What do you think about Brett Gaylor's manifesto? Do you agree or disagree? In what ways does it connect to your daily life? In ways does it affect how you view your courses and your EWM major? How do you view the future of remix and remediation?
I kind of agree and disagree with the points that he made. I thought it was hilarious when he talked about Disney because, lets face it, they are the Nazi's when it comes to copyright. I'll be interested to see what happens when Snow White and the early Disney movies become public domain since that should happen in our lifetime.
I understand what he is saying when it comes to downloading music, etc and to some extent I agree. Media is changing and so is technology, and as a poor college student I can definitely relate to pirating videos and illegally downloading music. I have over 2000 songs on my Ipod. $1.29 x 2000= way more $$ than I have (granted this is 4 years worth of music). As media and technology changes so should the sharing of information, not necessarily with each other, but with the media to the consumers. If music didn't evolve with technology (aka Itunes) musicians would be stuck because people do not want to buy cd's.
However, Lars Ulrich has an excellent point and that is that illegally downloading music and video's is just that: illegal. Musicians and Actors work very hard to create their music and their movies, and when you illegally download you are taking away from them. However much money they have is irrelevant because it's the time and effort they put into this particular work that you are taking for free that makes them so upset. They should be paid for their work, but does it need to be so expensive? No. The artists revieve maybe 20% of record sales; they make their money by touring. It's the record labels that get the other 80% and get to keep it, so they have the resources to find you and sue you.
Copyright should not last 95 years. It should last 15 and that's that. It isn't like people will stop associating Mickey Mouse with Disney because they no longer own it, and the fact that they are so insane about the logo is ridiculous. Art can be made from other people's art, and Girl Talk is creating a new kind of art, even if the studios don't want to recognize it.
I agree with the manifesto due to many causes. These companies, these corporations are powerhouses, and will stop at nothing to make ends meat, its just a fact. Money is the only thing driving a corporation like Disney to keep doing what they are doing. So whenever some smaller force of action takes place and uses their animations or whatever, they react the way they do. But that is what i disagree with, the way they react and the penalty of copyrighting something is far too extreme. Expressing yourself by modifying someone elses creation shouldn't be looked at as prosecution, more as art. Thats what the big companies don't understand, that not all people are like them looking to make tons of money of a scam or creation.
This connects to my daily life because at this very moment im downloading songs from the internet, also converting youtube videos to my own personal video files to have for later. These are now abilities that each and every one of us have now, and with technology and time progressing, we should be able to use things such like this. If musicians are so bent around the idea of money then they are worrying about the wrong thing. Your music is still be listened to, if anything by MORE people now with the internet. Once Lars Ulrich started bitching more about how much money he and the band were making, his music began to take a turn for the worse, which is usually the case, focus on the music and not where your money is coming from.
I view this course and other EWM classes the same still, with the publication business comes this concept of copyrighting, and i understand that even though i may disagree with the idea, its my job for the future to obey it and set my boundaries and guidelines according to whatever laws suffice it. I hope to see more remix and remediation in the future for it expresses ones self and creativity, what Girltalks doing is awesome, the amount of effort and creativity that goes into his work is awesome. If anyone tells you otherwise, lets see if they can do anything close to that. Plus the concert i went to this summer at house of blues was insane, definitely a great night.
Gaylor's manifesto really left me torn; i don't know whether to conform to the lawmakers consensus or agree with the progressive idea of remix and remediation in pop culture. I can't help but consider that our country was founded on capitalistic ideals and that although art is a creative form of expression it is also aimed at producing revenue. I think maybe the fallacy that i am adopting is that by remixing or remediating an existing work, the original work loses value. This fallacy is widely accepted but misleading in the argument of copyright law. If a work is significant or innately contains value than it will not be destroyed. I think this is proved by the video we watched on the perseverance of the magazine; everyone keeps saying that magazines are going to be replaced by the internet yet subscriptions and readership of magazines has increased over recent years. I think that corporations and artists should be less focused on the use of their material in remixes or remediations and more concerned with producing a work that is valuable and can withstand manipulation, maintaining its value. i think that all artists have the right to gather and use other works to create their own. This idea is essentially what all art is founded on. No "new" art is ever created, it is only a manipulation, either by conforming or braking from, previous creations. The whole idea of remixing or remediation is more prevalent in this century, and in my life, than ever before. This technological age makes the manipulation of media more easy and accessible to everyone. You don't need super expensive software or an elevated skill set to remix songs, video or the like. People are making careers out of remediation and remixing and it is gaining popularity among a young audience. This makes me realize how important it is for EWM courses and any college courses to stress this issue. I think that the ideas of remixing, remediation and the lessening of copyright laws should start with our generation. We should change the way corporate america controls these things and help to truly uphold the artistic "liberties" creativity dictates.
