Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

So Amazing, So Illegal

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the something-to-think-about dept.

Music 492

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."

cancel ×

492 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um, what? (5, Insightful)

spiffyman (949476) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167217)

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?

Re:Um, what? (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167267)

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.

Re:Um, what? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167597)

I think it means CmdrTaco is off his meds again.

I didn't even notice it was Taco. Nah, no meds required there. He's hear he's like this naturally.

Re:Um, what? (4, Insightful)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167991)

Hence "off his meds".

Re:Um, what? (4, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#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? (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167519)

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? (5, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#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? (5, Insightful)

2names (531755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168151)

Nothing is as bad as Nickelback.

Wrong. (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168249)

Creed. [offspring.com]

Re:Wrong. (2, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168395)

Creed. [offspring.com]

They broke up. Scott Stapp will remain a piece of crap.

Re:Um, what? (2, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168261)

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:Um, what? (4, Funny)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168295)

For your viewing... ah... pleasure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt2JhuXMRMk [youtube.com] this is what Deutschland sucht den Superstar has brought forth.

Re:Um, what? (2, Insightful)

m0nkyman (7101) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168425)

Three words.... "Contemporary Christian music"

Re:Um, what? (5, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168225)

You can buy CDs with music already on them?

Re:Um, what? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167721)

Since we are veering off topic anyway, that particular practice (requiring a minimium charge) is banned [daviswiki.org] by almost all the major credit card companies.

If a store pulls it on you, and you aren't in a kind mood, file a complaint with the credit card company.

Re:Um, what? (5, Informative)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167335)

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

Re:Um, what? (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167349)

It is saying they will be out of a job.

Re:Um, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27167395)

Rather than mash up some stupid cliches, wouldn't it have been easier to just say that?

Re:Um, what? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167461)

Put some ramen on your Visa, slick. Gray matter back got perform us down I take TCB'in, man.

Re:Um, what? (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167489)

not if one is a hipster doofus.

I'll confess it threw me for a minute, but I grinned once I put it together. It's a tad clever, if a bit awkward.

I think the guy is completely wrong about this being marketable - but hey, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and style. I think this is getting a lot of attention right now because it's novel and it obviously wasn't easy mixing it all together. But pull away from that and judge it purely as music - it isn't that great.

Re:Um, what? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168169)

Really, I was thinking this guy just ripped Beck a new one.

Re:Um, what? (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168173)

> judge it purely as music - it isn't that great.

Obviously greatness in art is subjective. But this guy did a masterful job of weaving together completely unrelated material into a damn fine musical piece and video. He shows incredible skill and artistry in arranging this musical piece. This was mashed by a creative and savvy musician with a fine ear.

Re:Um, what? (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168201)

The problem is with today's lawsuit society WE don't get to decide if it is good or not. Just take DJ Danger Mouse and the Grey Album [wikipedia.org] . Nowadays you can't do ANY cool sampling or make any mixups without being sued by 50 bloodsucking leeches in suits. If we don't push to reform the insane copyrights and patent laws then the ONLY music we will end up with is some "corporate approved" American Idol style crap, because they will be the only ones that can fight off the wave of lawsuits put out by the trolls whenever they see somebody making money. Do we REALLY want that as the future?

EMERGENCY BROADCAST NETWORK (5, Informative)

unclepedro (312196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168235)

Don't get me wrong, I think this kind of stuff is AWESOME. But it's not novel.

Emergency Broadcast Network was doing this kind of stuff in the early 90s, and released a record, Telecommunication Breakdown, that was all made in this style. They even wrote software to do it, and U2 had them do the ZooTV footage for one of their 1990s tours (including the alternate "Numb" video with machinery.) There are videos online. Their work was also a critique of the role of media, marketing, broadcast media, etc., so there was an extra political layer in there.

That said, I think the remixing of video samples in the same way that we remixed audio samples in the past is definitely an obvious (yet delicious) advance in the way we make music... or video... or art or whatever you want to call it.

Here's a link to get you started on EBN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_Network

Re:Um, what? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168485)

I think the guy is completely wrong about this being marketable - but hey, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and style.

Have you seen what passes for 'entertainment' on tv these days? This will blow it away.

Re:Um, what? (0, Redundant)

krilli (303497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167495)

Well put.

Re:Um, what? (5, Insightful)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167415)

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:Um, what? (2, Informative)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167599)

I agree. It seems that the author of this article just started listening to music.

