| by Gary J. Wood, ``EMI Candy Stand``, [CC-BY-SA-2.0] |
The album did not go unnoticed at EMI, which controls the sound recordings for The Beatles (Patel, 2004). EMI made it directly clear to Danger Mouse that the company wanted him to stop producing further copies of the album, which he did.
However, the 3,000 promotional copies already released continued to circulate among fans and critics in both the U.S. and the U.K., so EMI also sent letters to eBay and record stores, where these promotional copies of album were now being sold, asking them to stop. Some did. EMI also sent letters to websites hosting copies of the album, asking them to stop. Most didn’t. The album was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times by this point. Facebook and Twitter—now typical sites to amplify opinions about an issue like this—were not yet around in 2004, nor was YouTube, but the issue still gained traction online and offline.
The album even inspired a protest movement against EMI, and all of the expected and implicit copyright discussions ensued among artists, columnists, and bloggers. Protesters wanted the album protected under the American copyright exception known as fair use, which protects the use of copyright material in another’s commentary, criticism, and other activities (U.S. Copyright Office, 2012). Debate largely centered on American copyright law; EMI argued that the fair use exception didn’t apply to the The Grey Album, since it was a creative work, rather than a work of “commentary.” Or was it? Everyone had an opinion. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr from The Beatles weighed in, supporting the album. The pundits weighed in, too. Whether because of the publicity, or despite the publicity, EMI eventually let the issue drop. Danger Mouse continued on with his music career.
(Listen to this NPR story about The Grey Album, which includes clips from interviews with Danger Mouse, EMI and a copyright lawyer to get different perspectives about the album.)
Go to Part 4: The Impact.
No comments:
Post a Comment