The Remixer's Manifesto is a culmination of four concepts developed by Brett Gardner during his research for the film RIP! The first tenet of the manifesto is that "culture always builds on the past." The second tenet is that "the past is always trying to control the future." The third tenet is that "our future is becoming less free." The fourth, and final tenet, of the manifesto is "to build free societies, you must limit the control of the past." I completely agree with this manifesto. For development and progression to occur, people must be informed by the ideals of the past while looking forward to contribute something more to the tradition. In the same way, however, people cannot completely ignore the past and the tradition that exist within it because it has a role in our individual perspective as human beings. In my daily life, these ideas surround because of the technology I am constantly surrounded by. On a smaller scale, however, the tenets of the manifesto effect me as a musician. There is a need to study, to look back to what others have done and give reverence to that, particularly in jazz. There becomes less a need for younger musicians to innovate and insert their ideas and concepts to the genre. There is a "gate-keeper" that exists within the music comprised of older musicians, or the "past", that believe that music should only hold tradition and that, to be a jazz musician, we all must exist within that tradition. My view of EWM has not changed. It is becoming more evident through this film, however, the importance of copyright and and the boundaries that exist within society. In a major and possible career path that relies heavily on media and technology, it is best to be informed by the laws and, for now, work within the "past." The future of remediation and remix is dependent on the future of copyright law and legislation. Changes and innovation can occur within remediation but the repercussions of the changes may not be worth it for the author or artist or creator.
For the most part I disagree with what he has to say, mainly because as he stated, he was a major fan of Girl Talk, and his fandom for the artist is what made him create the video in the first place, so of course, he is going to make a video that defends his favorite artist by getting facts and opinions by people who sound like they know what they're talking about in order to make a valid point.
I feel more sided with the Copyright companies because no matter how overbearing or drastic they are when it comes to defending their property-it is still THEIR property, and they have every right to defend it, even if it does mean taking a family or child to court. I found it even more discrediting when Gaylor used the sob story of a poor family to try and make the copyright company look like the bad guy. It doesn't matter who stole the music-it was still stolen.
However, when fans and other people like Girl Talk want to take original material from artists who have had their content protected by copyright, I feel like they should have some flexibility-like when readers create fan fiction from their favorite stories. Notice Gaylor didn't talk about THAT freedom. I feel like the line should be drawn when it comes to profits and permission of content release. Girl Talk is still getting money from his concerts. I don't care if it's money that is only going for the event and not for the music-it is still money he is receiving for displaying art that was not originally his. If he had received permission from the artists to throw a concert with bits of their music all clashed together, then it would have been fine in my opinion, but he didn't, so thus the problem is created. It wasn't his, he didn't get permission, he deserves to be sued.
I am really glad and grateful actually, that this course has given me exposure to copyright laws, because I had no idea how powerful they really were. And since I intend on being an editor someday, this is great material to be learning and I hope other courses in my EWM major include more information about copyright and content distribution as well as artist rights versus company and publishing rights.
In terms of remix and remediation-it will always be around. It's not a heinous crime, but it involves money tied in with economical and major company rights, so it will be a constant war between the copy"left" and the copy"right" sides.
It is very hard for me to take one side when it comes to Bret Gaylor’s manifesto. Although both sides make very valid points about public domain and copyright laws, I would have to say I find myself siding with the corporations. I believe that is someone took the time to create something, whether is be a song or an iconic character like Mickey Mouse, their product should be protected to some extent.
In my opinion groups such as the Mouse Liberation Front are completely ridiculous, and are one of the main reasons big corporations are suing the pants off of American citizens. In the movie Dan O’Neil talks about how he took our beloved mouse and turned him into a drug dealer. Although this is a form of free speech, it is also desecrating a character that symbolizes virtue and family values. Although Walt Disney took classics and remixed them himself, he never once violated the character integrity of the original works. He used characters of the past and transformed them into something that every one of all ages could enjoy. He never once took a character and showcased them in a bad light. On the other hand if someone were to see O’Neil’s comics it is very likely that they will associate them with Disney, which in turn can cause bad publicity and ruin the reputation of a company that has been working hard to expand for decades. Because of people like this I believe copyright laws are completely necessary.
However when it comes to works such as those produced by Girl Talk, these same copyright laws seem outrageous and highly restricting. Like Walt Disney, Girl Talk and so many other DJs are taking old songs and remixing them, to appeal to our generation. I for one am a huge Electronic Dance Music fan, and about a third of my iTunes collection is composed of remixes. The DJs are not taking an old song and claiming it theirs. In fact when downloading a remixed song on iTunes or any other music site, the artist of the song is the artist of the original version. For example one of my favorite DJs, Avicii, has a remix of Coldplay’s song “Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall”. He accredits the song to Coldplay and only puts his name in the title of the song, therefore his remix is entitled: “Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall (Avicii 'Tour' Mix)”.
