Now that you've been introduced to how intellectual property law has traditionally worked, it's good to consider what the future has in store for this area of law. As I mentioned in class, digital technology and the Internet has made it so easy to violate IP law.
I was able to show some of this in one class but not the other, so here are links for you to check out.
One involved the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that has worked to develop an alternative to copyright law. It allows creators to post their work online and allow anyone to use under certain conditions. For example, a photographer could post photos and let anyone use the photos to alter and create something new -- saw a drawing or painting based on the photo. Rather than paying for the right to use it, the new user would credit the original creator and post the new work for others to use.
Here's a link to a short video that explains what Creative Commons is and how it works. Click here.
Another video is a documentary film called Rip: A Remix Manifesto, which is about Girl Talk, a musician who uses a computer to take minute slivers of hit songs to create new music. It would appear to violate copyright, or is it transformative enough to be a fair use? The documentary explores these issues. Pay close attention to the four points of the manifesto and the argument that the documentary makes about the future of intellectual property law.
You can view the entire film on Hulu.com, but you will have to watch short commercials from time to time. Click here.
Or, you can purchase the film for download with a name-your-own-price format from the film's producers. For that, click here.
After you watch these, feel free to return here and post your comments.
27 comments:
Creative Commons gives people a lot more freedom and room to be creative. I think CC is a great concept bc it ultimately creates a culture of sharing in the arts that we never had before.
Phillip J 12:30 T-Th.
CC was created to skip the intermediaries, by doing so it allows users to use others work under certain conditions. This is a great service to the people, the video is spot on when it asks "but what about the rest of us?" This cc brand allows users, that are unsure if they are violating copyright law, to use material as instructed without having to worry about being sued. I think this website will allow creativity to have a lot more 'room to breathe' when using copyright material, this could lead to some great work that might have otherwise been smothered by lawyers.
Brett Gaylor did an excellent job of directing Rip: A Remix Manifesto. There were some notable people who provided a profound insight into copyright laws. It was interesting to hear all the character’s stories in the documentary like Jammie Thomas, the single mother who was sued by the U.S. Government for $222,220 for using Kazaa. This video makes it easy for people to understand the issues at hand while the four points of the manifesto tell a story. The points include; culture builds on the past, past always controls the future, future is becoming less free and that to build free societies you must limit control of the past.
I think Creative Commons is a great site because it opens a lot of doors in regards to creativity. I actually used Creative Commons for my internship when creating blog posts, and found it very useful.
Rip: A Remix Manifesto was an excellent film and was very informative. I listen to Girl Talk and actually had wondered in the past if he was creating his music legally. The entire film was eye opening, especially the four points of the manifesto. The manifesto was illustrated so clearly with the Walt Disney example of how the past controls the future.
I found Creative Commons very interesting. I thought it was amazing because in at least two of my other classes we are studying derivative works and misappropriation, which reminds me of this subject.
I love the Creative Commons goals and support of derivative works, I think it helps blossom new creativity and helps imagination grow.
I agree with everybody that Creative Commons is a great site. I think it is important to fuel creativity and its great that CC allows people to choose what they would like to share and what they would like to keep for themselves. It takes inspiration to be artistic, and this allows people to build on others work and what inspired them in the first place.
Rip: A Remix Manifesto was very interesting. I have been a fan of Girl Talk for a while now, but never took the time to learn more about how he does his mash-ups and the legalities behind it. I also loved the part about Walt Disney. It was cool to see where he got some of his inspiration and the connection between artists.
T/H 1230
I agree that that the future builds on the past, and that most corporations take things too far when prosecuting those who violate copyrights. Although I enjoyed Rip A Remix Manifesto, I wouldn't call it a documentary because it did not consider both sides equally. I would have liked to see more coverage by the film about what these companies have to lose when their products, those ideas "more profitable than oil, gold or even land" are used freely. As a graduating senior, I would hate for everything that I struggled and worked hard for over the past 6 years to be obtained by somebody who came along and just downloaded a degree. The same can be said for artists and people who work on or with intellectual property. I do believe it is theft to profit off of somebody else's work. If I turned in a paper and didn't site my sources, I could get kicked out of school for plagiarism...even though I was just "building on the past" and creating something new with those ideas. I can definitely see both sides of this issue, but I wish the director would have explored the other side a little more instead of vilifying it. Only the top 1% of those huge media companies make those disgusting salaries, and when they lose profits because of illegal downloading, etc, it is not their jobs that are at risk of being cut, it's those little entry-level- recently-hired mass comm majors who will suffer. Just food for thought.
