16th
RIP: a Remix Manifesto
I was really looking forward to seeing Brett Gaylor’s new film, but ended up being very disappointed when we saw it last night.
That’s not to say it wasn’t a fun movie. And the filming, animiation, sound and visuals were great. I was completly hooked for the first 10 minutes, and then the editorial stance started bothering me.
There was a complete lack of respect of people making original creative works. It received a mixed reaction from the crowd as well, although only perhaps 1/3 of the audience didn’t like the film’s ultimate point of view (based on applause and boos).
It also blurred a lot of issues by using mashup artist “Girl Talk” as the primary example.
What Girl Talk does is actually legal in the context of a live performance, just not legal in a context of releasing a recording of what he does. The movie implied that the live Girl Talk performances were violating copyright, but they’re not since there is no public performance copyright restrictions for sound recordings.
Gaylor also blurred the lines by talking about “sound recording copyright owners” and then citing an example of a music publishing company (who own the rights to the musical composition but not the sound recording) to try and prove their point. Since the publisher was Warner Chappel they tried to imply it was the same as Warner Bros Records. Warner Chappel music publishing is not friends with the RIAA. In fact, the RIAA and music publishers like Chappel are constantly fighting over royalties with each other. Record labels have to pay music publishers royalties on the music they release.
I came away from the movie having less respect for the people who “remix culture” and more respect for the original creators… the opposite of what the Gaylor wanted me to think. I expected it to reinforce my opinions, and instead came away from it seriously questioning my previous views.
And the filmmaker bragged about securing a distribution deal and how the film would soon be available for sale, so of course I asked “where can I get the torrent” he almost got defensive! Because if he really was willing to share the film like he thinks musicians should share their work, he should put up the whole film as a torrent to download. (To his credit, he has published raw footage for others to edit, but he also included the best of those as parts of his film.)
Larry Lessig spoke after the film as well, and I was surprised when he sidestepped some of the questions I asked (and tried to imply that Girl Talk’s live performance were illegal because they were derivative works, but if he was actually creating them live and NOT recording it, then that couldn’t be). Only the recording would be a derivate work.
I’m a complete supporter of Creative Commons. But I don’t think you can force artists to release their creative work under a “share alike” license. That should be their option, they shouldn’t be forced to do it.
And Lessig is a very eloquent speaker. He should be a politician.
Oh, wait, he is.