So when it comes to remediation and remixing I think if the “remixer” is portraying the old works in a positive light then they should not be handed lawsuit. The copyright debate doesn’t change my outlook on my major of any of my courses, because I connect it more to my personal and daily life, especially in my choice of music. I think the future of remixing and remediation is bright. Although there are people out there like Dan O’Neil, there are an abundance of people like Girl Talk and Avicii who are showcasing remediation and remixing in a positive light, and are in fact allowing it to become its own art form.
I really enjoyed the manifesto, especially since I’m a huge fan of remixes, mashups, and Girl Talk. I can empathize a bit with artists in the fact that they want to protect their work and I’m sure it’s difficult owning something relatively intangible, like an idea or character, when you can’t constantly monitor how it’s being using unlike something more tangible, like a sculpture. However, I agree with the fact that culture does build on the past. In class, we discussed how apprentices of the past would build upon the work of known artists to help establish and hone their skills. This is essentially the same thing, in my opinion. There is very little pure or true originality in this age. A piece of art or song may lend its inspiration elsewhere, but there is nothing wrong with that. Artists created their work to be shared with the public. I don’t see why it’s so wrong to be seen as a vehicle for someone’s inspiration as long as they aren’t trying to pass off your sole creation as their own.
The emergence of new media is what has enabled this mass sharing and creating and, as part of this growing technology, the fields in which we hope to go into may have to deal with these types of copyright issues. I honestly don’t think copyright laws should be as strict as they are, especially since most things created in our lifetime will be off limits of many, many years. There has to be some kind of medium. With text, if we happen to use someone else’s ideas or work to help further our own concepts, we cite them and give them credit. Who’s to say the same model can’t be used in terms of characters, music, etc.? This act of control comes across as narrow-minded and greedy and I honestly hope the future of this industry learns to be a bit more humble and accommodating to their respective creative audiences. Remixes and remediation can only get stronger as technology becomes easier and more readily available to the masses. The corporations and their associated industries need to realize that these creations can be hindered by things like lawsuits, but they’ll never be fully stopped.
I really enjoyed the manifesto. I think that he makes a lot of strong points throughout the movie about the outrageous copyright law. I especially agree with the fact that Disney takes it way overboard when it comes to copyright laws, and I think that money is the only reason, not stealing the idea. I found the lengths that corporations go to just to collect a buck are completely absurd. I also agree with the fact that all of these piracy laws and copyright laws are limiting our society in many ways. There will probably soon be a time when all new art forms are just going to be illegal. When I was watching the movie, I was thinking that this could be just the beginning of an artistic revolution, because of the "man" trying to limit people's creativity.
I feel that Brett Gaylor’s manifesto was definitely eye opening and thought provoking. I like that it really got me to think about ideas such as copyright and infringement and how they effect our culture and creativity today. I would have to say that I agree with Brett Gaylor’s ideas in the documentary. The idea of his that I agree with most is that “culture builds on the past.” Taking things that previously existed, reworking them, and turning them into something new has always been a part of our culture and society. This idea of taking ideas from the past and evolving them into newer, more updated versions of the original is vital in the evolution of society. However, the limits placed on what we can legally use from the past are making it extremely difficult to express ourselves creatively and openly. The ideas represented in this documentary are present everyday in our lives, especially as EWM majors. This documentary made me realize how much of other individual’s ideas are used in our work. Every time we are asked to cite a scholarly source, we are using someone else’s ideas. Until Gaylor explained the similarities between writers and the work of Girl Talk, I never realized that we are doing pretty much the same thing. This made me question, why is it acceptable to “borrow” and “sample” work as writers, but it is unacceptable to do the same with film and music? As far as the future of remix and remediation, I think there will be a lot of obstacles to overcome. With copyright laws becoming more and more strict, it will become more difficult to legally remix and remediate. However, I think remediation and remix are becoming evermore present in our culture and will thrive despite the many obstacles it will face.
