When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
from the oh-look-at-that dept
You may know the name Jimmy Iovine. He's the head of Interscope Records, one of Universal Music's most important subsidiaries (if not the most important one). Not surprisingly, Iovine has a bit of a history of being something of a copyright maximalist. A few years back, he specifically called out the evils of children infringing:"Rip it, burn it--the last few years parents and children have been given a pass when they knew in their hearts that [what they were doing] was wrong," Iovine said.Indeed, he seems to suggest that parents share some of the blame for their kids infringing:
"(Piracy) is hurting kids because kids are learning a disrespect for the basic relationship between creativity and ownership. It's hurting parents because they are in on the sham."So, one would assume that Jimmy Iovine's kids are squeaky clean, right? Especially, say, if they were professional DJs whose websites indicate they're a part of the Interscope/Universal Music family, right? Yes, that's the website of DJ Eye -- also known as Jamie Iovine, son of Jimmy Iovine. Jamie actually has a really good reputation as a DJ but, like many DJs, he releases mixtapes/remixes/etc. And, recently, it appears, Jamie's Soundcloud account was shut down due to copyright infringement:
My soundcloud is temp disabled due to some copyright bullshit. Getting it cleared up and should be re activated soonHis account is now back but a recent remix has gone missing. It was a remix that included Will.I.Am (Interscope Artist) along with Jennifer Lopez and Mick Jagger (not on Interscope).
None of this is to suggest that Jamie did anything wrong here. In fact, it looks like he did something completely natural and certainly very common: remixed some music in a cool way. But the way copyright law often works, you can now get in lots of trouble and owe lots and lots of money for doing something completely natural. Perhaps his father will realize that these issues aren't always so black and white, and even if your children are brought up in a house where they're taught repeatedly just how totally awesome copyright law is, it doesn't mean they won't, someday, discover how copyright law limits them, and get accused of copyright infringement.
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
Filed Under: jennifer lopez, jimmy iovine, mick jagger, remix, will.i.am
Companies: interscope, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
When the kids of ordinary plebes get accused of infringement...
They are "dirty, freeloading pirate theiving bastards" who deserve *criminal* prosecution, incarceration and execution for destroying the industrial might of America...
I wish that I could say this was sarcasm, but the truth of the matter is the hypocrisy of the "content" industry knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
This silly blog is such a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
How about you're a moron, because there is no difference unless Jamie Iovine made these remixes with the sole intent to keep them for his personal use and not share them with people. That's clearly not what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
Why don't you try making a remix with samples from major artists and see what kind of treatment you get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High Court/Low Court justice
Here is your chance to put us all in our place once and for all. We are waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
We're waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
Also, it had nothing to do with his personal site, it was on soundcloud.
I'm by no means for copyright as it is today but I am for balanced and fair debate with as few logical fallacies and false premises as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: High Court/Low Court justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: High Court/Low Court justice
2 days later now, and still no response to this. You've had your chance now, and you chose not to step up to the plate.
THIS is why you get "shouted down" on this site all the time when you RUSH to your keyboard so you can be one of the first posters to slam any anti-copyright/pro-public article. You can sure get there quickly (within minutes, usually) when its a chance to talk up the wonders of ever-increasing enforcement and prosecution, but nowhere to be found for 2 days when the question doesnt allow you to easily thread-and-topic-jack an article.
Your collective credibility is now zero. You WILL be getting raked over the coals next time (and all time after) and you deserve it, and have no claim to whine and cry "unfair!" when it happens.
You are now just like the defendant in those copyright infringing cases where they don't even show up to court and get summarily judged (which you SUPPORT, and loudly) so by your own logic/arguments, you've made your bed and now get to lie in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's really interesting Mr. Iovine. I wonder what does your kid have to say about that.
"My soundcloud is temp disabled due to some copyright bullshit."
Welcome to the sham Mr. Iorvine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reality is probably closer to the fact that Jamie is a WebKid and operates in that world not the one his dad does so it never occurred to him that remixing a few seconds of a song or two into his mix would result in this kind of bother. In his world what happened is absurd.
It is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt it was a few seconds - I bet it was big chunks of the acapellas. And it would still never occur to him that it's wrong: the artists and promoters release those acapellas because being remixed by prominent DJs is an important part of exposure. It's more of the left-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-right-hand-is-doing bullshit that labels are so good at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Everything else you say I'd agree with and I'd agree that's what's going on.
It does speak volumes when you say the left and right hands of RIAA members don't know what each of them are doing. And it's not a surprise. :(
It happens when one part of the label's "brain" is obsessed and fixated by piracy while the other lobe is trying to promote the label's artists by releasing acapellas to prominent DJs for exposure and promotion.
Obession and fixation always win over good sense and actually conducting a successful business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or more likely than a industry exec getting a clue: he will disown him; sue him; and go after him, his parents (yes... including himself), and the rest of his family for millions in damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most striking
I think it's refreshing to see the root of the pro-copyright mindset so exposed and curtly summarised: creativity implies ownership of the creative product.
I think it's more appropriate, however, to distinguish authorship and ownership as the distinct entities they are, especially when not doing so causes nonsense like ownership of ideas (let alone ownership of said ideas for multiple decades beyond your death).
Do I think it's important to recognise and acknowledge those who have created? Yes. Do I think it's important to support those who create things I like, to encourage them to create more? Yes. Do I think it's appropriate to allow those people to stop others from creating? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most striking
if anything, it seems that the online world is falling into the same crap that you see "in the hood" where it's all about artificial respect, while you rip each other off and fight.
If this is the end result of the "new business model" for music, I would rather have the old one back. Talk about alienating fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most striking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sincerest form of flattery?