I'm assuming the author has never heard the sounds of The Avalanches, MC Hawkins - Quake Master (Not the acclaimed physicist), or even seen a youtube poop.

If Christopher Columbus wants to say he discovered the Americas, let him.

Re:Um, what? (3, Informative)

Disco Hips (920480) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167815)

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:Um, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168029)

Yeah, for a genius at this shit see: DJ Shadow.

Re:Um, what? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168515)

It's not revolutionary, it's the natural progression.

Agreed, but to the extent a YouTube video mix is a music video, you could say it's revolutionary in that it isn't structured around a clicheed narrative, it lacks the requisite but gratuitous cast of "ho's", and it's not trying to sell records. Each of those, I think, is directly attributable to the fact that the video mix was obviously done by a musician.

Quite honestly, I was really really impressed. Especially considering the rubbish that's regularly produced by "professionals" and aired on TV channels dedicated to this kind of thing.

Re:Um, what? (2, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167735)

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.

Re:Um, what? (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168087)

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?

It is lifted from the article.

It implies that the "c level" executives in the media companies may soon be out of work due to their inability to shift paradigms (That popping sound you heard. Paradigm shift without a clutch.) The new artists and new creators of music being consumed are those like the artist covered in TFA. You can sue them or sign them up and sell their creative work. Admittedly standing on the shoulders of others.

--

You can dance if you want to...

Mashups (5, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (4, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (5, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Mashups (1)

krilli (303497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167541)

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 (1)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167749)

Me neither, I don't even like the word mashup. Mashups betray a lack of talent/knowledge/education/ability - and in the case of the word itself, a lack of rich vocabulary.

Re:Mashups (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168033)

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

But without copyright protections... (5, Funny)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167243)

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

Re:But without copyright protections... (4, Insightful)

agnosticanarch (105861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167317)

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:But without copyright protections... (2, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167355)

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.

Re:But without copyright protections... (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167381)

Think your sarcasm detector needs a bit of tuning.

Re:But without copyright protections... (1)

bgray54 (1207256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167383)

What's that? I'm detecting a hint of sarcasm in the parent post.

Re:But without copyright protections... (2, Informative)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167845)

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:But without copyright protections... (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167885)

>>>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:But without copyright protections... (2, Interesting)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168559)

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:But without copyright protections... (3, Funny)

Ontheotherhand (796949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167457)

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?

Re:But without copyright protections... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167555)

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.

Ice ice baby (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#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).

Re:Ice ice baby (5, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167543)

Thanks a lot! Now I have the bass line from Ice Ice Baby going through my head!

Pay back:

The Oscar Meyer Weiner song. "Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner ..."

Or "Who wear's short shorts..."

God, if you say, "What?" I've never heard of those." I'll have to put this onion back on my belt. Because that was the style when I was growing up. Right after the Vietnam War. Ford was President and this Peanut farmer from Georgia was running against him, Chevy Chase loved to make fun of Ford on that new show "Live on Saturday Night". Taxes were....

What were we talking about again?

Re:Ice ice baby (4, Funny)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167653)

"Ice wish Ice were an Oscar short-shorts baby..."

DJ Bemopolis Out. Peeaccceee!!

Re:Ice ice baby (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167957)

Now I have the bass line from Ice Ice Baby going through my head!

Could be worse.

You could be sitting in the morning at the diner on the corner. Waiting at the corner for the man to pour the coffee, and he fills it only halfway and before you can even argue he is looking out the window at somebody coming in.

Du du du du, du du-du du, du du du-du, du du du du.

Re:Ice ice baby (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168455)

Oh, do quit your whining! You think having "Ice Ice Baby" stuck in your head is bad? At least Korn put out a nice remake of THAT one! Have you played Bioshock yet? You play that damned game for any length of time you'll have "Mr. Sandman" and other old 50's muzak crap stuck in your head for freaking days, because that's whats playing in all the malls! And you can't even shoot the damned speakers! AAAARGH!

And when I finally stay far away from that game so that damned "Mr. Sandman bring me a dream" crap isn't floating through my head like a stuffed up toilet, what happens? I walk into Walgreens to get some sinus pills and guess what starts playing over their damned speakers? That's right "Mr. Sandman bring me a dream" and again with no damned way for me to shoot the damned speakers! AAAARGH!

Compared to THAT song "Ice Ice Baby" would be a blessing I tell you!

