Watch Rip: A Remix Manifesto.
As you watch, keep your moral thinking caps on. Is this right? Is this wrong? Do you agree or disagree?
Reply to this post by SATURDAY at 11:59 PM. Write one paragraph in which you simply respond to the video--what thoughts does it raise for you? Do you agree or disagree? Then, in another paragraph, what do you think are the important moral or ethical QUESTIONS it raises about piracy, copyright, and the ethics of remix culture?
Then, by MONDAY at 11:59 PM, respond to SOMEONE ELSE'S reply and react to the questions they've raised. So, in other words, if Person A has posted on Saturday, "One of the key questions raised by this video is, is piracy acceptable if you're using it to create more art?" Then Person B might say, "Yes, it's acceptable, because..." and then provide REASONS for why, or "No, it's not acceptable," and then explain why. Use the video as a springboard, but bring in your experience too!
This was a very interesting video! I agree that the future always builds on the past, but our future is becoming MORE free because it's more easily done. This is primarily because of computing devices and the internet. You can make a mix song or mashup video in minutes with digital media obtained from the web, or can download a free public domain book in seconds from a variety of websites.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the future always builds on the past. Rap is a good example; The category itself was spawned on the back of samples from artist's past! Girl Talk is just another: so much music is available digitally that "music" can be made simply buy assembling certain pieces together (No dance moves or singing voice required!).
The biggest moral question for me is, is this what is considered artistry moving forward? Sure, you need to know how to make good hooks with mashups, but none of it is yours! On top of that Gillis is profiting enough from his "musical" endevours that he quit his day job. Led Zepplin may have rippsed off a Muddey Waters riff, but Page, Plant, and Bonham rocked the crap out of their own rendition with (IMHO) unrivaled musical talent. In my opinion, Led Zepplin deserved to profit from their efforts, Gregg Gillis not to much. Think about it, take away his laptop and what do you have?
Very good points, Capn. You also reminded me that I forgot to directly ask my moral question in my argument, even though I did indirectly. I would like to point out though that most music in some way builds on the past, not only rap. I also agree with the fact that rap does sample a lot, but even in their sampling, there is a large amount of originality brought to the songs by the rest of the music, whether it is lyrics, additional beats, or the rest of the instrumentation in general. This would be entirely unlike your unoriginal friend Mr, where his entire songs are one large sample. Once again, as you stated, for it to be considered artistry moving forward, there needs to be a certain amount of originality brought to the music by the artist, which Gillis has failed to do.
DeleteI think Capn is right. Girl Talk is an unoriginal HACK. If you want to make mashups then go for it! Dance, have fun, enjoy the tunes. But remember, they're not your tunes. If you want to profit off of someone else's creativity then you're just an unimaginative weenie. I think information and art should be available for future generations, but, we still have to create. We can't abandon all creativity! Or else people in the future will be mashing up Girl Talk's mashups of Jackson 5 songs.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late post. Just got out of work.
ReplyDeleteGirl talk pisses me off.
This guy makes a good living (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rock-stars/gregg-michael-gillis-net-worth/ ) from putting on shows and concerts, while denying that the people's music he's using deserve any compensation. I have to make this clear. I think corporate money and art should be separated from each other. Which Gillis has done: he's on a tiny record label. He gives his music away, AWESOME. This is where I stop agreeing with him. Art and music can be very fulfilling, it's a huge part of my life. Gillis says that his mashups are comparable to anyone picking up a guitar and "rearranging" chords that The Beatles played. The analogy unfortunately doesn't work. He's not rearranging chords from any instruments, he's taking music written by others and remixing it. Despite that he sometimes remixes it beyond recognition, he wouldn't have been able to make the song without the original riff. I've put years into writing one song. He can mix up a track in 5 minutes. I'll stop complaining about how much of hack Gillis is now.
The public domain laws that were changed are from my perspective, very controlling. However, from a corporate standpoint it makes sense to defend "your property". This is no longer about an artist protecting their work, during their lifetime. This is for the protection of company's to maintain control over an entity that can continue to provide them with fanfare and consequently, money. At this point it would be up to the artist to ensure that their work is either appropriated, or shared into public domain. This should be an artists choice.
In this film they raised questions about the legitimacy of parody and remix. I feel that despite the cheesy way it was delivered through the "remixers manifesto"; they raise interesting points about how corporate entities have influenced copyright laws directly. But they also elude to nonsensical threats such as "THE FUTURE IS BECOMING LESS FREE". If it's in the context of creating art I disagree. Art is limitless; As long as your not using other people's or corporations property.
Also, this: http://imgur.com/XANUwGA
Oh look the airpirates made money (atleast 50 cents) off their parody!
" Art is limitless; As long as your not using other people's or corporations property."