Well, don't they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
Copying someone, as long as proper credit is given, certainly shows respect for their work. You show respect for their work by basically saying "I couldn't have done it without him/her".
It's pretty much what is done in the academic world, where you are required to include references to other people's work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most striking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most striking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Most striking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Most striking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most striking
Handel did it, Beethoven did it, Led Zeppelin never stopped doing it to the point of note for note copies on which they then claimed authorship of the songs. Jamie did it and landed in a boiling pot of soup for doing it.
Of course, IP extremists didn't exit for Handel, Beethoven, or Zep nor did they exist for those who "stole" whole songs sans lyrics and stuffed them into Hymnals, a lot of which became some of our culture's favourite hymns which were, and continue to be, remixed into folk, country, rock, blues, jazz, show tunes, electropop, hip hop, and many other forms.
Yes, in one sense (not the copyright sense) there's a direct link between ownership between the creator of music and ownership. One that should always be acknowledged and supported. Sadly, in the copyright sense these days, in the vast majority of cases the creator of music, through assignment, has signed that copyright ownership over to a label, who then bring billing agencies like BMI/ASCAP and others into the picture all of whom take a cut of sales long before the creator sees one red cent from their creation. IF they ever do.
NOW, that's disrespect to the creator if there ever has been. And that's the biggest problem with the current copyright regime and how it plays out in practice. Labels create zilch. Unless you count confusion and chaos as creation.
Yet the labels, and you, demand we respect them and follow THEIR rules as chaotic and confused as they are. Talk about demanding artificial respect!
If current trends result in a complete rethink of copyright and how it works in the real world (as opposed to the *AA's world) I'll cheer it on. If that means the death of a concept born in a world of dead tree books and publishers constantly undercutting each other by printing the same title at the same moment then I'll be there to cheer it on. Megaphone in hand. If it means the appearance of a new form of "copyright" more appropriate for the digital age that ensures creators, not corporations, get paid first for their work I'll turn my megaphone up to 10 and really get to cheering.
Label's create nothing. Let's get that clear from the start.
Alienating fans has far more to do with non-creative entities howling about how creative they are than living in "the hood" or the yard of a high school where two over hormoned teenagers square off.
Give me the new model any day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Most striking
I agree. I do actively disrespect the mainstream recorded music industry, because through their actions they have repeatedly demonstrated over a period of many years that are are not worthy of any amount of respect. Further, artists who sign with major labels immediately lose a measure of respect for doing so.
The respect issue can be resolved easily enough, though. The *AA labels should start to behave in a respectable way.
Don't worry, it's not. It's more about no longer faking respect like in the old system, since in the new system we no longer have to put up with with the traditional behavior of the legacy players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One guy, who was nicknamed the architect of the Vietnam war (his name escapes me), had a college aged son who attended lots of anti-Vietnam war protests, and even invited lots of anti-war friends home, the same home his father lived in.
News about his very anti-war son didn't reach the media until some time after the father left his job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be VERY interesting to know just who issued the takedown order. If it was Interscope and not the Label that owns Lopez ( Yes, I do mean that literally )then that a pretty clear demonstration of whacking a competitor.
I'm willing to bet money that Interscope didn't want someone else' horse represented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure many 'artists' do as well.
But I found another good indie artist and just ordered a CD from them a couple days ago... and I think that's what the RIAA and friends dislike the most.
The need for them is dwindling fast. They can find a new spot and likely do even better, if they weren't so focused on sustaining an old dead business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That and Soundscope was probably bombarded by messages from Jamie's fans that basically asked WTF and demanded the site back on line. No doubt they played a major role too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Immaterial to the US Govt in several cases (see Megaupload, Rojadirecta(sp))
"That and Soundscope was probably bombarded by messages from Jamie's fans that basically asked WTF and demanded the site back on line. No doubt they played a major role too."
Immaterial to the US Govt in several cases (see Megaupload, Rojadirecta(sp))
WHY does the above (non)explanation apply to this Big Media Exec kid, and not to everyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm fairly certain he didn't confiscate their pocket money for forever minus a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is totally awesome, really. Fuck them over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well well well
I say we go with the son of a copyright maximalist and use his words since they sound so much more correct.
No longer shall I call it infringement, but rather Copyright Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well well well
I like that. We'll call the people who do this Copyright Bullshitists(tm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamie Iovine got his account completely reinstated within hours. Yes, the remix is still gone, but the rest of his stuff is still there and his account is as it was.
I'd really love it if someone from Soundcloud would tell us why and how Jamie Iovine got his account back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The accounts are generally deactivated due to repeated ACCUSATIONS of infringement - FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, because 9 times out of 10, there is no infringement occurring.
oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's good too. Just like that I became a huge fan of DJ Eye.
https://twitter.com/#!/therealeye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamie's retweet
Just been listening to the track and it's bloody good.
If you are reading this Jamie, keep it up.
You can download it for free below via the link he supplied in another tweet.
http://soundcloud.com/r3hab/will-i-am-ft-jlo-mick-jagger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the bet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
see it's not that he is special, they just have more access to "free speech" than you and I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure! This is great, it'll be just like when all those politicians whose kids got caught smokin' weed or doin' drugs suddenly realized that drug laws aren't so black and white, and they pushed for full decriminalization for simple users and it was sunshine and rainbows all arou....
<receives note> Oh. Really?
Nevermind. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I'm glad that Jamie has been cool about this whole thing and considers it "copyright bullshit" like the rest of us, the fact is that remix according to the standards the rest of the world is being forced to live under IS infringement. The hypocrisy pisses me off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]