Re:Ice ice baby (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167867)

You really should take heed. I hear he's a lyrical poet. He's from Miami, in case you didn't know it.

um. (1)

X_Bones (93097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167307)

Is there even a story here? What's your point?

Re:um. (1)

krilli (303497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167559)

The story is the context and how it's put forward.

Nice link, not (3, Informative)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167333)

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

Re:Nice link, not (1, Informative)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167551)

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:Nice link, not (2, Funny)

mctk (840035) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167659)

FFS, all you need to do is click the colored words.

Re:Nice link, not (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167699)

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

You mean "words of ethnic descent".

Re:Nice link, not (5, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Nice link, not (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168139)

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]

Wow (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167339)

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?

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167491)

That's what's called a 'recording studio session'.

Re:Wow (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167585)

It's been done for years - some of the most well-known pop albums of the eighties and nineties were composed and arranged entirely by the producer with no personal involvement by the musicians. But the thing is, the musicians KNEW they were being sampled and turned into an album. The source videos for http://www.thru-you.com/ [thru-you.com] were plucked out of thin air, so to speak.

Re:Wow (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167925)

I suppose, but its also the digital equivalent of alchemy. In the eighties and ninetys, the sampled artists would most likely be listenable to on their own and the mix would be the sum of its parts. You could play the sampled artists at a party and not clear the dance floor.

However, in this case, he's pulling from wierd instrument solos and lessons as well as regular solos and stand-alone vocals, each, on its own would be barely watchable on the merits of musicality, but combining these baser parts with some tweaking, he came out with, well, "music gold". You play a guitar lesson youtube video, and all but guitar players and the like are bored, you could probably get away with playing some of the other mashups at a club of some sort and not get any complaints.

Amazing (2, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167357)

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.

Re:Amazing (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168383)

Actually, it was terrible. If that was the future of art, then I might as well jump off the nearest cliff now, because it was just terrible. I have heard better "music" from this:

dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/dsp

Hm (3, Insightful)

pudge (3605) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167437)

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.

Re:Hm (1)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168409)


Don't quote me on this, but after a protracted battle between Sony and 'Beatallica', they now release CD's for sales. I have to imagine a royalty kickback for 'beatallica' as they are the artists behind the creation.

I'm actually surprised beatallica hasn't been mentioned in context of this discussion, as they've set the high water mark for mashups, and have battled through all the IP issues, but then again, I didn't RTFA.

Lawyers? We don't need no stinkin lawyers for this (1)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167453)

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.

Re:Lawyers? We don't need no stinkin lawyers for t (1)

rjmx (233228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167633)

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.

Individually, maybe not (IANAL, so I don't know). However, if you're producing several minutes (don't know how long the video is; haven't RTFA) composed of many different IP or copyright materials, is that still fair use?

I'm not saying that it is or it isn't; I'm just asking.

You thought wrong (4, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167657)

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:Lawyers? We don't need no stinkin lawyers for t (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167741)

I dunno. In the late 80s people sued because a few seconds of their songs were being samples and reused... and they won. It was ruled copyright violation because apparently if you hear a song with a three-second chunk of "Abbey Road" in it, the Beatle's market is ruined, you now have no reason to buy their product.

Sortof the same way you'll now never buy "The Sun Also Rises" because this comment of mine contains some of the same words.

Re:Lawyers? We don't need no stinkin lawyers for t (1)

un1xl0ser (575642) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167805)

Well, mash-ups and the remix culture being fast and loose with IP and copyright could be compared to how the king co-opted some parts of African American music that he had exposure to, and made it his own.

Or am I reading too much into this?

Also, last time I checked my Elvis CD collection was is my Dad's house, gathering dust. Can't really say that I am a fan, although obviously it is historic and all that jazz.

So maybe Elvis isn't everyone's Elvis.

Burn! (1)

krilli (303497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167481)

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 (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#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. (4, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167587)

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.)

Nice (1)

phyrz (669413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167679)

+1 most random slashdot summary ever?

videos freakin cool though

Like rap taking pop riffs? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167687)

Mashups seem like a fun idea and the one on the main page is pretty cool. One would probably need to get rights to the various clips included though, the same way I believe rap artists who use riffs from the Police in the background need permission, pay royalties, etc.

The work isn't unique so its original crafter deserve some credit. It's unfortunate that "credit" means "cash" instead of just a line of text showing the artist's name.

