24 Feb 04 / Why We Don't Need Grey Tuesday
art, musicI should start with this: I think Danger Mouse is brilliant, and I'm no fan of EMI. And as much as I like to see someone taking action in this age of questionable copyright enforcement, Downhill Battle is a bit misdirected.
Yes, the RIAA takes part in some questionable activities. Yes, major labels screw artists day after day. But there are limits to fair use, and there are laws regulating the use of copyrighted material.
One of Downhill Battle's war cries is "EMI isn't looking for compensation, they're trying to ban a work of art." This may be EMI's intent, but here's the thing: try as they might, there is no way that EMI can keep people from listening to The Grey Album.
Thousands of people have already heard The Grey Album, and EMI can't take it from them. There is no way to keep them from sharing it with their friends.
So what can EMI do in this situation? They call their lawyers. They write cease and desist letters. And that is exactly what they should be doing. There is no way EMI can let this go, simply because of the precedence it would set. It is their right and their duty to try and protect their property.
So they fight. And they will win any debate about commercial distribution, but they will never be able to ban The Grey Album.
I'm all for supporting Danger Mouse and passing on the word about his work of art, but if Grey Tuesday is a protest, what are we protesting? Danger Mouse's case is a cause for celebration -- it shows how impossible it is for a major corporation to eradicate a work of art.
In my mind, Illegal Art has exactly the right stance. Art that infringes on copyrights is still art. It should be available to the public. Read about it, download it, share it with your friends. But it's not about fighting the record labels. It's about making art that matters regardless of what the labels think.
[update: Lawrence Lessig weighs in]