I can see this issue from both sides. I think that people who possess a talent, idea, or any kind of formula of success should maintain the right of said subject. On the other hand, we are a nation of collaborators and the only way to progress is to use precedent. For the matter at hand, "Girltalk", I think that if he was taken to court it would be argued that his computer is his instrument. I don't see why using different lyric clips and sound bytes would interfere with the appropriation of the other artists. If every note can be copyrighted then every artist is a pirate. That's like saying DJs are infringing on copyright because they are playing other artist's music for a crowd or to make a profit. If anything, Girltalk is promoting the exposure of the bands he uses in his music. Either way, the lawsuits that were shown in this video show the greediness of big companies, not the artists themselves (except for the Metallica/Napster case). I'm interested to see what happens with the copyright law as the Internet grows and the next generation starts to use it.
I think Creative Commons is a new interesting way to view copyright laws.
Rip: A Remix Manifesto was very interesting. I too listen to Girl Talk, who puts bits of many songs together and wonders as well if this was actually legal.
TH - 12:30
I really enjoyed watching Rip: A Remix Manifesto. It was very informative and eye-opening on what Copyright laws are doing to our culture.
I never thought that the idea of Copyrighting something could stunt the growth of creative thinking. It's ironic to think that that's the exact opposite of why Copyright laws were created in the first place: to encourage people to get innovative.
I'm glad we have something like Creative Commons, where ideas can be expanding upon, rearranged and edited.
I have heard of many people who use Creative Commons for class assignments. They all find it to be very helpful and convenient. Personally, I think it’s a great site; it allows individuals to expand upon ideas. Creative Commons is innovative sharing.
A Remix Manifesto discusses the music of the artist, Girl Talk. Many could see his work as stealing and violating copyright. Others think it is mixed enough that it is considered one of his. The four points of manifesto illustrate clearly.
Jessica Schoenfeld TTH @ 12:30
CC is something that everyone can use. With it, people can build on an idea and really make something amazing.
As for Girl Talk, I see the argument for both sides. He is taking something and making it his own, which is great, but at the same time, he is making a profit and possibly taking it from the rightful artist. I know when my group wished to hand out mixed CDs for an event, we asked every artist for permission. We probably didn't have to and would have gotten away with it but at some point it is the principle of it. I think the Girl Talk issue should be talked about in a fair and legal matter, not some much like the video's portrayal of the "evil music companies"
Jeremy Klaff T/TH 12:30
It seems that Creative Commons was started by people who want to let their work be utilized by other individuals. It seems to be a movement for the people, instead of letting the big wigs handle the situation. No "middle men" involved in the transaction with CC. It seems to be the best and most efficient way to handle your work.
Callie Walker - T-TH 12:30
I thought Rip! A Remix Manifesto was pretty interesting to watch. The director brings up good points about how people have borrowed and stolen others' works throughout history, and only now that our world is so driven by making the greatest profits possible, does it really seem to matter all that much. Money is now the priority over art. I'd always kind of wondered if GirlTalk's music was legal. Would it be legal if he didn't make any money off of it?
Carl Woody T TH 12:30
Creativity and innovation are major driving forces for advancing our society. With out creative minds like Girl Talk, our society would be stuck in constant state of repetition. It is important for people to build upon and transform others work, but I think that anyone who has created a work should receive some type of compensation or credit if their work is used to make a profit. This is where Creative Commons has done something great for our society. The ability to display a creative work for others to see and/or build upon while still getting credit for that work will give thousands of innovators an opportunity to collaborate. Working with others is a principle that any artist should hold dear. With Creative Commons, creators have the option to share their with "some rights reserved" while still allowing others "all rights reserved". There are some works that a person would like to keep all to themselves. For example, a movie script that could potentially make them boat loads of money.
I don't see a problem with Rip or Creative Commons. Both are interesting and entertaining. I understand the issue that could arise from Rip! A remix of Manifesto; however, it draws the conclusion of where is the fine line between violating copyright laws and derivative works.
I think Creative Commons is extremely neat. I had never heard of it before but will most likely use it in the near future whether it be for a school project or for my own personal reasons to see what it is that I can come up with. I just may even put some of the creations I've come up with to see where someone else can take it.
After watching the Rip: A Remix Manifesto, I have a better understanding of the side that is "stealing" music. This documentary was put together very well and gave excellent examples to prove each of its points. I just wish that it would have gone into more detail about Girl Talk and how he manages to get by with the music he mixes together. The one part that really got me thinking though was when the documentary talked about how the cure for cancer could possibly be found if only it weren't for all the patents out there stopping researchers from getting to certain points. To think that not having a cure for cancer because of limit on creativity is just so crazy and scary. We need the past to develop new things because I strongly believe we'll come to a stop if no one is allowed to use the past for the future.
Johanna Salazar
T/Th 12:30
I don't see a problem with Rip or Creative Commons. Both are interesting and entertaining. I understand the issue that could arise from Rip! A remix of Manifesto; however, it draws the conclusion of where is the fine line between violating copyright laws and derivative works.