The original content has to come from somewhere (3, Insightful)

Consul (119169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167725)

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:The original content has to come from somewhere (1)

Consul (119169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167777)

That should read "Kutiboy's accomplishment". Someday, I'll learn how to proofread.

I wonder how we'd go about suing someone? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167761)

Too late. Artists in the early 90s (like the infamous MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, DJ Jazzy Jeff and "the fresh prince" Will Smith) were already sued for "sampling" of previously-released records. The outcome was that artists could still sample other person's music, but they had to PAY for it.

So the precedent is already there. The only question is if they think it's worth the effort to sue you. If you're a nobody, probably not, but if you just sold a platinum record, better hire a lawyer.

Creative Commons (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167791)

First thing what I got to my head was "Is this licensed with CC?". Well, mayby not but this is exactly how CC has marketed itself.

All the artists of the "band" can be around the world, never meeting each other or contacting and people could mix their art and product new art from it, by same license.

Just CC by-sa (or what is the new license versions, if I remembere correctly, it is always "share alike") and you are mentioned in the credits.

Fair Use? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167797)

That may very well be fair use (in the USA).

Re:Fair Use? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167841)

posting a video on youtube does not grant viewers a royalty free license to use that content however they see fit.

That being said, the video was quite amazing.

If I start posting on youtube, I will preface all my videos with a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168339)

Fair Use [wikipedia.org] , by definition, doesn't require a licence. Of course, using CC-BY-SA is a much safer and more productive way of going about this type of thing.

IP = (1, Funny)

jag7720 (685739) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167811)

IP = Imaginary Property

Call me a Luddite (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167909)

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

Re:Call me a Luddite (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168487)

Depends on who you talk to. Personally, I thought that video was a horrible waste of electricity, but apparently some people consider it artistic and want more of it. Then again, I also cannot stand techno, or any other "music" that requires all the effort of hitting some buttons.

Re:Call me a Luddite (1)

Panseh (1072370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168501)

I don't disagree, but this mashup certainly did not throw together random sounds together.

This Isn't New (3, Insightful)

Goody (23843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27167975)

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.

how is this the future of entertainment? (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168011)

Are they saying the music is the future of entertainment? Because sampling started in the past.

Are they saying 4 minute videos of 3 seconds loops is the future of entertainment? Even if this were to displace all music videos, videos are not the bulk of the entertainment industry. People seem to like to watch content which is 23 or 100 minutes in length and is not composed of small loops of video repeated.

This guy seems to be the new EBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_Network), which means he'll be nearly forgotten in just a few short years.

Not really that amazing... (1)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168121)

While I agree that it takes talent to do this, this is no more amazing than a typical DJ that mixes various tracks to make their own. The only difference here is that "kutiman" used tracks taken from YouTube that include video. The only bit of extra work put in here is a little bit of video editing, and only to the extent that he/she selected which video clip is displayed at any given point. Any DJ could do this as it is all synced by audio, not video.

Evolution, no Ramen Required (1)

deliciousmonster (712224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168447)

<technical>
This is just the video counterpart to girltalk [http://www.myspace.com/girltalk [myspace.com] ].
</technical>
<cultural>
With the disparate production values, skill levels, eras and even ethinicities, it's a pretty compelling statement about how music can unite us.
</cultural>
<emotional>
Absolutely amazing. Immediately added them all to my Muziic [muziic.com] playlist.
</emotional>
<legal>
He's fucked.
</legal>

Well-Deserved Kudos, But Not New (3, Interesting)

pz (113803) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168467)

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.

Artistic gedanken experiment (1)

rlseaman (1420667) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168529)

So mashups are legally ambiguous. Try this variation. YouTube releases an API that permits indexing into any video at any point. Further, the API allows displaying the video within a region-of-interest on the screen. The API is multi-threaded.

Under this scenario exactly the same artistic presentation could result, but without any prior editing. All that is being orchestrated is the simultaneous presentation of several works that were released precisely with the intent of display on remote desktops.

It would only be at the point that an end-user captured the performance into a permanent file, thus completing the remix, that any possible infringement would occur. (Although then an argument of private use might pertain.)

The art here (whatever one thinks of this New Elvis) is in the remix, not the permanent copy. These remixes could be traded as YouTube "scripts" - a form of extreme data compression - preserving the freedom of expression. Live performances could be organized using video projectors from laptops.

If YouTube manages to make any money from my idea, I reserve the right to beg for my fair share. But then, maybe I should remix this message as a script that samples other messages.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?