Part 4: The Impact

Those who favour laxer copyright laws tend to talk about the The Grey Album as if it were a high impact case in contemporary copyright history, but was it? EMI sent cease-and-desist orders to several parties who sold the physical copies of the album, and to websites who hosted the album, but those parties often continued to sell it and host, and EMI never acted on those letters. EMI never sued anyone, and no one lost their job over the issue. The question of whether the album was or was not protected by the fair use exception was never tested in court. Considering this, what does EMI’s lack of real court action say about its own opinion of the issue and the album? Did lack of court action indicate that EMI didn’t really find the issue that important? Or did EMI perhaps think that court action would make the album become even more popular? Did the fact that McCartney and Jay-Z expressed their support for The Grey Album suggest that the disagreement was one between lawyers rather than between creators?

At the Grammy Awards in 2006, Jay-Z, Chester Benington from Linkin Park and Paul McCartney performed a mashup of "Numb/Encore" (which itself is a mashup) and "Yesterday". What is the significance of this performance in regards to remixes/mashups and copyright, and in particular The Grey Album? Is there any importance to the choice of the song, "Yesterday"?

From a different perspective, some might argue that the album, an act of creativity, doesn’t push the boundaries of copyright law at all, and that it exists within the original intent of copyright law in the U.S., if not within current practice. The U.S. Copyright Office itself notes that “the purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society" (U.S. Copyright Office, n.d.).

(Listen to two musicians and a law professor talk about the history of remixing and sampling in hip hop, copyright law and the importance of The Grey Album to record companies.)

 

The Grey Album rocketed Danger Mouse to fame, but he was largely unknown previously, and some critics would probably argue that he has not produced a substantially notable piece of work since then. What does it say about the quality of his work, or his status as a musician, if he is largely known by the music of others? Who is the true author of The Grey Album, and what effect did its legal status have on its success?

       As well, why was there a difference in coverage of the album? Why did independent publications like Pitchfork review the album as music, but larger publications like The New Yorker write about the album as a copyright issue? The New Yorker is owned by media conglomerate Condé Nast, a company with a vested interest in copyright law. What relationship, if any, would this have to the way The New Yorker wrote about the album? How should a copyright-respecting publication like The New Yorker review an album like this, if at all? What does the industry and the media’s response to this music copyright issue say about other copyright issues that might emerge in fields like writing, publishing, software and film?

Please share your thoughts regarding this case by posting a comment below. After everyone has had a chance to share their opinions, post your final reflections/position in the "Reflections" section. Thank-you!