Today, we watched the beginning of Rip! A Remix Manifesto.
I think it serves as a rebuttal to the traditional copyright laws. As I mentioned in class, I'm not saying the rebuttal is right, or that the copyright laws are wrong, but it is clear to me that digital technology and the age of the Internet have outpaced copyright law.
Click here to see the rest of the documentary. I highly recommend that you watch it. For our purposes, consider the four points of the manifesto described in the documentary and consider the evidence for their argument.
And, look for Lawrence Lessig, who shows up in the documentary.
After you watch the entire documentary, return here and post your comments.
Do you agree or disagree with the arguments in the documentary? What are your thoughts?
18 comments:
I liked the opening statement about the guy who was doing the mash ups of the songs. It was ironic that eventually he said that just by the mere fact that we were listening to it, we too were participating in illegal activity. I never even thought about it that way. It can be so easy to take property (whether music or not) without thinking about the consequences. This video was really interesting, but it definitely took my computer forever to load. I'm glad I watched it, though.
Megan Moede
11-19-10
9:30 a.m. T/TH
First things first, it made a world of difference in regards to loading when I changed my internet speed. Standard worked well for me.
I thought the documentary was brilliant. It was refreshing to see a different point-of-view of copyright infringement. As you mentioned, it's going to be difficult for lawmakers to enforce laws when it comes to the pace in which we're moving digitally. It's going to be nearly impossible for everyone "guilty" of mash-ups or even illegal downloads to be implicated.
The part that pretty much summed up this documentary for me was when DJ Marlboro, the first producer of Baile Funk, said that originality has become the mixing of two things that haven't been mixed before. I've personally thought about this idea many times. I'm an avid music listener and many of my favorite artists have albums that are almost completely composed of sampled works of the past. Some of the best music has already been made and people are realizing this and want to pay homage and put their own twist to it. I love it and I can only imagine how much greater the music industry would be if copyright infringement laws were even just a bit less restrictive.
Just a few personal thoughts: Girl Talk is awesome. Lars Ulrich is over the top. Dan O'Neill is my hero.
Kiana Fitzgerald
T/H 9:30 a.m.
I love documentaries so I really enjoyed watching this one in class. There has been so much discussion around GirlTalk and copyright laws, but it seems that no one is actually doing anything. I mean, I think that the idea is brilliant and is a really innovative way to introduce new music to people who wouldn't ordinarily listen to it. For example, someone who is listening to GirlTalk because they like the rap parts of it probably didn't know much, if anything, about Simon and Garfunkel.
I am a huge fan of GirlTalk, so I particularly enjoyed watching the documentary in class. I always wondered how he got away with mixing samples from other artist's songs and then calling them his own. After watching the documentary I now understand that this issue is very controversial. However, I do believe that the music GirlTalk produces is very different from the original work. Sure he is using the parts of other artist's songs, but the engineering behind the music is all him. Because he uses such small samples and manipulates the music so much, I feel like he is creating something new. Being a huge fan of GirlTalk I can tell you that when I go to play his music on my ipod its not because there is a sample of a particular artist, its because I like the way the electronic manipulation of the music sounds. I think artist like him should have some sort of protection to create music like this because it is obvious that many people enjoy it considering his following.
Overall the documentary was very informative and interesting to watch. I think when you do take a part of a song and mix and mash, it becomes a whole new product and really is completely different from the original. So in my opinion there is really no copy right infringement. I must admit that what girltalk does is different but I do not support it. If I wanted to go see a guy sit in front of his computer and play music I'd go to a house party instead. I feel that what he is doing is taking away the musicianship and showmanship of what real musicians have to offer. I feel there is no soul in what he does. The documentary compared girltalk to the great Muddy Waters in that Muddy Waters took a song from Robert Johnson and sort of made it his own. Well, playing the blues is no cut and paste ordeal. It took time for Muddy Waters to learn to play his instrument, then it took even more time for him to learn to play Robert Johnson's songs. Then it took even more time to make his guitar wail and moan with emotion. Sure you can argue that girtalk gives off emotions, but its processed. Its technologically enhanced. Jack White said it best, "Technology is a big destroyer of emotion and truth... yea it makes it easier and you can get home sooner but it doesn't make you a more creative person." Now that I have vented a strayed from the topic of copyright infringement girltalk will continue to stand up for his music, but all of this could have been avoided if he just picked up a guitar.
I feel like people break copyright laws far more often than any of us are really aware of, but GirlTalk is just doing so more publically. There's people everyday publishing similar content to various websites, like youtube. But these lesser known people don't become the subject of such ridicule, because they're not even on our radar, we don't notice them. If GirlTalk was just some guy that posted his work on youtube, but had no real fame, all that would happen were he to be discovered by the youtube staff or some artist from whose work he had sampled is he would probably receive a formal request to remove the content. But as it is, this scandal is just bringing him more fame, and no one that can do anything about it really seems to want to, for whatever reason. He's getting away with it, just like all the lesser knowns out there doing the same thing.
Katinka Dufour T-Th 9:30
To start of with, I had never heard of GirlTalk before and I am pretty impressed. It is just crazy to me to see all that we can do nowadays with technology. My feelings are mixed about this issue. On the one hand I think that GirlTalk is not breaking any copyright laws because the music he creates is so different from the original music. Sometimes you can barely recognize who's music he used. But on the other hand I think that without the other artist's song GirlTalk would not be able to create the music he creates. So does he owe that artist something? That's hard to say and I am pretty sure everyone is going to have a different opinion on this.