DeleteVery well put. I feel as if the law of diminishing returns comes into play here. By that I mean, the more that you use someone else's work to create your own "art", the less it's actually a creative work.
Capn crunch totally on point!
DeleteMr. Orchid:
DeleteI like how you used a lot of feeling and emotion to get your point across. I am 100% in agreement with what you have stated here. Good job! I do have a quick question regarding this though... What is/are the big moral/ethical question(s) that come to mind as you formulated this?
Remix, piracy, and copyright.
ReplyDeleteThe issues above raise some questions of interest. Remix, piracy, and copyright laws are intended to protect the original owners of publications, oral or documented or otherwise, from other persons that may replicate their piece of work. This sounds like a good idea, because no one would wish to have all his or her efforts taken over by someone in waiting. The snag though is that it does not address some scenarios such as intellectual similarity, i.e. you may not know whether i had the same idea in mind in the first place.
I want you guys to consider a piece of music produced by Mr. X. Assuming Mr. Y had the same beats to the song like Mr. Xs, but Mr. X was able to publish his music ahead of Mr. Y. Should Mr. Y shun his music because the beats are similar to Mr. Xs? I think this should be an open field just like in perfect competition market structure. Consider organic food Vs. GM. The price is way different but everyone makes a choice of what to buy. Those that can't compete are forced out by market forces. This should be the same case with these so called laws.
If it is about protecting creativity, then it should be upward rising and not backward binding, as backward binding is some kind of slavery. Just like Linux code is open source, so should be music, information etc. People should be able to build on to the original piece made by the original writer, after all, no one who does a remix, will claim to be the original owner. One makes another a slave of one's choice. We should exercise total freedom of choice, or else we shall soon have people copy writing their names.
I rest my case.
I think your point about open source music is cool, but how are creators supposed to make money? The idea itself exists already, but I'm not sure that anyone is making a living like say, Lady Gaga or Justin Timberlake, from it.
DeleteBadman Theif,
DeleteYour mentioning the idea of freedom of choice is very applicable. Good idea.
Capn, this is how i look at it. I for one, i do have a taste for originality, and i guess there are many people out there who are like me. The owner will make money from people like me through album launches, concerts, and live performances, and that is kinda cool. Those who like remixes can then listen to the strip down version of original piece, which is OK, and those who can't afford neither can freely download versions of their choice, without fear of being criminalized, and listen to that. I think that is one way of giving back to society.How fun it can be if things were that free.
DeleteFor me the crux of this argument and of this entire issue is knowing how to define piracy, and knowing what constitutes piracy and what does not. I am not in agreement with what the government constitutes as piracy, and I also do not believe that there is a cut and dry way to determine or enforce what is piracy and what its punishment should be, as it differs from case to case. I will try to explain my stance on this issue using a few of the examples that were brought forth in the video.
ReplyDeleteMy basic belief on what piracy should be is the unnecessary or inappropriate use of copyrighted material at significant financial gain or advancement. I do believe in the right for an individual to be able to do artistic interpretations, or to be influenced by the thoughts, works, etc. of another person. However, to do so and to profit significantly from doing so without some type of compensation to the individual whose work was in some way responsible for the derivative work, would be unfair. In the example given by the movie where the Brazilian government was duplicating/replicating AIDS medication, the sheer volume of lives it would save and the amount of good it would do in general would not constitute piracy, unless the government was profiting off of doing so. But still in a situation like this, the pharmaceutical companies should be entitled to the possibility of some minor profits, though not necessarily the volume of profits that they would have liked. This would be one of the cases where the government should step in and implement some kind of "deregulation" process, to award the pharmaceutical companies profits without having them price gouge on a necessity. In the case of individuals publishing tablatures and interpretations of music freely on YouTube or tablature sites, this should not be considered piracy. However, once they begin doing so in a way to seek profit, they should be subject to a reasonable fee under the copyright laws.
Finally in the case of Girl Talk and other such "remixers" as was the original subject of the video, they should be dealt with on a one by one basis as well. Since these lavish parties and musical orgies are not by any stretch of the imagination a necessity, and the "DJ" is profiting massively, I feel that he should be required to pay for the samples that he's making his music out of, but not necessarily the millions of dollars that the industry is trying to extort from him. I also do not find his process of creating music original, since although the songs he creates as a whole are "original", not a single unit of any of the songs is original. Once again, it doesn't seem very fair to profit from such a process, especially to be used in a way of life that most would consider a luxury. In general, I feel that "piracy" is acceptable and can be used to create more art, so long as it is not done in a way that can be considered unnecessarily profitable without giving appropriate royalties to the works in which the derivative works are based on.
Peon, don't you think that for a DJ to do such a remix, which wasn't done initially, he is being creative as well, or better still being original in his own way? don't you think that you will be prohibiting what other people can do best by curtailing such a talent?
Delete