Why Are Police Going After Mixtapes... And Why Are They Bringing Along RIAA Reps?
from the are-they-really-that-stupid? dept
You may recall the story from about four years ago of the RIAA getting a SWAT team to raid a popular DJ for making mixtapes. Of course, mixtapes are pretty common -- especially in (but not limited to) the hiphop world. Hell, remember Lily Allen was distributing her own mixtapes off of her own website, which she later claimed was controlled by EMI. Mixtapes tend to be considered a "murky" area of copyright law. In most cases, they do involve some level of infringement, mixed with some authorized works. They're often used to promote a new artist, by mixing his or her work with more established artists. Record labels and producers regularly send out pre-release tracks to top DJs hoping to get them into a hot mixtape, knowing that it will be a boon to those artists.Of course, when they do so, it's never with an explicit license that this is okay. I've seen directly how these things work, and it usually involves an email -- from a label or a "promoter" hired by the label -- sent to a DJ or to a popular music blog, highlighting some new song that they want to push. Everyone involved knows what's happening. The labels want the song out there. But there's no explicit license, and the whole thing works on the assumption that the labels won't ever go after the people promoting their work.
But, it doesn't always work that way. We've seen it in some of the domain seizures by Homeland Security, some of which included music blogs that were a part of the blogging side of this promotional equation. And, just like the mixtape arrests a few years back, the same thing appears to be happening again. Emily Kaiser, from Washington City Paper, points us to an article that WCP recently put out describing a police raid of a popular studio because its owner, a popular DJ, was selling some mixtapes.
From the article, it seems pretty clear that, like most mixtapes, this one included a mix of authorized and unauthorized works. While the guy who owns the studio, Jeremy Beaver (or DJ Boom), claims to have the rights to all the music, and claims to have worked with all the artists on the mixtape, it appears, again, that this may be only partially accurate. Beaver, for a time, worked at XM Radio as "director of hip hop programming," and it sounds, from the article, that he may have taken some liberties in using recordings from his time there. Other songs, however, definitely do involve some big name hip hop artists, like KRS-One, who not only used Beaver's studio, but created some songs with shoutouts to the studio and Beaver himself.
From a technical standpoint, it seems likely that at least some of the mixtapes were infringing. But, if you end your analysis there, you're missing the point. These mixtapes are everywhere, and the major record labels quite directly support them all the time. These somewhat random arrests of DJs that the labels themselves rely on seems incredibly short-sighted. From Beaver's standpoint, while he insists that he has the rights to release all the music as a mixtape, the reality is that he probably views the mixtape as something of a portfolio of work that he's had some hand in, whether producing at his studio or via his former work at XM.
Both things make sense. Mixtapes as a promotional vehicle have been fantastic and tremendously valuable to the industry and to many, many artists -- which is why all of the major record labels support them quite a bit. On top of that, the ability for a producer DJ to be able to show off his or her skills in a portfolio also makes sense. The problem, of course, is that due to the way copyright laws are set up today, it can likely be against the law. That's a problem with the law -- not with the makers of mixtapes.
The second big problem here, however, is the role (of course) of the RIAA in all of this. It likes to put its head in the sand concerning the popularity and value of mixtapes, but the really troubling part is that it appears to have actively taken part in this particular raid:
Beaver says he caught sight of a man in a dark suit standing in the background who resembled the late comedian W.C. Fields. Fields, he recalls, seemed to ooze authority and contempt. He eventually told Beaver who he was, or at least what he represented: the Recording Industry Association of America.This raises all sorts of questions. Why would the police allow an RIAA representative to come along on a "bust"? Bringing a private corporate interest along on a raid does not seem reasonable. Of course, the flipside remains an important question as well: what are the police doing busting down mixtape creators anyway? The whole thing seems like a typical boondoggle of epic proportions involving clueless law enforcement officials and hamfisted RIAA reps, seeking to "make a statement," by going after the very people they rely on to promote their work.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it so unreasonable for the RIAA to want to verify that they're getting a good return on all the money they've spent to twist the laws and influence politicians and bureaucrats?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
Why am I picturing the smoking man as the RIAA representative? And why do I not see that correlation as too much of a stretch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
No, not a stretch at all.