Watching the manifesto in class these past two days has been an experience. I found so many of the aspects covered in it to be fascinating. Much of what Gaylor argued and defended, I agreed with. Personally, I have come in contact with pirated music and am subjected to it on a frequent basis (that is all I will admit to), so that portion of the video is very relevant to my daily life. I can’t say that I see nothing wrong with downloading music for free, however I do believe that once people discovered it could be done, there was no turning back. At this point, it cannot be prevented and I do firmly believe attacking individual downloaders is futile and should not happen. Also, attempting to shut down websites like PirateBay and mininova will ultimately produce no change. As for remixing and intellectual property, I find myself very much uncommitted. Part of me naturally jumps at the idea of putting your name on something you virtually collaged. Although it is creation nonetheless, it doesn’t seem right. However, I don’t see how copyright laws can restrict people like Girl Talk from doing so. I found the analogy of using scholarly sources in an essay to be especially poignant. This is a practice that is encouraged by almost everyone. Who is to say people can’t feed off of the influences of the past; it’s what has always happened in our culture and society. It’s just hard for me to see remixing as stealing when you are not claiming originality of the work. Seeing companies like Disney make me despise copyright altogether. They are essentially bullies and to see how they handled the Day Care centers takes this discussion to extremes. One can only wonder what creativity has been squelched all of these years because of this company’s iron fist. Being an EWM student, it seems hypocritical to require scholarly sources in essays, papers, and other print assignments while the use of much digital and online material is prohibited by copyright. Remix and remediation is creation in its own form. Limiting it is a mistake and eventually, I believe it will be legal. That day may be far away from the present moment, but it only seems inevitable. Protecting intellectual property should not be so vast as to prohibit the creative intellect of others. Stealing is stealing. Taking someone else’s creation and calling it your own should not be allowed. However, I don’t believe that this is what remixing is.
I agree with many points the manifesto makes. The point of copy right laws extending into forever, is ridiculous and the laws need to be reexamined. Another point I agreed with is the sampling, sampling should be allowed in music. Especially since it's not like the author of the new song is claiming that he created every note played in the song, he recognizes it's a mash up and that it took many people to get there. The manifesto really connects to my life because I recently just learned how to mash up videos together and I would like to start doing so. I only became interested through watching this documentary and other girl talk videos. I still have no idea what I'm doing with videos but it's fun. It definitely affects my views for my EWM major because it has a lot to do with rhetorical content and what it means to own rhetoric or intellectual property. These issues in publishing are important because knowing when the law is being broken is very important, and taking things that aren't in the public domain is dangerous. But also, knowing the loopholes of fair usage can also help deliver messages about copy right laws, and help create a change in our policy. I think it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that the copyright laws are out of control. That patents and copyrights cannot be allowed to last 95 years, that's just ridiculous. People will eventually realize, that new things come out of the old, and that method of growth and culture expansion isn't going anywhere, and fighting it is just going to create a counter culture against these laws. Granted, I still believe copyright laws should exist, and I think it's a good thing to have, but it needs to be under more control.
I loved the video and thought the manifesto was well thought out. I also think that the manifesto is applicable to many other parts of society and not restricted to remixing.
I thought the foundations for the manifesto were great. The future building on the past, the past trying to control the present, the past needs less control for the present to be more free are the ones I remember off the top of my head. There is so much truth to that. In so many ways we speak of older generations not understand today's society at all, think for example in terms of gay marriage. Many older folk are against it because it's not something they understand. They try to control it, they try to limit it and make it look wrong (much like criminalizing downloading music) and in fact they are only stifling the growth of our nation's people.
That's ultimately what I feel was the most powerful message behind the movie is; we must not stifle our growth and creativity because we are told to. It's a message I thoroughly support and agree with. He said in the movie that we are no longer a generation of silenced consumers, we are active members of society acting on the world rather than letting the world act on us. We are many, we are powerful and we are educated (mostly) so in turn we question everything. Including laws that we don't think are just. And I think that's great. In the past generations created movements, I think this entire generation IS a movement and one, BIG, tough cookie.
For the most part, I agree with Brett Gaylor’s manifesto. The four tenet’s seem pretty reasonable and rational to me. The first two are concepts that I’ve been learning from years back through history and literature classes among a few others. I guess that if anyone has an issue, it’s with the latter two, and these are more controversial because they’re arguably subjective, depend on perception, and are more theoretical than the first two because they’re not based on past, existing situations but rather in the present and the future. I think that if we choose to be more far sighted and open minded, these tenents make complete sense. On thing that this manifesto and the issue surrounding it keeps bringing to my mind is what we define as legal and if it really means what we say it means. For most of us, as we’re taught and raised, we’re taught that legal means right and illegal means wrong. We’re taught the connotations of certain words and when we’re kids it makes relative sense because our world is somewhat simple. Then we enter the real world and realize things aren’t just black and white. Legal doesn’t always means right. Legal literally means law. It’s true that laws are made to protect and are meant to be beneficial, but these things like copyright laws, who are they beneficial to? Who do they protect? Those who created them. Illegal has a connotation of wrong for us, but I don’t think we should accept things just as they’re fed to us. We need to think them through and if a law benefits only a certain group, if things are made legal for a certain party’s interest, then legal may be very close to wrong. This whole copyright issue just feels like manipulation to me. I’m not saying we need to make a revolt, I’m not encouraging an overthrow of the system, but I’m encouraging us to think further and look ahead of us instead of focusing only on what we’re told. I think this definitely affects my major. I want to help things align, for legal to be right. But for that we need to learn the process and workings of our system, both its good and corrupt aspects. The future of remix and remediation is up to us, whether we sit and let ourselves be manipulated or do something about it.
