1.20.2010
RIP: A Remix Manifesto
We watched this film in class last year. In fact, the mid-semester paper assignment stemmed from a Lessig quote. For now, please at least view the trailer. If you want to go ahead and watch the full length feature, you can download it here: http://films.nfb.ca/rip-a-remix-manifesto/?film=0 I may assign it later.
An interesting comment on the legality of the film: http://www.chartattack.com/reviews/66921/rip-girl-talk-movie-baits-lawyers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I don't mean to sound like an RIAA apologist, and I realize these arguments must be cliche and dated, but since I'm relatively new to these issues I'm still grappling with basics. Somebody please set me straight.
Girl Talk, as an example of art that would be impossible under a conservative copyright regime because the cost of the licenses is prohibitive, seems a bit like a straw man. Most people aren't doing anything interesting or creative with their illegal downloads of music. They simply listen to it for free instead of paying for it.
What does Girl Talk mash up once rampant piracy has suffocated his stream of source materials(major label artists) out of existence? A big part of the appeal of such remixes is juxtaposition, irony, sentimentality, etc., all dependent on context established by massive marketing by labels. Without massive profitability, the labels are unlikely to market records to the point where we all recognize them and associate them with certain fads/celebrities/times in our life, etc. At that point, do the juxtapositions in Girl Talk's mash ups trigger the same sentiment and appreciation in the audience, or does his work become a mix of self-reference that most can't appreciate(no mainstream artists just Long-tail niches artists) and his own limited musicianship?
WHo wants to come up with a list of works that would not exist but for fair use or some loosening of copyright laws?
@David
Your point that most people simply download and listen to songs without mashing them and engaging in transformative art is well taken.
I disagree with the notion that cultural touchstones are created solely (primarily?) by record labels' marketing efforts. It may be that Girl Talk's work thrives largely because of the effect the nostalgic effect the songs have on the audience. But I think that if you take the long view, music has always been a conversation between artists. The real question is how much these mashups transform the originals.
@Cecily
Virgil's Aeneid was really just a mash-up of the Odyssey and the Iliad, with critical commentary.
The South Park episode "Imaginationland" featured appearances by every cartoon character to appear in the last 30 years.
Much of the Beastie Boys' early work actively stretched the bounds of fair use.
Quite a few documentaries rely on fair use to show snippets of clips to get the point across. "Outfoxed" a doc about Rupert Murdoch and fox news probably couldn't exist without the fair use defense.
Etc, etc.
Thank you both for indulging me.
Did/does fair use make those examples possible, or merely cheaper to produce? The artists could have paid for the licensing, right? Cost-prohibitive? That totally depends on how lucrative the new art would be(ironically dependent on how much copyright protection it would in turn receive). If Girl Talk really believes in the value of his mash ups, why not pay for the licenses? If he doesn't believe the potential for return warrants risking the investment in licensing, perhaps the mash-ups aren't that valuable after all.
If music is a conversation between artists, will that conversation continue to involve sophisticated, full-time professionals if we undercut there ability to make a living off what they produce? Or will we be left with a stable of "artists" made up solely of weekend warrior amateurs flexing their garage band chops(and potentially the independently wealthy/ beneficiaries of their patronage)? Is it worth eliminating professional musicianship in order to enable ubiquitous pastiche?
Hey everyone... I am trying to post a new topic, but cannot figure it out just yet. Therefore, I am posting here....
Supposedly, a remittitur case just came though in the US District Court of Minnesota. The Judge reduced a copyright infringement award against a mother of four, based on the sharing and downloading of 24 songs by the mother, from about $2M to $54K. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/judge-cuts-2-million-pena_n_433903.html.
Perhaps this will serve as precedent for the case we are reviewing in class?
I have searched for the Order. Can anyone come up with it? Someone with access to PACER?
Found some additional materials, which echo what I was saying earlier. It links up the order and mentions the Tenenbaum case.
http://www.masslawblog.com/2010/01/2-million-for-stealing-24-songs-for-personal-use-is-simply-shocking-says-minnesota-federal-judge-issuing-remittitur-order/
@David
I think music will "continue to involve sophisticated, full-time professionals" but we might have to realign our expectations about what their lives and livelihoods look like. I think the days of the gold-plated private jet, bottomless Cristal, and other exaggerated trappings of the "rock star" life. There might indeed be more weekend warriors and fewer true superstars. I'm not arguing that this is a good thing, but there were professional musicians long before there was copyright. Touring, merchandise, patronage... There are any number of new models for how musicians can sustain themselves.
I agree with your point about just sucking it up and paying for the licensing. I don't know what kind of numbers Girl Talk is pulling in, but I know that his albums are on the "pay what you feel like" scale for downloads, ala Radiohead. $0 is an option and I would wager that most people download his work for free. But maybe enough don't that he can make a living at it. I doubt we'll be seeing him on MTV Cribs any time soon. Licensing costs would likely make it impossible for him to do what he does.
Post a Comment