bgcolor tags, unite!

Did you know that today's Grey Tuesday? We're all supposed to color our pages #c0c0c0 in order to show solidarity for Danger Mouse, the DJ who mixed the Black Album with the White Album, managing to create something politically interesting but entirely unlistenable. (Now, if he had mixed together the other Black Album with the White Album, then we might have had something...)

Anyway, all of this reminds me of the 24 Hours of Democracy "demonstration" from eight (count 'em, eight) years ago. I wrote about it here, but dammit if Carl and Joey didn't nail the thing on the head....

Almost as exciting as signing the petition to get a cig machine installed into the high school cafeteria, we've made our page black, to join the Voters Telecomm Watch-sponsored protest of the signing of the Communications and Decency Act into U.S. law. Did we say protest? Well, OK, maybe we don't need to leave the office, but we promise to play some tracks off of that "Protest Rock" disc we picked up at the local Tower Records outlet. Admittedly, it probably took us about as long to turn our page white on black as it did the EFF to Photoshop the AIDS ribbon blue, but no one ever said raising awareness would be easy. Maybe if John Gilmore says "The net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it," once more, it will all go away.

Copyright and protest and stylesheets, oh my!

Comments

[Andy Baio]

The original call for participation asked webmasters to host a copy of the album for 24 hours, to distribute it far and wide. (The background color token gesture was offered up as an alternative to people who don't have the bandwidth or technical ability to host an entire album of MP3s.) Unlike the Communications Decency Act ribbon/background protests, mirroring the Grey Album is actually an effective means of protest: they're circumventing EMI's control, arguing existing copyright law, and making a censored work readily available to anyone who wants it.

[michael]

OK, so hosting files is a bit more involved than changing the background color on a page. But I'm not connecting the dots between these acts and the stated desire of GreyTuesday.org to drive "common-sense reforms to copyright law that can make sampling legal and practical for artists."

The acts of protest being undertaken today speak more to the issue of *distribution* (making it easier to find these works) than it does to the issue of sampling and recombinatorial art. A more effective protest would be to encourage website owners to create their own remixes -- integrating and transforming artifacts from popular culture in order to make something new, on their own.

By turning the protest into an issue of distribution, Capitol/EMI gets to change the nature of the debate, and paint the civil disobedients with the broader "illegal downloading and distribution brush." The core message of the protest -- creating a change in the copyright law to allow for things like compulsory licensing -- will get lost in the noise.

[Andy Baio]

Damn good point. You're right, that'd be a much more effective form of protest. As a logical next step, I could definitely imagine Downhill Battle sponsoring a music contest inviting creators to sample other famous forbidden songs.

Maybe if the major labels saw how many individual artists would like to sample their copyrighted music, they might be open to some sort of compulsory licensing scheme. It seems like it would be a hugely appealing new form of revenue, but maybe it doesn't outweigh their loss of control.

[Steve]

Damn good point. You're right, that'd be a much more effective form of protest. As a logical next step, I could definitely imagine Downhill Battle sponsoring a music contest inviting creators to sample other famous forbidden songs.

How would this differ extensively from other illegal remixes? Negativland and Plunderphonics have been pushing the boundaries on this issue for twenty years now (using both licensed and unlicensed samples), but the issue doesn't seem to have gained traction. I mean, I could see Downhill Battle sponsoring a mashup competition (actually, I couldn't, as they seem more interested in foot-shooting), but would that necessarily garner any more positive press than Negativland's U2 album, which was extensively reported on (and is pretty darn good, to boot)?

[denise]

managing to create something politically interesting but entirely unlistenable.

thank you! i was beginning to wonder if it was just me...

[scottandrew]

One might argue that all remixes aren't created equal, and that the Grey Album is far more listenable than anything Negativland has produced. We wouldn't be having this conversation had the Grey Album sucked.

[Jason Wall]

Yeah... go web. They rave about creativity and how information should be free. They say the current copyright laws are restrictive. And they're probably right.

Its a grand and charitable thing to give of yourself to further humanity. Donating your creativity, and making it available to the public is a great thing. For that reason, I respect the work of people like Lessig and the Creative Commons.

But in their fervor to prove their point, they walk all over the freedoms they propose. You can't have freedom without responsibility. By breaking the law, even an annoying one, they dishonor themselves. They don't want freedom, they want anarchy.

[Jason Wall]

I should note, just for clarity, that the "they" in the above post is in reference to those who advocate breaking the law in order to protest the law.

The work of those like Lessig and Creative Commons, who seek to change the law through approved channels shows a great deal of wisdom.

[Raena]

Isn't it an act in itself that people are talking about it? This whole debacle goes beyond the issue of remixing and gets right into the heart of the matter: that the music industry actually harms music and musicians, and people don't realise it.

Awareness is an acceptable goal, in my view.

[Todd]

Entirely unlistenable? I'm sorry but this is not the popular opinion of this work. Do a Google search and you can find ten to twenty respected magazines that have given this album positive reviews. The question here is whether an independent artist has the right to create something using work by another artist without permission, if they offer it for free and do not make a profit off of it.

This artist funded this work entirely on his own with no help from any label. He has admitted that he had no intention of making a profit.

This differs from the Negativland case because their agenda included making a statement about Copywrite laws, and they tried to Profit off a parody of another artist's work without that artist's permission. This artist has actually lost money on this CD, although you can do a quick search on ebay and see that someone is profiting off of it($53 a copy!).

