Danger Mouse Releases Blank CD-R To Spite EMI 296
An anonymous reader writes "DJ Danger Mouse famously fought with EMI over his Beatles/Jay-Z mashup, 'The Grey Album,' and now seems to be battling with the label again. Rather than release his latest album and face legal issues with EMI, Techdirt is reporting that Danger Mouse will be selling a blank CD-R along with lots of artwork, and buyers will be responsible for finding the music themselves (yes, it's findable on the internet) and burning the CD."
not just "lots of artwork" (Score:5, Informative)
It's a 100+ page BOOK of David Lynch photography.
Links (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a direct link to listen to the music:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104129585 [npr.org]
Or to download it use this torrent:
http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1922583/2325666/ [demonoid.com]
Re:Links (Score:4, Informative)
Or from rapid share:
http://rapidshare.com/files/230207661/Dark.Night.of.the.Soul.2009.rar [rapidshare.com]
Re:Just keep (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I just may be a pessimist (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. You really missed the point. The victory is not superficial. Quite the opposite. He can actually make money off this tactic. Every sale of his blank CD and artwork is revenue. Cash in hand. If he is getting money, it's a little hard to classify that as superficial.
As for justice being bought, that is also where this victory is far from superficial. It will be very hard to demonstrate a link between this blank cd, original artwork, and an act copyright infringement against EMI's intellectual property. In order for justice to be bought, there *still* MUST be some sort of existing legal framework in which to prove damages occurred. I think you underestimate the resilience of his strategy and how will it could stand up to legal asshattery.
Now as for the legislature, what law could you possibly create to stop this? You can't sell blank CD's with original artwork? The law would have to be so vague and subjective that it would hardly stand up to legal standards.
I understand your cynicism and apparent bitterness, even share some of it, but this is still not that easy to stop, even assuming the whole weight of a corrupt and broken system behind it.
The strategy deserves a little more applause and credit than you are giving it.
Southpark did it! OH sorry i mean Greenday (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Handbag Music (Score:2, Informative)
"Handbag music" is what Essex girls in white high-heels, with false fingernails and hair extensions dance around their handbags to in Club Zeus in Chelmsford on Friday and Saturday nights.
Re:I know its for a legit reason... (Score:4, Informative)
Well I did say, "maybe or maybe not" quite a few times. That was the point. The whole thing is "implied", and that implication is quite vague at best.
The strength of his tactic is that the sale of the blank CD and artwork is never directly linked with the allegedly unauthorized derivative work.
You can have all the implications that you want, a judge is still going to want to see an act of distribution associated with that sale. At best, EMI can claim he created the work and allowed it to be distributed, but that is actually quite different from selling it.
Since there is no act of distribution with monetary gain, it would have to be pursued by EMI differently. Of course judges and juries can be fickle, but it would by no means, be as a strong of a case had the CD not been blank and contained the actual music.
Re:I know its for a legit reason... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, he might just get sued by whoever now hold John Cage's copyrights [gramophone.co.uk]
Re:I just may be a pessimist (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of whether the act of distribution occurs on a physical medium, or a digital download the legal "issue" is copyright infringement.
From what I understand, EMI is claiming that DJ Danger Mouse produces unauthorized derivative works (or flat out straight copies) of their intellectual property.
It did not *have* to go on the CD. In fact, the whole point, is that the CD is specifically blank. He is not actually putting the music on the CD or selling it online. His whole strategy relies on the fact that you are paying him for something that is only connected to the music in the loosest sense possible. Legally it would be like nailing jello to the wall.
Re:I know its for a legit reason... (Score:3, Informative)
Dunno about you, but there are two kinds of offenses here: Official and personal.
If you know someone breaks a law punishable by official code (murder, rape, anything with a "public interest"), you not only can but have to report it. The attorney general will in this case take control of the case and press charges regardless of your interest, because it is in public interest that those things get prosecuted.
In a personal case (usually minor "crimes" like trespassing, slander, where it is maybe in your interest to get your right but the public certainly doesn't care), you can inform the person wronged about it and he (and only he) may decide whether to press charges or not.
Copyright is currently, as in most countries, in the 'personal' branch of the law. The RIAA and its cronies are pressing hard to put it in the criminal (official) section, simply because it means less work and more "incentive" to rat on your friends.
The Dead Kennedys did something similar. (Score:5, Informative)
When the Dead Kennedys released "In God We Trust, Inc." on cassette tape (remember those?), they left the B side blank, with the following note: "Home taping is killing big time entertainment industry profits. Therefore side two of this tape has been left blank for your convenience."
Re:+1 (Score:3, Informative)
Sure you did. It's the DJ / producer behind Gnarls Barkley,that made the song "Crazy" [wikipedia.org] some time ago.
He even collaborated with the band "Gorillaz", which you "may" have heard in some iPod ad.
Oh, he even took part to the documentary "Good Copy Bad Copy" [wikipedia.org]. He's not new to such statements.
Not even this is original (Score:4, Informative)
If there is brilliance here, it belongs to who Danger Mouse (true to form, I'll give you that) copied from, namely Green Day [eil.com].
how does this hurt EMI? (Score:1, Informative)
This doesn't make any sense: why would a dispute with EMI be relevant to the release of this cd? I know that EMI fought Danger Mouse on behalf of the Beatles for the Gray Album, but that appears irrelevant here. EMI isn't Danger Mouse's label, isn't Sparklehorse's label, and as the new album doesn't infringe on any copyrights of EMI (unlike the Grey Album), it should be no concern of EMI.
Brilliant marketing ploy though; everyone hates record labels.