I kind of agree and disagree with the points that he made. I thought it was hilarious when he talked about Disney because, lets face it, they are the Nazi's when it comes to copyright. I'll be interested to see what happens when Snow White and the early Disney movies become public domain since that should happen in our lifetime.
ReplyDeleteI understand what he is saying when it comes to downloading music, etc and to some extent I agree. Media is changing and so is technology, and as a poor college student I can definitely relate to pirating videos and illegally downloading music. I have over 2000 songs on my Ipod. $1.29 x 2000= way more $$ than I have (granted this is 4 years worth of music). As media and technology changes so should the sharing of information, not necessarily with each other, but with the media to the consumers. If music didn't evolve with technology (aka Itunes) musicians would be stuck because people do not want to buy cd's.
However, Lars Ulrich has an excellent point and that is that illegally downloading music and video's is just that: illegal. Musicians and Actors work very hard to create their music and their movies, and when you illegally download you are taking away from them. However much money they have is irrelevant because it's the time and effort they put into this particular work that you are taking for free that makes them so upset. They should be paid for their work, but does it need to be so expensive? No. The artists revieve maybe 20% of record sales; they make their money by touring. It's the record labels that get the other 80% and get to keep it, so they have the resources to find you and sue you.
Copyright should not last 95 years. It should last 15 and that's that. It isn't like people will stop associating Mickey Mouse with Disney because they no longer own it, and the fact that they are so insane about the logo is ridiculous. Art can be made from other people's art, and Girl Talk is creating a new kind of art, even if the studios don't want to recognize it.
I agree with the manifesto due to many causes. These companies, these corporations are powerhouses, and will stop at nothing to make ends meat, its just a fact. Money is the only thing driving a corporation like Disney to keep doing what they are doing. So whenever some smaller force of action takes place and uses their animations or whatever, they react the way they do. But that is what i disagree with, the way they react and the penalty of copyrighting something is far too extreme. Expressing yourself by modifying someone elses creation shouldn't be looked at as prosecution, more as art. Thats what the big companies don't understand, that not all people are like them looking to make tons of money of a scam or creation.
ReplyDeleteThis connects to my daily life because at this very moment im downloading songs from the internet, also converting youtube videos to my own personal video files to have for later. These are now abilities that each and every one of us have now, and with technology and time progressing, we should be able to use things such like this. If musicians are so bent around the idea of money then they are worrying about the wrong thing. Your music is still be listened to, if anything by MORE people now with the internet. Once Lars Ulrich started bitching more about how much money he and the band were making, his music began to take a turn for the worse, which is usually the case, focus on the music and not where your money is coming from.
I view this course and other EWM classes the same still, with the publication business comes this concept of copyrighting, and i understand that even though i may disagree with the idea, its my job for the future to obey it and set my boundaries and guidelines according to whatever laws suffice it. I hope to see more remix and remediation in the future for it expresses ones self and creativity, what Girltalks doing is awesome, the amount of effort and creativity that goes into his work is awesome. If anyone tells you otherwise, lets see if they can do anything close to that. Plus the concert i went to this summer at house of blues was insane, definitely a great night.
Gaylor's manifesto really left me torn; i don't know whether to conform to the lawmakers consensus or agree with the progressive idea of remix and remediation in pop culture. I can't help but consider that our country was founded on capitalistic ideals and that although art is a creative form of expression it is also aimed at producing revenue. I think maybe the fallacy that i am adopting is that by remixing or remediating an existing work, the original work loses value. This fallacy is widely accepted but misleading in the argument of copyright law. If a work is significant or innately contains value than it will not be destroyed. I think this is proved by the video we watched on the perseverance of the magazine; everyone keeps saying that magazines are going to be replaced by the internet yet subscriptions and readership of magazines has increased over recent years. I think that corporations and artists should be less focused on the use of their material in remixes or remediations and more concerned with producing a work that is valuable and can withstand manipulation, maintaining its value. i think that all artists have the right to gather and use other works to create their own. This idea is essentially what all art is founded on. No "new" art is ever created, it is only a manipulation, either by conforming or braking from, previous creations.
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea of remixing or remediation is more prevalent in this century, and in my life, than ever before. This technological age makes the manipulation of media more easy and accessible to everyone. You don't need super expensive software or an elevated skill set to remix songs, video or the like. People are making careers out of remediation and remixing and it is gaining popularity among a young audience. This makes me realize how important it is for EWM courses and any college courses to stress this issue. I think that the ideas of remixing, remediation and the lessening of copyright laws should start with our generation. We should change the way corporate america controls these things and help to truly uphold the artistic "liberties" creativity dictates.
The Remixer's Manifesto is a culmination of four concepts developed by Brett Gardner during his research for the film RIP! The first tenet of the manifesto is that "culture always builds on the past." The second tenet is that "the past is always trying to control the future." The third tenet is that "our future is becoming less free." The fourth, and final tenet, of the manifesto is "to build free societies, you must limit the control of the past."
