R.I.P. Mix Manifesto

[rhizomeman]

Just saw this movie at a film festival. Basically discusses music and copyright issues from a mash-up perspective. Focuses on Girl Talk but has other people in it as well. Pretty interesting movie that does a good job at revealing specific copyright laws that are questionable.

For example, "Happy Birthday" is a copyrighted tune. If you have every sung that tune and DID NOT PAY for permission to sing it - you have broken the law and are a "pirate" he he he

Flame On!

[alexp]

For example, "Happy Birthday" is a copyrighted tune. If you have every sung that tune and DID NOT PAY for permission to sing it - you have broken the law and are a "pirate" he he he

Good luck enforcing that.


alexP

[rhizomeman]

ha ha - yea. Everyone in the audience started laughing when they talked about that!

Interestingly, many (most) classic Disney characters are based upon popular/ancient myths and stories, but the Disney corp. has a "copyright" on their images, which are plagiarized from past cultures - totally insane!

[rhizomeman]

Here is link to some parts on youtube

YouTube - RIP: A Remix Manifesto (part 1)

also it can be downloaded at RIP: A Remix Manifesto » Rip It Downloads

-enjoy

[e6400ultra]

The dance world would be a better place without mash-ups.

[kreeper_6]

I think people are really missing the point as to what copyrights are, and why we need them. The "Happy Birthday" analogy doesn't work, and Disney's stories may be based on old ideas, but are original pictations & dialog.

"Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation, after which time the work is said to enter the public domain."

Basically, everybody has the right to a work...eventually. You can't own ideas or even inventions...you just have the right to use it exclusively for a time period that law dictates.

Get it?

[crufty]

Before everyone starts piling on, fyi the studio business sub forum of so much gear so little time covers this very topic in excruciating detail.

feel free to bash each other's brains out here though.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by T71

The dance world would be a better place without mash-ups.

Bad mashups are college jocks mixing random Jay-Z tracks on some rock instrumental.

Good mashups seamlessly blend 5 songs at the same time in an evolving tapestry. The Alex H Bastard set does this at certain points.

[rhizomeman]

Originally Posted by kreeper_6

I think people are really missing the point as to what copyrights are, and why we need them. The "Happy Birthday" analogy doesn't work, and Disney's stories may be based on old ideas, but are original pictations & dialog.

"Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation, after which time the work is said to enter the public domain."

Basically, everybody has the right to a work...eventually. You can't own ideas or even inventions...you just have the right to use it exclusively for a time period that law dictates.

Get it?

Well...you're partially correct. In the 1990s the US copyright laws changed dramatically and now companies can purchase rights to things and ideas up to 95 (I believe) years after the death of the creator. It's corporate copyright laws that the movie, and what I'm, discussing.

[kreeper_6]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Well...you're partially correct. In the 1990s the US copyright laws changed dramatically and now companies can purchase rights to things and ideas up to 95 (I believe) years after the death of the creator. It's corporate copyright laws that the movie, and what I'm, discussing.

Yes, they are overstepping their reach, but comfortable people won't do anything about it.

[Umami Uni]

I saw the movie, and enjoyed it! I've been a big fan of lawrence Lessig

he has some great power points and videos @ his site here...

Lawrence Lessig on blip.tv

Check out search for the moose.

Anyway,

Yeah copyright these days is something that needs to be discussed, especially on the book & genetic engineering side. I think its wrong for companies to own the patents and rights to things like seeds!?!?!?!I mean really? Not even that but they even modify them to only grow one season so poorer countries have to keep buying the stuff.I liked the whole segment on Brazil and thought it was very interesting.

The WHOLE movie is up on youtube & at the director's site.

As a musician, I'm still a little hesitant to the the future change of copyright and music, but I suppose this normal.

[rack gear]

I don't know why intellectual property should be any different from any other property or investment. I think the fundamental change effecting copyright and IP law, is that more and more investment is made into these assets.

The issue really becomes the end of the public domain. Wanna bet Disney pushes for another 95 years when they start closing in on end of term? I mean Star Trek in the public domain? I just can't see it.

I just don't think I can imagine a world where Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Coca-Cola, etc are devalued by slipping into the public domain. These are huge corporate assets I just can see these becoming public property any more than I could see Mid-Town Manhattan real estate becoming public property.

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Well...you're partially correct. In the 1990s the US copyright laws changed dramatically and now companies can purchase rights to things and ideas up to 95 (I believe) years after the death of the creator. It's corporate copyright laws that the movie, and what I'm, discussing.