Cambrian Pichon
TTh 12:30-1:50
I really believe that eventually all media will go through the same transformation that music has gone through as far as digitalization and how artists are now losing their record labels in favor of releasing things digitally and connecting directly to their fans. The big corporations will fight it to the end, but they'll eventually lose out because, frankly, they aren't needed anymore. I see the same thing happening to movies next...I know a lot of people pirate directly because of DRM...which is ironic because that's who DRM targets. DRM is a scam because limiting the end-user's ability to modify their own purchase of property is out-right ridiculous. Supporting Creative Commons and things like open source software is definitely a step in the right direction, but I feel like this generation, combined with the leaps in technology that continue to develop daily, will create media unlike we've ever seen...leaving the big old corporations behind as mere fossils of the past.
Daniel N.
12:30 p.m. TTh media law class
I concur with everyone really, I think that something like music must be consumed in different ways and the people want it consumed their way. I remember watching a documentary about the Beatles and how they were inspired by how the Beach Boys layered different instruments together on Pet Sounds. If you go and listen to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, after hearing Pet Sounds the creative process is clearly taken from the Beach Boys, the Beatles simply turned it into a new sound and made it they're own. This sort of thing has been happening for ages and it hurts to see corporations and lobbyists strategically striking down on the sharing of music like that. Also, loved the Son House reference in the Remix film!
Creative Commons seems like a great way to let people share ideas without being accused of copyright infringement. Girl Talk definitely transforms music so to claim copyright infringement simply hurts the flow of ideas in the music indistry and creative industries everywhere.
Meagan Olson
TTh 12:30
Creative Commons is an excellent way to manipulate and enhance work mostly for creating more entertainment for people. Rip! A Remix Manifesto was interesting because I've always wondered how Girl Talk was able to just release the music with pieces of different artists' material. I don't see a problem with either really don't think they are infringing on the original makers' originality.
Taylor Penn T/TH 12:30
Creative Commons IS a great site and easy to navigate through. I appreciate and respect when others share ideas without being accused of any copyright issues. As far as Girl Talk goes, I don't think there's any infringement on the originality of the artists work, but you should always be careful.
As far as Girl Talk is concerned, he does something that is almost expected of our generation - push the limits, just because you can. I think fair use is enough here though, because even though he uses so many different copyrighted pieces, they are all so small and make something entirely new, that there really isn't much of an argument to shut him down.
On the subject of music and Creative Commons and the idea of sharing our creations, all I can say about that is I think it's best just to go with it. When I think of that kind of thing, I think of what happened with Napster. The folks that fought Napster lost in the long run - downloading is a big business in itself now (I personally use iTunes to get music instead of illegal downloads) and I think that's the best idea. Instead of fighting it, use the it as an opportunity, and a lot of artists have realized it's just fine to use it to their advantage. In essence, that is the ultimate American way of capitalizing on it - I can hear some business mogul genius saying, "No no no... this is a huge opportunity right in front of us! Let me show you why..."
As far as Girl Talk is concerned, he does something that is almost expected of our generation - push the limits, just because you can. I think fair use is enough here though, because even though he uses so many different copyrighted pieces, they are all so small and make something entirely new, that there really isn't much of an argument to shut him down.
On the subject of music and Creative Commons and the idea of sharing our creations, all I can say about that is I think it's best just to go with it. When I think of that kind of thing, I think of what happened with Napster. The folks that fought Napster lost in the long run - downloading is a big business in itself now (I personally use iTunes to get music instead of illegal downloads) and I think that's the best idea. Instead of fighting it, use it as an opportunity, and a lot of artists have realized it's just fine to use it to their advantage. In essence, that is the ultimate American way of capitalizing on it - I can hear some business mogul genius saying, "No no no... this is a huge opportunity right in front of us! Let me show you why..."
In regards to Rip: A Remix Manifesto it appears to me that the government is attempting to control something that they are incapable of doing. The U.S. Government has always been sluggish when it comes to the internet, they were one of the last entities to establish their own email system when they should have been the first. Trying to tell individuals that they are thieves for publicly sharing files is absurd. Musicians from the past should do what the musicians of today are doing. Going out and promoting their band and playing shows that fans pay to see.
In response to Girl Talk, I don't believe that he will be sued for copyright infringement due to the fact that the music he creates is entirely different than the music he samples. The past drives the future and if everything becomes intellectual property or patented, it is impossible to create new things without taking material from the past.
I think that Creative Commons is an awesome alternative to the copyright laws. I have this fear that if we keep up the current copyright laws or that they are extended to last even longer, that eventually we won't have anything left to create. Ideas will all be owned by someone and new ideas will be created just ever so slightly out of existing ideas but not acted upon because there is fear of a lawsuit. We need to have Creative Commons to have a better future, otherwise I think we'll remain the same forever.
What saddens me the most about the laws in regards to file sharing after watching Rip: A Remix Manifesto, was that the government punishes those who steal music and requires them to pay money to the record labels not the musicians who made the music. The musicians don't get any of that money, even though it's there work that was stolen. How is that fair?
Brittney Segner
TTH 12:30
Post a Comment