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this manifesto. For development and progression to occur, people must be informed by the ideals of the past while looking forward to contribute something more to the tradition. In the same way, however, people cannot completely ignore the past and the tradition that exist within it because it has a role in our individual perspective as human beings.
In my daily life, these ideas surround because of the technology I am constantly surrounded by. On a smaller scale, however, the tenets of the manifesto effect me as a musician. There is a need to study, to look back to what others have done and give reverence to that, particularly in jazz. There becomes less a need for younger musicians to innovate and insert their ideas and concepts to the genre. There is a "gate-keeper" that exists within the music comprised of older musicians, or the "past", that believe that music should only hold tradition and that, to be a jazz musician, we all must exist within that tradition.
My view of EWM has not changed. It is becoming more evident through this film, however, the importance of copyright and and the boundaries that exist within society. In a major and possible career path that relies heavily on media and technology, it is best to be informed by the laws and, for now, work within the "past."
The future of remediation and remix is dependent on the future of copyright law and legislation. Changes and innovation can occur within remediation but the repercussions of the changes may not be worth it for the author or artist or creator.
For the most part I disagree with what he has to say, mainly because as he stated, he was a major fan of Girl Talk, and his fandom for the artist is what made him create the video in the first place, so of course, he is going to make a video that defends his favorite artist by getting facts and opinions by people who sound like they know what they're talking about in order to make a valid point.
ReplyDeleteI feel more sided with the Copyright companies because no matter how overbearing or drastic they are when it comes to defending their property-it is still THEIR property, and they have every right to defend it, even if it does mean taking a family or child to court. I found it even more discrediting when Gaylor used the sob story of a poor family to try and make the copyright company look like the bad guy. It doesn't matter who stole the music-it was still stolen.
However, when fans and other people like Girl Talk want to take original material from artists who have had their content protected by copyright, I feel like they should have some flexibility-like when readers create fan fiction from their favorite stories. Notice Gaylor didn't talk about THAT freedom. I feel like the line should be drawn when it comes to profits and permission of content release. Girl Talk is still getting money from his concerts. I don't care if it's money that is only going for the event and not for the music-it is still money he is receiving for displaying art that was not originally his. If he had received permission from the artists to throw a concert with bits of their music all clashed together, then it would have been fine in my opinion, but he didn't, so thus the problem is created. It wasn't his, he didn't get permission, he deserves to be sued.
I am really glad and grateful actually, that this course has given me exposure to copyright laws, because I had no idea how powerful they really were. And since I intend on being an editor someday, this is great material to be learning and I hope other courses in my EWM major include more information about copyright and content distribution as well as artist rights versus company and publishing rights.
In terms of remix and remediation-it will always be around. It's not a heinous crime, but it involves money tied in with economical and major company rights, so it will be a constant war between the copy"left" and the copy"right" sides.
Kari K
It is very hard for me to take one side when it comes to Bret Gaylor’s manifesto. Although both sides make very valid points about public domain and copyright laws, I would have to say I find myself siding with the corporations. I believe that is someone took the time to create something, whether is be a song or an iconic character like Mickey Mouse, their product should be protected to some extent.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion groups such as the Mouse Liberation Front are completely ridiculous, and are one of the main reasons big corporations are suing the pants off of American citizens. In the movie Dan O’Neil talks about how he took our beloved mouse and turned him into a drug dealer. Although this is a form of free speech, it is also desecrating a character that symbolizes virtue and family values. Although Walt Disney took classics and remixed them himself, he never once violated the character integrity of the original works. He used characters of the past and transformed them into something that every one of all ages could enjoy. He never once took a character and showcased them in a bad light. On the other hand if someone were to see O’Neil’s comics it is very likely that they will associate them with Disney, which in turn can cause bad publicity and ruin the reputation of a company that has been working hard to expand for decades. Because of people like this I believe copyright laws are completely necessary.
However when it comes to works such as those produced by Girl Talk, these same copyright laws seem outrageous and highly restricting. Like Walt Disney, Girl Talk and so many other DJs are taking old songs and remixing them, to appeal to our generation. I for one am a huge Electronic Dance Music fan, and about a third of my iTunes collection is composed of remixes. The DJs are not taking an old song and claiming it theirs. In fact when downloading a remixed song on iTunes or any other music site, the artist of the song is the artist of the original version. For example one of my favorite DJs, Avicii, has a remix of Coldplay’s song “Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall”. He accredits the song to Coldplay and only puts his name in the title of the song, therefore his remix is entitled: “Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall (Avicii 'Tour' Mix)”.
