Mash-Up Theft?!?!?

It appears that DJ Kid and/or DJ King Charles has been posting other people's mash-ups and claiming credit for them on his myspace page. Most recently he claimed Voicedude's mash "Four Twenty"(he re-named it Kid 420),which apparently was taken down after a few p.m's by other mash-up producer's to this dip#%it, only to be replaced by another stolen mash-up from Cheekyboy titled "Last Dance with Dani"(which he renamed too). And it's sad to say he is not the only one claiming other's mixes as his own.

Yes I know that some people consider mash-ups theft too. Depends on how you look at it and who you ask. Most artists see it as flattery. We (The Illuminoids) have had a few artists for who we mashed up, really dig the tracks and had absolutely no problem at all with it. There's actually been quite a number of mashes by various producers posted on the artists websites/myspace. But if you ask a record exec. you'll probably hear that it is theft. 

We would love to hear your opinion on what you think about all this mash-up thievery or just your opinion on mash-ups. Post your responses in the comment section below.

I guess thats all for now. We just wanted to set the record straight on these mashes, just in case anyone was mis-informed by who originally did these mash-ups. So here's Voicedude's mash-up "Four Twenty"

Voicedude_"Four_Twenty"

-The Illuminoids

Comments

[Aggshun Jackson]

When you start losing $$$ from it, I'd start worrying 'bout it.

It's a compliment, really.

[Adam]

It's not theft if you're creating something new from it. A mashup is such a creation.

When old work has been rethought and remade to become a new work, that is not stealing. Wholescale copying, on the other hand, is theft.

If I photocopy a book, that is theft. If I cut up the photocopy to make a collage of words and letters, thereby creating a new art, that is acceptible, if not legally than at least ethically.

[CW]

All mash-ups are is a natural progression from sampling....... just in bigger chunks........ & more style...... (IMO).........

[Bobby Martini]

Tosser !

[snowgrind]

is a mash-up considered stealing? not at all. art influences artists to create something new.

in a nutshell, when a song gets remixed to the point it is unrecognizable, especially when samples and riffs are used to enhance said remix, the labels are satisfied.

when a song gets mashed-up, following similar methods of samples, loops and riffs, the labels scream theft.

what's the difference? one is corporate controlled the other is by the people for the people.

the people know what they want and the labels are clueless.

[T.J.]

Coincidentally, The Illuminoids sum it up best in the post above this one: "It's always amazing when you stumble across a mash-up and at first glance are turned off by one or more of the sources and yet you give it a spin and it turns out to be a super righteous track." The creation of mash-ups takes a special talent, and I'm often amazed at how completely "opposite" songs mix so well together. I give a lot of credit to the people behind them, because this really is a form of art, as others have said. I have discovered numerous songs and artists through mash-ups that I probably never would have discovered otherwise!

[theillien]

Theft is taking things for personal gain (usually monetary) gain. I don't see how people are doing that with mash-ups when they are being offered to the public free of charge with nothing more than an "I did this".

[boris]

its not theft if you give the mashup away for nothing, its a good form of advertising for the artists being mashed. as for people claiming mashups as their own, i sh*t em! they are just the scum of the earth

[Vox]

Mashup = Art

Selling mashup without clearing rights = theft

Distributing mashup for personal listening = fine

Distributing mashup for commercial play or broadcast without clearing rights = although we enjoy it, it is theft

Claiming another artists work = for scumbags only.

Selling a mashup is the same as selling a copy of the original song. Creating a mashup, in and of itself, is not illegal...it is what you do with it afterward that is regulated by the man.

[paddy]

Thanks...Mashups are the $#!T .The experience of the mixed music must contribute to increased sales for Artists. I know I'm more inclined to buy music from an Artist I’m not familiar with, after having a free listen and being exposed to alternative perceptions of the music! As long as the Artists are credited it ain't no theft, its exposure. Keep up the mashupin'

[Misciel]

It may sound trite, but remember what they used to say about plagiarism back in school? It's "passing off somebody else's ideas as your own." They'd say "footnote, and you're good." But not citing your source makes you a liar, if not a thief. I don't see how mashups are really any different... Like everybody on Mashuptown does, credit your source material, but put your own genius spin on it, and that's what keeps you on the level!

[DJ Petrushka]

I agree with the consensus re: mashups being theft. They are not, as a new song has been made from bits and pieces of an old one. Bootleggers also give new life to music we have grown to hate, by taking the best parts and putiing it with best parts of other songs. A good example is Kelis' Milkshake song. i really can't stand to hear that song anymore, yet recently someone used it very well, and it's ok with me, in that mash.
As far as the second issue, I think bootleggers taking other people's bootlegs is wrong. It's about who did the work, taking credit for something you did not make, no matter where the source material came from. That is theft, and i stand by my comments. I will never take credit for anothers work.

[Voicedude]

Since I am the 'victim' here, I thought I should weigh in....

As MOST mash-up artists do, I have ALWAYS credited my source material, & I have never made one cent from these.

So...I am not stealing.
Comments and credit are my only payment.

However, some guy that then takes MY work (i.e. my concept, my labor, etc.) and then claims it as his OWN work, well that guy IS stealing.

EXAMPLE:
Andy Warhol has a famous piece involving a Campbell's soup can. Warhol did NOT invent the soup nor design the original label, but he DID put his OWN spin on it - and it's now considered an iconic artwork.

Imagine then that, say, KId420 reproduces that art and claims that it is HIS work. Weather he painted over an original copy, traced it, or just copied it stroke by stroke it STILL does NOT belong to him as 'his' work in any way, shape, or form.

He is then 'stealing'.

It just happened to me again with a number off of my "Mashin' Jackson" project. In BOTH cases (Kid420 and the new one), I contacted them directly. They both took offense at first (no one likes to be busted red handed), but then flip-flopped and apologized, saying how much they respected my work. I said 'then don't put YOUR name on MY work, then!' In both cases, it was just some dumb kids that thought they could get away with it - until someone called them on it.

Sorry, that's just me! If I stand in a long line and someone sneaks their way to the front of the line without knowing someone else in line, I WILL remind that person where the BACK of the line is - and I'll do it not just for myself, but for all.

Perhaps the worst part of this isn't just the claim to something someone else made, but then how badly they screw it up. In both cases, they attempted to put their own 'amateur-time' edits into the mix. So now there's a version of my work that's even been perverted. It happened once when local DJs would start to copy my act, without getting the jokes to begin with. I'd begin to hear about 'that DJ that does such-and-such who sucks' and realize that they were talking about someone else doing my act, but ruining my rep with it. You just have to ask them to STOP!