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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Jeff (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:14am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:46am

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

      yea, cuz sampling and remixes are on a par with a website illegally engaged in mass distribution of someone else's content...

      This silly blog is such a joke.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:57am

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rekrul, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

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

        yea, cuz sampling and remixes are on a par with a website illegally engaged in mass distribution of someone else's content...

        Why don't you try making a remix with samples from major artists and see what kind of treatment you get...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        The Groove Tiger (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DC, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 3:24pm

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

        If the blog is a joke, why read it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:24am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      adamj (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:28am

      Re: High Court/Low Court justice

      ^

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:46am

      Re: High Court/Low Court justice

      +1
      We're waiting.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:49am

      Re: High Court/Low Court justice

      Can the High Court slap on the wrist treatment of the copyright maximalist's kid be used as a defense for the common people who must use the Low Court?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:01am

      Re: High Court/Low Court justice

      My guess: "do as we say, not as we do" or "he's one of the anointed elite so he couldn't have been guilty like those peasants out there!".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:25am

      Re: High Court/Low Court justice

      Yeah that's soooooo gonna happen...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Liam (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 10:57am

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, Apr 19th, 2012 @ 3:05pm

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:38am

    As a oh-so-smarter-than-us rah-rah-copyright shill i can confirm the reason is because... so there.

    I hope that helps.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:41am

    I've said it before, guys like Jimmy Iovine don't actually give a rip about copyright. They're not copyright maximalists, they're middlemen protectionists. To them copyright laws are just tools to protect their interests. They'll use 'em or ignore 'em whenever it best suits them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:41am

    "(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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:59am

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:05am

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:06am

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ComputerAddict (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:52am

    " Perhaps his father will realize that these issues aren't always so black and white"

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 7:55am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:03am

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:13am

        Re: Re: Most striking

        So you'd rather have the old system back where the labels rip the artists off anyway and fight the artists when they want their royalties?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:21am

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:54am

        Re: Re: Most striking

        Yes, you do talk about how to alienate fans quite often.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Watchit (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:33am

        Re: Re: Most striking

        sooo, how is it alienating fans when artists are closet to their fans then ever through the internet?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:50am

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:18am

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:04am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:08am

    " 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:21am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:25am

    How can you respect someone telling you you aren't allowed to sing someone happy birthday at a party or create collages from magazines or listen to your records in the car if you want? Maybe if they hadn't made copyright so evil people would respect it more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:40am

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:58am

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        RD, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:51am

        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?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    daniel (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:57am

    infringement

    nowaday it is almost impossible not to be accused of infringement, even a little bit. there is so much info on the web that is very likely to make mistakes and copy, reproduce, distribute something already claimed by someone else

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:21am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 9:25am

    What I wait for is Hillery Rosen' adopted kid to get busted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Y'know, I think that people are pirating just to stick it to the man by this point.

    Which is totally awesome, really. Fuck them over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 3:34pm

      Re:

      It's totally acceptable to fuck over the labels who don't deserve a damn penny. But I do hope you subsequently buy any merch from whoever you are pirating...fuck over "the man," not the awesome person giving you the shit you like.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    well well well

    We are often saying that infringement shouldn't be called theft.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:53am

      Re: well well well

      "No longer shall I c'all it infringement, but rather Copyright Bullshit.

      I like that. We'll call the people who do this Copyright Bullshitists(tm)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 11:08am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

      Re:

      "The accounts are generally deactivated due to repeat infringement so that sites like Soundcloud stay within the safe harbors of the DMCA. "

      The accounts are generally deactivated due to repeated ACCUSATIONS of infringement - FTFY

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2012 @ 4:20am

        Re: Re:

        The accounts are generally deactivated due to repeated ACCUSATIONS of infringement - FTFY

        Yes, because 9 times out of 10, there is no infringement occurring.









        oh wait...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Apr 20th, 2012 @ 4:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And the takedowns are *always* issued by people who have all the rights to that item, and are doing it correctly for stuff even when they issued it themselves?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 12:26pm

    Jamie Iovine is awesome. Not only did he retweet a link to this article on his twitter, but he included a link to the remix on another DJ's Soundcloud page where it's offered for free download.

    It's good too. Just like that I became a huge fan of DJ Eye.

    https://twitter.com/#!/therealeye

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 12:47pm

    Jamie's retweet

    True, he retweeted me as well after I put the link on Twitter.
    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 2:43pm

    Whats the bet?

    That Levin Sr. sues his own son, then via a series of loopholes manages to claim the resulting damages from his 2012 tax bill?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 3:09pm

    Re:

    of course this child of the elite gets a pass, His family has so much more "free speech" in the family bank account.

    see it's not that he is special, they just have more access to "free speech" than you and I

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 3:26pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    chelleliberty (profile), Apr 18th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

    "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. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2012 @ 10:08am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 9:36pm

    seems as if he knows what he is doing and made amistake, that was corrected, he isnt a serial or criminal infringer, your aha gotch ya moment, isnt real at all

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This