I think most people would agree that rampant sampling without permission is not necessarily a good thing. We already live in a time where Puffy can repackage a Sting or Led Zepellin song, add a few uh's and yeah's and one verse over it and sell it for profit. At least he had to get permission from Sting and Jimmy Paige to destroy their work.

I do not think that is what this artist has done. Even if you dislike this project, you must admit that it was original and imaginitive, at least compared to the songs by Puffy. It would be wrong for him to make millions off of someone else's name, but should he not be allowed to share his creation for free with his friends, and if they like it should they not be allowed to share it with their friends? That's the key question here. Is it better that laws were broken and this was made, or would it have been better for the artist to conceive of the idea to do this, but not create what some now perceive as great art because of the legal ramifications...

In response to the comment about the music industry harming music and musicians. It is easy to blame it all on the labels, but their only real responsibility is to make money. If you don't like the product they sell, don't buy it. Artists are not forced to sign with labels, and many independent artists like Ani Difranco, Death Cab for Cutie, and Bright Eyes find other avenues of distribution for their work. People are making a living making music. Good music is out there to find. Turn off the radio and look around!

[michael]

I never pretend to have what I write reflect the "popular opinion of this work." I find the work entirely unlistenable. Me. I do. I don't really care what ten or twenty respected music critics have to say. A slew of respected music critics also go nuts over The White Stripes, whom I also find entirely unlistenable. So there.

I'm having issues with the "this is great art / better than other unlicensed sampling/remixes so we should give Danger Mouse more latitude than (insert other artist here)." I find The Grey Album unlistenable. Would you want me as Federal judge hearing an infringement case and making decisions on artistic merit? Probably not.

I also have issues with the "well, he didn't do this for profit, so we should give him a free ride" argument. Again, who makes that distinction? I'm sure there are plenty of creative accountants (some of whom are employed by the music industry) who could argue eight ways from Sunday that even Puffy's Led Zeppelin remixes weren't profitable.

The issue, as Lessig pointed out yesterday, is less about artistic integrity or profitability than it is about control. Enabling artists to control the licensing of their work, so that they can choose to enable remixing, recycling and reuse. They'll need to break their dependency on the music industry, first, though. And find direct distribution channels to consumers and avoid getting sucked dry by piracy and actually make a living through performances and t-shirt sales and commercial licensing, etc., etc. (Best of luck to 'em!)

[Todd]

All artists have the choice to control the licensing of their own works at some point. They may have already signed it over, but if they did they did it in return for the advertising and distribution that major labels offer. It's a difficult decision when the oppurtunity presents itself to expose your music to millions of people, but it means giving up your control and ownership of that music. I see your point about controlling what you've created, yet Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys is one of my favorite albums.

I guess my point is that I think it's more complicated an issue than licensing. It is a question of Great Art. I disagree with, but respect your opinion on the Grey Album being "unlistenable". My question for you is -If a great artist you did like created a work you really loved under a similar circumstance would you rather he not distribute it/destroy it/, or would you want to be able to hear it for yourself to see if it moves you in some way.

To me, it would seem a tragedy if that work never got produced in the first place.

[cyphunk]

the grey album is likely unlistanable to beatles fans (of which there are few people whom are not) whom do not listen to RAP music as well. For those that do listen to RAP music this was a extremely inovative album. I suppose if you read the various critics referenced on the site for the protest you will note that they mention that this is an inovation in a certain realm of music, which might not be your cup'o'tea. The album itself I find extremely "listenable" not because I listen to RAP (which I only do rarely) but because I enjoyed the changup of rythme with the beatles samples in the background. I would love to hear the remixes without the vocals as well.

[folkestone]

It's the smartest street team campaign in history, where can I buy this album?

[Ryan Waddell]

I personally found the album quite enjoyable (having not heard either the White OR the Black albums, the mixture was relatively pleasing to my ears) but I could see people thoroughly disliking it. On top of that, I would personally sue the pants off this guy if he stole my work without paying me for it, or at least asking permission. THe problem with protecting work is that if you don't go after ONE person ripping it off, suddenly the door is wide open for ANYBODY to do so.

[denise]

i listened to the album several times with an open mind and just didn't like it. it was recommended by people i consider trustworthy, i like the beatles and i like rap and i particularly like mixes of two disparate genres such as the joy division/missy elliot mix. i was excited to hear something fresh involving the beatles. i downloaded the album, listened to it a couple of times and chucked it in the trash. it sounded awkward and gangly, choppy and laborious. a good concept but with poor execution. i felt all of the hype was just a case of the emperor's new clothes. to each his own.

[make own music]

What do Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Mozart all have in common? And what do they have in common with practically every other artist who's creativity has changed the world? They are all unique. But there is something in common.

They each changed the popular music of their times by combining already popular forms in a new way. Elvis - on that famous and fateful day in Sun Studios in Memphis he let it all loose and brought it all together again differently... the blues, country, gospel and regional elements that were his influences in his youth all came together into rockabilly, rock and roll, something that had not been heard before. Elvis on Ed Sullivan also brought together the new music form and the new medium - television in a new way which has influenced generations of rock icons to first pick up their guitar.

[NHL Washington Capitals]

The best hockey club is NHL Washington Capitals! I Love Hockey!