Jessica Garcia
T/Th 3:00pm
----
I didn't know about Girl Talk. So, I was very intrigued by the documentary. I'm glad I saw it.
I have mixed feelings. I can see how Girl Talk's music (mixes) is popular and artistic. I can't decide between the two sides of the copyright infringement arguments. :/
I think the fact that Girl Talk is "getting away" with that says a lot. What is holding people back?
It was interesting to hear that just listening to Girl Talk is illegal. It puts a lot of things into a different perspective. Even though I know it's illegal, I wouldn't mind attending a concert/performance by Girl Talk. :D
Clarisa Gonzalez
T/Th - 2 p.m.
I think the documentary was very interesting, especially since most copyright infringement issues always used to go right over my head (this was before Media Law, though :p). Girl Talk is definitely supplying the pubic with controversial material by using the work of other artists, but like I learned in my case brief assignment (Los Angeles News Service v. CBS), a potential defense to copyright infringement charges is whether or not the alleged material was "transformed" in a way that changed the message/content of the original material. I think that Girl Talk alters the material so much that new material is created altogether, therefore it should not be considered copyright infringement.
The girltalk documentary was very interesting. I think the fact that so many people listen to (and probably illegally download) girltalk and other artists who mash songs shows that most people don't care about copyright laws. The laws that are in place now are outdated and definitely need to be changed so they can keep up with today's technology. It would probably be difficult to regulate everything on the Internet to make sure copyright laws are not being violated.
Karla Estrada
T/Th 9:30
I loved the documentary. It did take a while to load but it was worth it. I love being able to have thoughts and ideas brought up that get me thinking about what side I would be on. I think that this proves exactly what history is based on. People taking things that have already been brought to light and then enhancing or "tweeking" them to either become more enjoyable for that person/group or they make it overall better. I think that people should really chill out about how they copyright things. I mean if taking pieces of a song is wrong, would those musicians who learned simple chords be stealing from the first people that ever "invented" or discovered? I think people should want to share with others and help expand areas they are excited about.
People are trying very hard these days to create something completely unique, but it is difficult. For example, people are noticing that most movies now are based on books. Or that Avatar was basiclly the same story as Pocahontas and a number of other movies.
I think GirlTalk is not riping anything off anymore than James Cameron did. If anything GirlTalk is something that i am proud to say is very unique for our time. Since we have the capabilities to do something like mash up songs, then I commend GirlTalk for their talents to hear music in a way most people are in capable of doing. Instead of copying someone elses work, GirlTalk is actually using musical talent to show that all sorts of music can sound wonderful together.
I love to watch documentaries, and this was one of the best ones I have ever seen. It was, for lack of better words, smart. I liked this film so much that I agree with what they are trying to say. It was very powerful and realy disected the industry. I really loved how they used Steven Colbert at the end. I was literally crying I was laughing so hard. I also, enjoyed the use of the Metallica interview. They did a good job of cutting it to point out all the points they are trying to stress. Brilliant!! MOUSE LIBERATION FRONT 4 LIFE!!! :)
This documentary answered a ton of questions that I had about mash-ups and other art forms that I enjoy. I had always wondered how someone could get away with using someone else's voice, song, or even just lyrics without infringing on copyright law.
I really appreciated the comparisons to other not-so-obvious examples of the re-use of intellectual property, such as Walt Disney's use of steamboat Bill etc. To see that this idea of borrowing ideas wasn't something that could be fully attributed to modern technology was especially interesting.
I think one of the critical problems at the heart of this issue is the combination of art and business.To me, art is something that should be deregulated to encourage creativity. But since art is often used to make money, the line between business and art is blurred indefinitely. As long as copyright laws remain the way they are, creativity will be suppressed and progress will be slowed.
I recently watched a documentary on George Clinton and he discussed the birth of sampling. Parliament and Funkadelic are some of the most sampled bands in recent years. Though Clinton's band mates were upset they were never paid royalties for the use of their music, Clinton explained the artists are not stealing the music note for note, rather "cloning" and making it their own.
Just one artist's perspective on the issue.
2 p.m.
I hadn't heard about GirlTalk before class, so it was easy for me to formulate an opinion when we watched the first part of this documentary in class.
I don't believe he's committing any copyright infringments. He is taking parts of a song and manipulating them so much that they don't sound anything like the original. It was interesting to see him actually doing this with his computer. If people are going to argue copyright infringment with his work, then they need to really examine the process. They'd be claiming copyright on notes and beats? How can someone copyright a middle C?
On a personal note, I don't really like his work... but I will stand up for what he's doing.
First of all, I thought the documentary was very interesting and informative about their point of views. In terms of Girl Talk, I don't believe that there should be any copyright infringement. Yes, Girl Talk is using other peoples work to create his own "music" but isn't that what everyone does? I thought the documentary made a good point when it used Walt Disney as an example of using something from the past, tweaking it, and making it his own and then the corporation taking over and stopping everyone else from doing the same. I think that Girl Talk is actually very talented. Not very many people can grab songs, or samples of songs from many different backgrounds and artists and mash them together in a way that will make musical sense. But this is not about who has the most talent, it's about money. I don't think this battle will ever end. I feel like the same people that are rooting for the right to remix are hindering the cause. The documentary mentioned Radiohead and the album they released online where they let fans set a price. It failed to mention though, that the offer only lasted a couple of months. Most people cheered on the band as it tried to take a stand against corporate power, yet they went online and downloaded the album without paying, forcing the band to close the offer and release the album in a more traditional manor. Where were these activists then? I think it's sad that bands recognize that record companies have too much power but don't have the support of their own fans to successfully stand up against them.
Post a Comment