So when it comes to remediation and remixing I think if the “remixer” is portraying the old works in a positive light then they should not be handed lawsuit. The copyright debate doesn’t change my outlook on my major of any of my courses, because I connect it more to my personal and daily life, especially in my choice of music. I think the future of remixing and remediation is bright. Although there are people out there like Dan O’Neil, there are an abundance of people like Girl Talk and Avicii who are showcasing remediation and remixing in a positive light, and are in fact allowing it to become its own art form.
I really enjoyed the manifesto, especially since I’m a huge fan of remixes, mashups, and Girl Talk. I can empathize a bit with artists in the fact that they want to protect their work and I’m sure it’s difficult owning something relatively intangible, like an idea or character, when you can’t constantly monitor how it’s being using unlike something more tangible, like a sculpture. However, I agree with the fact that culture does build on the past. In class, we discussed how apprentices of the past would build upon the work of known artists to help establish and hone their skills. This is essentially the same thing, in my opinion. There is very little pure or true originality in this age. A piece of art or song may lend its inspiration elsewhere, but there is nothing wrong with that. Artists created their work to be shared with the public. I don’t see why it’s so wrong to be seen as a vehicle for someone’s inspiration as long as they aren’t trying to pass off your sole creation as their own.
ReplyDeleteThe emergence of new media is what has enabled this mass sharing and creating and, as part of this growing technology, the fields in which we hope to go into may have to deal with these types of copyright issues. I honestly don’t think copyright laws should be as strict as they are, especially since most things created in our lifetime will be off limits of many, many years. There has to be some kind of medium. With text, if we happen to use someone else’s ideas or work to help further our own concepts, we cite them and give them credit. Who’s to say the same model can’t be used in terms of characters, music, etc.? This act of control comes across as narrow-minded and greedy and I honestly hope the future of this industry learns to be a bit more humble and accommodating to their respective creative audiences. Remixes and remediation can only get stronger as technology becomes easier and more readily available to the masses. The corporations and their associated industries need to realize that these creations can be hindered by things like lawsuits, but they’ll never be fully stopped.
I really enjoyed the manifesto. I think that he makes a lot of strong points throughout the movie about the outrageous copyright law. I especially agree with the fact that Disney takes it way overboard when it comes to copyright laws, and I think that money is the only reason, not stealing the idea. I found the lengths that corporations go to just to collect a buck are completely absurd. I also agree with the fact that all of these piracy laws and copyright laws are limiting our society in many ways. There will probably soon be a time when all new art forms are just going to be illegal. When I was watching the movie, I was thinking that this could be just the beginning of an artistic revolution, because of the "man" trying to limit people's creativity.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Brett Gaylor’s manifesto was definitely eye opening and thought provoking. I like that it really got me to think about ideas such as copyright and infringement and how they effect our culture and creativity today. I would have to say that I agree with Brett Gaylor’s ideas in the documentary. The idea of his that I agree with most is that “culture builds on the past.” Taking things that previously existed, reworking them, and turning them into something new has always been a part of our culture and society. This idea of taking ideas from the past and evolving them into newer, more updated versions of the original is vital in the evolution of society. However, the limits placed on what we can legally use from the past are making it extremely difficult to express ourselves creatively and openly.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas represented in this documentary are present everyday in our lives, especially as EWM majors. This documentary made me realize how much of other individual’s ideas are used in our work. Every time we are asked to cite a scholarly source, we are using someone else’s ideas. Until Gaylor explained the similarities between writers and the work of Girl Talk, I never realized that we are doing pretty much the same thing. This made me question, why is it acceptable to “borrow” and “sample” work as writers, but it is unacceptable to do the same with film and music?
As far as the future of remix and remediation, I think there will be a lot of obstacles to overcome. With copyright laws becoming more and more strict, it will become more difficult to legally remix and remediate. However, I think remediation and remix are becoming evermore present in our culture and will thrive despite the many obstacles it will face.
Watching the manifesto in class these past two days has been an experience. I found so many of the aspects covered in it to be fascinating. Much of what Gaylor argued and defended, I agreed with. Personally, I have come in contact with pirated music and am subjected to it on a frequent basis (that is all I will admit to), so that portion of the video is very relevant to my daily life. I can’t say that I see nothing wrong with downloading music for free, however I do believe that once people discovered it could be done, there was no turning back. At this point, it cannot be prevented and I do firmly believe attacking individual downloaders is futile and should not happen. Also, attempting to shut down websites like PirateBay and mininova will ultimately produce no change.
ReplyDeleteAs for remixing and intellectual property, I find myself very much uncommitted. Part of me naturally jumps at the idea of putting your name on something you virtually collaged. Although it is creation nonetheless, it doesn’t seem right. However, I don’t see how copyright laws can restrict people like Girl Talk from doing so. I found the analogy of using scholarly sources in an essay to be especially poignant. This is a practice that is encouraged by almost everyone. Who is to say people can’t feed off of the influences of the past; it’s what has always happened in our culture and society. It’s just hard for me to see remixing as stealing when you are not claiming originality of the work.