[Barfunkel]

Originally Posted by Mr_headphones

Yeah copyright these days is something that needs to be discussed, especially on the book & genetic engineering side. I think its wrong for companies to own the patents and rights to things like seeds!?!?!?!I mean really? Not even that but they even modify them to only grow one season so poorer countries have to keep buying the stuff.I liked the whole segment on Brazil and thought it was very interesting.

That's a tough one... if companies wouldn't get the copyrights to stuff like special seeds they've spent millions on R+D, would they make them at all? Which choice would be better, to have a product available to customers, at a price or to not have it at all? Developing stuff is expensive and risky as hell, they got to be able to make a profit because they are the ones taking the risk and spending the money. It's the lesser of two evils... at least I rather live in a world where there's stuff I can't afford to buy (but can dream, and save!) because I'm not rich than in a world where everyone is equally poor.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

I don't know why intellectual property should be any different from any other property or investment.

It's intangible, and it's not a finite scarce resource. DVDs or CDs going out of print is purely a matter of artificial scarcity, since costs for a new run are weighed against projected sales. When you remove the idea of runs and startup costs for specific products (e.g. distribute digitally) it doesn't matter if one person downloads it or a thousand.

The bandwidth cost depends on the total number of customers doing purchases instead of specific customers purchasing specific products. Whether I buy a Pokerface or Aja, it doesn't matter; there's only one currency, and it's called bandwidth usage.

The issue really becomes the end of the public domain. Wanna bet Disney pushes for another 95 years when they start closing in on end of term? I mean Star Trek in the public domain? I just can't see it.

And this sucks, because a huge stack of music from before the cutoff time is used as a resource to create new music.

The problem is not so much in "we won't have any music left anymore!"; it's in the similarity. If you'd be able to go back in history and lock up the works of Bach with eternal copyright, you'd probably get a few film soundtrack composers paying nice royalties to Bach's estate because they borrowed melody fragments or orchestration tricks - purely thanks to the fact that there are only so many listenable compositions of western scale music. We keep looking at samples because they are the most obvious and blatant.

The original promise of copyright was to promote the arts and sciences. Sitting on IP doesn't promote anything but litigation. With the vastly increased speed of dissemination of culture, the duration should go down instead of up. History already shows that IP laws are happily ignored when it is convenient to do so, until it becomes the nation's best interest to enforce them.

[suitandtieguy]

Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios

I just don't think I can imagine a world where Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Coca-Cola, etc are devalued by slipping into the public domain. These are huge corporate assets I just can see these becoming public property any more than I could see Mid-Town Manhattan real estate becoming public property.

so? intellectual property was never intended to be in perpetuity, and no one ever gave a crap until this century for the most part.

[dnbvibe]

Big thanks for that video link. Really opened my eyes, being that im new to everything from making the music to the business. Lets all remix our way into the future.

[pyvnd]

Originally Posted by kreeper_6

Basically, everybody has the right to a work...eventually. You can't own ideas or even inventions...you just have the right to use it exclusively for a time period that law dictates.

Get it?

Copyright is being abused. The Sonny Bono act was basically Disney paying for legislation so they could prevent their copyright from lapsing. It would have been better if they just limited it to Disney products! As it's happened, copyright is extended on all kinds of crap with a massively inefficient system of trying to obtain copyright clearance for something. Lawyers get fat, that's about it. Copyright should not be looked at from a regulatory perspective. It should be looked at from a simplified licensing/marketplace perspective.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

It's intangible, and it's not a finite scarce resource. DVDs or CDs going out of print is purely a matter of artificial scarcity, since costs for a new run are weighed against projected sales. When you remove the idea of runs and startup costs for specific products (e.g. distribute digitally) it doesn't matter if one person downloads it or a thousand.

But with that argument you are sidestepping the investment and effort the music composer went through

If you'd be able to go back in history and lock up the works of Bach with eternal copyright, you'd probably get a few film soundtrack composers paying nice royalties to Bach's estate because they borrowed melody fragments or orchestration tricks -

No, it's already uncool and frowned upon to obviously copy someone like Bach.
Yes, chords, rhythms and melodies can only be used so many ways, but it isn't OK to copy anyones music obviously, whether in pop, classical or film soundtrack.

The original promise of copyright was to promote the arts and sciences. .

