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:

If you can’t see that, it says:

My soundcloud is temp disabled due to some copyright bullshit. Getting it cleared up and should be re activated soon

His 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.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: interscope, universal music

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement…”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
62 Comments
Jeff (profile) says:

When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...

They get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking to…

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...

So using Twitter and Soundcloud or any website at all to distribute and share said remixes and music utilizing samples is bad? How about linking to or embedding said remixes? That’s bad too right? What about the act of Jamie Iovine uploading the remixes which contained the work of three separate artists on different music labels to the internet with the intent of distributing it?

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.

The Groove Tiger (profile) says:

Re: Re: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...

That’s exactly what we expect from a freetard Lord High Pirate Apologist like you, AC. Defending the stealing of the invisible IPs of honest musicians by Lord High Pirate remixer kids. And then you claim that you’re against piracy. More lies from the lying liar that lies lyingly. Why don’t you go back to Cuba you communist.

RD says:

High Court/Low Court justice

So can one of the oh-so-smarter-than-us rah-rah-copyright shills who regularly post here tell us why THIS kid was allowed to “correct” the problem and simply remove the offending material, and allow his site to continue, when EVERYONE ELSE who is not the son of a Big Media Exec gets the JusticeHammer(tm) right up the ass, has their site seized and domain (if applicible) permanently removed, and is sued/incarcerated/fined into oblivion?

Here is your chance to put us all in our place once and for all. We are waiting.

Liam (profile) says:

Re: High Court/Low Court justice

This is a bit of a straw man you just setup. Most people who upload copyrighted videos to youtube and the like usually do just have the video removed. It’s only when they become repeat infringers that they have they’re accounts banned.

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.

RD says:

Re: High Court/Low Court justice

“Here is your chance to put us all in our place once and for all. We are waiting.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

“(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.”

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.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You know that Jamie’s dad might have shown him places like Pirate Bay, and how to find unlisted torrents and such to show him how dangerous and immoral and illegal they all are but Jamie got a bit of a different message.

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.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

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

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.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I used “a few seconds” more to illustrate the absurdity of it all.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Most striking

“(Piracy) is hurting kids because kids are learning a disrespect for the basic relationship between creativity and ownership.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Most striking

Actually, the key word is disrespect. It fits this all to a T. It’s why the current trends are not heading for a good conclusion.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Sincerest form of flattery?

I suppose that you are complaining about remixing?

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.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Most striking

It’s curious that you don’t acknowledge the disconnect and dissonance between creation and ownership. Jamie merely did what musicians and arrangers have done for centuries which is remix something old into something new and, perhaps, providing exposure and sales for the new.

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.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Most striking

It’s why the current trends are not heading for a good conclusion.

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.

If this is the end result of the “new business model” for music, I would rather have the old one back.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Wouldn’t be the first kids had strongly different views from their parents.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

” It was a remix that included Will.I.Am (Interscope Artist) along with Jennifer Lopez and Mick Jagger (not on Interscope).”

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.

Overcast (profile) says:

Wouldn’t at all surprise me if these same execs are downloading movies, music, etc on Torrent.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

so, fair enough, everyone and anyone can be a ‘file sharer, in one form or another and to different extents. however, had this have been any ‘ordinary person’, would their account have been reinstated in almost record time? i very much doubt not! was it sorted out because his dad is who he is? was it sorted out because of which company his dad works for? regardless of which of these came into play, he doesn’t own the copyright on the songs, his dad doesn’t own the copyright on the songs, the company itself does, so the son shouldn’t have gotten off this light because he still must have committed copyright infringement and should receive the same treatment as everyone else would!

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Reinstatement as a result of a DCMA take down notice is supposed to occur when the site removes the link to the allegedly offending file. No high powered relatives required.

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.

RD says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Reinstatement as a result of a DCMA take down notice is supposed to occur when the site removes the link to the allegedly offending file. No high powered relatives required.”

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

This really isn’t a surprise. Edgar Bronfman Jr. (head of Warner) had no qualms about suing kids, but when it came to his own kids, he was sure that they had downloaded music before and had been appropriately penalised or some other vague nonsense.

I’m fairly certain he didn’t confiscate their pocket money for forever minus a day.

Anonymous Coward says:

Funny how when the rest of the world gets their accounts “deactivated” due to infringement getting those accounts back is virtually impossible. The accounts are generally deactivated due to repeat infringement so that sites like Soundcloud stay within the safe harbors of the DMCA.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hey pirate mike, since the guy is a professional DJ…maybe it was right for the song to be taken down since he might not have got the proper permissions and whatnot before doing the remix? Wouldn’t matter if it was a fan, but I hope even you can agree a professional should actually have permission before using other people’s content in a remix.

chelleliberty (profile) says:

“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.”

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. 😉

Anonymous Coward says:

Soundcloud reinstated the remix on Jamie’s Soundcloud page.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...