Seeing companies like Disney make me despise copyright altogether. They are essentially bullies and to see how they handled the Day Care centers takes this discussion to extremes. One can only wonder what creativity has been squelched all of these years because of this company’s iron fist.
Being an EWM student, it seems hypocritical to require scholarly sources in essays, papers, and other print assignments while the use of much digital and online material is prohibited by copyright. Remix and remediation is creation in its own form. Limiting it is a mistake and eventually, I believe it will be legal. That day may be far away from the present moment, but it only seems inevitable. Protecting intellectual property should not be so vast as to prohibit the creative intellect of others. Stealing is stealing. Taking someone else’s creation and calling it your own should not be allowed. However, I don’t believe that this is what remixing is.
I agree with many points the manifesto makes. The point of copy right laws extending into forever, is ridiculous and the laws need to be reexamined. Another point I agreed with is the sampling, sampling should be allowed in music. Especially since it's not like the author of the new song is claiming that he created every note played in the song, he recognizes it's a mash up and that it took many people to get there. The manifesto really connects to my life because I recently just learned how to mash up videos together and I would like to start doing so. I only became interested through watching this documentary and other girl talk videos. I still have no idea what I'm doing with videos but it's fun.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely affects my views for my EWM major because it has a lot to do with rhetorical content and what it means to own rhetoric or intellectual property. These issues in publishing are important because knowing when the law is being broken is very important, and taking things that aren't in the public domain is dangerous. But also, knowing the loopholes of fair usage can also help deliver messages about copy right laws, and help create a change in our policy.
I think it's only a matter of time before everyone realizes that the copyright laws are out of control. That patents and copyrights cannot be allowed to last 95 years, that's just ridiculous. People will eventually realize, that new things come out of the old, and that method of growth and culture expansion isn't going anywhere, and fighting it is just going to create a counter culture against these laws.
Granted, I still believe copyright laws should exist, and I think it's a good thing to have, but it needs to be under more control.
I loved the video and thought the manifesto was well thought out. I also think that the manifesto is applicable to many other parts of society and not restricted to remixing.
ReplyDeleteI thought the foundations for the manifesto were great. The future building on the past, the past trying to control the present, the past needs less control for the present to be more free are the ones I remember off the top of my head. There is so much truth to that. In so many ways we speak of older generations not understand today's society at all, think for example in terms of gay marriage. Many older folk are against it because it's not something they understand. They try to control it, they try to limit it and make it look wrong (much like criminalizing downloading music) and in fact they are only stifling the growth of our nation's people.
That's ultimately what I feel was the most powerful message behind the movie is; we must not stifle our growth and creativity because we are told to. It's a message I thoroughly support and agree with. He said in the movie that we are no longer a generation of silenced consumers, we are active members of society acting on the world rather than letting the world act on us. We are many, we are powerful and we are educated (mostly) so in turn we question everything. Including laws that we don't think are just. And I think that's great. In the past generations created movements, I think this entire generation IS a movement and one, BIG, tough cookie.
For the most part, I agree with Brett Gaylor’s manifesto. The four tenet’s seem pretty reasonable and rational to me. The first two are concepts that I’ve been learning from years back through history and literature classes among a few others. I guess that if anyone has an issue, it’s with the latter two, and these are more controversial because they’re arguably subjective, depend on perception, and are more theoretical than the first two because they’re not based on past, existing situations but rather in the present and the future. I think that if we choose to be more far sighted and open minded, these tenents make complete sense.
ReplyDeleteOn thing that this manifesto and the issue surrounding it keeps bringing to my mind is what we define as legal and if it really means what we say it means. For most of us, as we’re taught and raised, we’re taught that legal means right and illegal means wrong. We’re taught the connotations of certain words and when we’re kids it makes relative sense because our world is somewhat simple. Then we enter the real world and realize things aren’t just black and white. Legal doesn’t always means right. Legal literally means law. It’s true that laws are made to protect and are meant to be beneficial, but these things like copyright laws, who are they beneficial to? Who do they protect? Those who created them. Illegal has a connotation of wrong for us, but I don’t think we should accept things just as they’re fed to us. We need to think them through and if a law benefits only a certain group, if things are made legal for a certain party’s interest, then legal may be very close to wrong. This whole copyright issue just feels like manipulation to me. I’m not saying we need to make a revolt, I’m not encouraging an overthrow of the system, but I’m encouraging us to think further and look ahead of us instead of focusing only on what we’re told.
I think this definitely affects my major. I want to help things align, for legal to be right. But for that we need to learn the process and workings of our system, both its good and corrupt aspects. The future of remix and remediation is up to us, whether we sit and let ourselves be manipulated or do something about it.