I enjoy a lot of sampled elements in electronic music.
It isn't a substitute for innovation, hard work or just plain old good ideas, but it's a technique like collage. I don't think it's too outrageous to maintain the original composer be credited, or asked for permission if you are going to copy his/her work and re-use it.
Copyright is made out to be a lockout and legal minefield, but legal sampling has been widespread for over 20 years. You just have to pay the original owner a fee to use their work.
That's fair IMO.

[Chris@MixDSP]

Thanks for the heads up on this movie, will be checking it out shortly.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by chrisso

But with that argument you are sidestepping the investment and effort the music composer went through

A pharmaceutics company invests millions and 5 years of hard work of the brightest minds in developing and testing new medicine. They get a patent on this and enjoy tge exclusive use for 20 years. It's pretty telling about society that it values entertainment so much that it gets far more years than that.

Uncool? Try Whiter Shade of Pale.

[suitandtieguy]

Originally Posted by chrisso

No, it's already uncool and frowned upon to obviously copy someone like Bach.

a) i'm not sure if i'd agree with that.

b) Bach would never have been concerned with such things. he stole from whoever he felt like, and there was no sense of intellectual property in place back then to stop him. thank god.

[kreeper_6]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

A pharmaceutics company invests millions and 5 years of hard work of the brightest minds in developing and testing new medicine. They get a patent on this and enjoy tge exclusive use for 20 years. It's pretty telling about society that it values entertainment so much that it gets far more years than that.

Uncool? Try Whiter Shade of Pale.

It's done that way so that GENERIC lifesaving drugs can be manufactured. 20 years is plenty to get wealthy on a beneficial drug.

[Bob Olhsson]

The copyright laws were only changed to make those in all countries conform with each other. The U.S. has traditionally had the weakest copyright laws and U.S. artists and composers are arguably the worst paid in the world.

Intellectual property is the only property right than any individual has. Most big corporations would love to see copyright go away hence endless press releases promoting that idea. They wag their fingers at the few corporations who actually pay people for art while their gun is pointed at every individual artist and songwriter's head.

Turning music into strictly a hobby is not promoting the arts, it is cannibalizing music.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The copyright laws were only changed to make those in all countries conform with each other.

But they don't, and copyright and public domain is still a complete cluster****.

The U.S. has traditionally had the weakest copyright laws and U.S. artists and composers are arguably the worst paid in the world.

About the payment: blame the middle men, not the laws. As long as you have people standing in between the artists and composers who hold up their hand for services rendered, you'd have the artist not getting the full cut. The solution is to get a better deal, but that is not going to happen when there's someone who'll break down, or when you hand your rights away.

Most big corporations would love to see copyright go away

What they love is making money. In other words, they'd love to get that diamond in the rough somewhere, use it for a big advertising campaign, and get a whole bunch of people to buy their crap without having to pay an artist for royalties. When someone else than them is using "their" song, they want to see money. Or blood.

So, I'd consider it to be very illogical for them to wish for copyright to go away, unless I'm missing something. I know that you're admin on another forum where matters like these are discussed, so if you've already typed an essay on this, I'd like to read it.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

I'd consider it to be very illogical for them to wish for copyright to go away, unless I'm missing something. .

What you are missing is that if copyright were to go away, they could just go ahead and use anything they want without paying the artist and songwriter. Copyright is what protects the individual from exploitation provided they don't sign something stupid.

The lie in all of the rhetoric is the implication that only corporations own the copyrights when in fact the underlying owner is always the songwriter and artist unless they have signed it away for some reason.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by suitandtieguy

b) Bach would never have been concerned with such things. he stole from whoever he felt like, and there was no sense of intellectual property in place back then to stop him.

Actually I think he became a hugely important composer (still relevant today) because he innovated rather than copied.
The 17th century composers who merely copied Bach and Mozart are the ones you never hear of now. To suggest otherwise would be quite silly.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

A pharmaceutics company invests millions and 5 years of hard work of the brightest minds in developing and testing new medicine. They get a patent on this and enjoy tge exclusive use for 20 years. It's pretty telling about society that it values entertainment so much that it gets far more years than that.

Whereas a musician trains from as early as 5 years old, invests their own time and money in learning the instrument, building a career and may have one successful song to show for it. Corporations go on for hundreds of years, and employees of corporations aren't fired because they are balding, put on a little weight, or haven't written a hit song for a year.
The comparison is completely bogus.
The artist copyright (writers, musicians, painters etc) reflects the greater personal investment and risk artists undertake to sometimes enjoy little success.
Maybe we can talk about artist copyright in a new light if local government offers us millions in cash incentive to move our office to their location, or the government signs a contract to buy our songs for x number of years.