]

    Track 5
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXulsZpu72E [youtube.com]

    Track 6
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i88CKr6Shn4 [youtube.com]

    Track 7
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vch-Z9ccHTk [youtube.com]

    Track 8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz0gYbqOZXQ [youtube.com]

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead

Working...