The truth is out there - we just need a Mulder and Scully to find it for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay off law enforcement as they'll do as you please. Except it's not the actual officers raiding these places that are benefiting from the corruption. It's the district attorneys, police chiefs, senators & law makers.
What's unbelievable to me is that in these raids where there is no reason to believe it's a dangerous situation that these guys are allowed to rush in with automatic weapons & shotguns drawn and point them in the face of whoever happens to be there at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They used a local "anti-counterfeiting" law requiring you to put an address on any CDs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
CD's are those little plastic disks that they used to sell music on. They recorded 10-12 songs onto these big plastic things, put them in a bigger square case with a little booklet about the music, and sold them in the places called "record stores" (I can only assume 'record' is short for recording?).
I guess if a giant piece of plastic comes with your music (which is in a format that you have to convert to an mp3 later), you may as well include an address on the thing. That way, after you copy the music off of it and onto your hard drive, you know where to return the plastic disk (optionally attached to a brick if you did not like the music you were not allowed to preview before you bought).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree. This seems very improper.
But, I guess it's a half step better than BREIN in the Netherlands or FACT in the UK, where these obviously biased parties have actually collected the evidence against the accused, instead of law enforcement doing it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selling Mixtapes...
Ah. A portfolio of his work. All well and good.
But I'm confused about how this applies, since, as stated in the article, the raid happened because "...its owner, a popular DJ, was selling some mixtapes."
Selling. I understand SHOWING your portfolio, of course. But SELLING copies of it? For profit?
I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling Mixtapes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selling Mixtapes...
Now, we can argue back and forth about mixtapes themselves, and about how much fair use applies in sampling other people's music... but SELLING tapes for people to enjoy has nothing whatsoever to do with any consideration of fair use as applied to portfolios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling Mixtapes...
You might not 'think so', but I'm afraid your moral evaluation doesn't line up with reality. Selling mixtapes is *incredibly* common, and the labels regularly send songs to DJs with the fully knowledge that those DJs will be selling mixtapes. It still benefits the labels and the artists, and they are still always clamoring to get on hot mixtapes.
The price is not the issue here. No matter what the DJs are doing, the fact is the promotional arms of the labels have been supporting them in their activity. So for the legal arm of those same labels to appear and attack those same DJs for a practice they have actively encouraged for years is not acceptable, and highlights a big problem with copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selling Mixtapes...
Now, we can argue back and forth about mixtapes themselves, and about how much fair use applies in sampling other people's music, whether or not it's an accepted practice, and so... but SELLING tapes for people to enjoy has nothing whatsoever to do with any consideration of fair use as applied to portfolios.
In short, the "reality" is that he probably views the mixtape as something of a portfolio of work has little to do with the situation at hand. After, neither you nor I are generally entitled to resell work produced while working for another company or organization.
And that's the point in the article I was addressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Selling Mixtapes...
It's not a manufactured excuse - it's highlighting another way in which copyright is out of sync with common sense and perception, increasingly so in an age where more and more art is based on overt appropriation, collaboration and sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting deployment of police.
Seriously, if they need practice kicking down doors, Newark NJ could certainly use the help.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police are Going after Mixtapes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Police are Going after Mixtapes
Seriously, I tired of people assuming that "against the law" == "illegal" == "criminal". It's because of that sort of sham logic that this country is turning into a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Police are Going after Mixtapes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The really sad commentary here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The really sad commentary here...
What is this constitution thing you speak of.
Is that the new law that savior Obama is going to write.
The one that guarantees me health care till I am told to die.
The one that guarantees I will always have a job.
The one that guarantees that the rich will suffer.
The one that guarantees that the government will make sure all is right.
Is that the thing you are talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No charges have been filed in this case (raid was last Nov. right?) and the property still has not been returned.
Just like in the domain seizues, no charges made, domains still have not been returned.
It allows law enforcement & Government to do whatever they want, without ever having to actually charge anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO respect
I am not a criminal in my mind but I am sure as hell I would be labeled one by various government agencies. I would argue most citizens of this country would be as well. You can't walk outside you're front door in this country without breaking some kind of law it seems.
First step to becoming a police state: Make so many laws that every citizen is, by default, a criminal.
How can I respect any government that attacks its own citizens for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law is incompatible with creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mixtapes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boomerang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]