RiP! The Remix Manifesto directed by Brett Gaylor is a documentary film revealing the problems and concerns with Copyright's, copyright infringement and how it plays a part in what people are legally and illegally allowed to create. It directly related to our discussion on the legalities of design and how copyrights have a huge impact on what we can legally use and draw upon in our own creations. 

I really enjoyed the documentary overall. Some viewers were turned off by Gaylor's strong stance against copyrights. It is important to remember that he is an activist and as a result his documentary will exemplify a strong opinion in what he believes. If one can look past that tho and take some thoughts with a "grain of salt" I think this film offers some very valid points. 

The main issue focused around the music sensation that is Girl Talk. Girl Talk is really Gregg Gillis, a one man band who remixes popular songs and sounds from all decades. By cutting and splicing different clips, some only a second or so long, he works them together to create a one of a kind track that is sure to get you moving. Doing this though means that he is taking from what other artists have created and using it as his own. This is technically copyright infringement and is punishable by law. Gaylor uses Girl Talk as his main example to then goes to look into things like how other artists have done the same (old rock bands drawing from even older blues songs) and then gets the opinion of people who are actually working to stop copyright infringement. 

I enjoyed the movie RiP! and am glad we spent time to watch it.  I hear of girl talk now and then, and it's interesting to see him at work.  Also the general issue of piracy is an interesting topic most of us have discussed with someone.  Everyone has their own opinion on what's stealing and what's OK, and it is interesting to see someone's life be affected by the laws around piracy.  To hear him talk about not knowing what to do next with a new CD or not was something I don't think about too much.  Musicians like him having to change what they do, or be hesitant with decisions they could easily make without the laws is a difficult situation.  Although I wish the nostalgia of music was brought back to record shops and finding music through friends and live shows, the ease of obtaining a new record is amazing with today's technology.  It's so easy to sit at home, click a few buttons, and you can have new music, movies, and whatever else, fast.  Pandora is a great way to hear new music, but another program I use called PandoraJam downloads each heard song onto my computer.  Where is the line there?

1. Culture always builds on the past.

Past is one thing we cannot escape from. Our knowledge and perspectives are all evolved from those old ideas. Past is like the cornerstone of our culture. Cultures get shaped as the time goes by. Walt Disney adapted old stories and turned them into now forms, he's the founder of the Disney culture, and those old stories are his inspiration.

2. The past always tries to control the future.

Past as a cornerstone, everything else(the future) is built upon it. You can never remove the cornerstone without destroy everything on it. When Walt Disney transformed the stories which suppose to be part of the public domain into something new, he became the owner of those intellectual properties. With the help of the copyright law, he received every right to "protect" his property, who would think he/she might get sued for singing happy birthday song in public?

3. Our future is becoming less free.

Thanks to copyright, maybe one day when we write something we all have to cite every single word, when we cheer someone with a song we have to get the permission from the record company.

4. To build free societies, you must limit control of the past.

I thought this portion of the reading of "Cradle to Cradle" was significantly darker than the introduction we previously read. In the introduction, it was still pointed out how bad everything around us is for us and the environment, but there still seemed to be a sense of how it could be easily fixed through smarter design.

In these chapters, there was the same discussion of how bad our industrialism is, but when the books were talked about, it seemed like there just wasn't a good option. Even in the so called "environmentally friendly" 2nd book, all the options the designers tried out still had to be somewhat destructive to nature. They're on the right track with the book design used for this book, and the idea of a continuously recyclable book to book to book design is pretty cool. And its a better design than traditional paper books because it's waterproof, feels better in your hands, and the print/ink makes it easier to read. So why can't all publishers just start doing this???

This section of reading really made me ask this question about a lot of corporations. We obviously know so much of the industrialized world is harming our environment, which can be deadly for us, so why aren't companies changing right now, no matter what the cost? If all your consumers die off, who are you going to sell your toxic products to? 

The Rip! Remix manifesto was quite interesting.  It is hard to realize how we effect the laws and that also, we can effect things through our designs and choice of pattens or copyrights how easily they can be accessed to help the greater good.  Also it opened my eyes to at times the hypocritical nature of some industries.  The music industry is allowed to "sample" other beats and even lyrics from other songs yet is unwilling to allow their beats and lyrics to be formed into what many see as a new song. 

In class this week, we discussed the topic of legal issues of design and watched Rip!: A Remix Manifesto.

The issue of copyright infringement and things of that matter have interested me for a while now.  I even recall writing a paper during my sophomore year of high school about file sharing and how the criminalization of it by large corporations is just ridiculous.

To me, this all mainly boils down to the notion that money is the ultimate compensation of any kind of work, which is a dangerous belief to have, especially when held by those who don't have the right to feel that way.

Here, we have the heads of corporations telling us that the material they release under their name cannot be touched or distributed without their permission.  Otherwise, one may have a hefty fine to pay as consequence.

Funny thing is, none of these big heads actually worked their hands at making the material, yet, they consider it their property.

I would like to think (but, I'll try not to speak for them) that the artists who produce music, movies, photos, whatever, aren't solely looking for a paycheck when creating a piece of work (though, I'm sure they wouldn't turn one down).  They're doing what they love for people who love what they do.  This enables their work to be enjoyed, built upon, and integrated into society whether the impact is large or small. 

Contribution to culture is compensation enough.

Same goes for designers.  When coming upon a fantastic discovery, invention, design, there's no need to lock it up, and only allow admission to it upon some kind of payment.

It should be released, so it can be embraced by all.  But also, credit should also be given where credit is due.

I am happy to see that out of this situation we're seeing a reform of how copyright works.   The sliding scale offered by the Creative Commons seems like a great solution so far for the dilemma.

This week we watched "Rip!: A Remix Manifesto", a documentary about the remix culture, and whether some of these practices should be legal or not. One of the focuses of the movie was Girl Talk, a mashup artist who has gained a lot of popularity lately, and just released his latest album 'All Day'. Part of the discussion in the documentary is about whether or not Girl Talk should have to pay royalties to all the artists he samples in his song. If we look at Girl Talk's latest album we see that:

1. The album is 71 minutes long, and released as a single track.

2. There are 373 samples in the whole album. 

That comes out to an average of 19 seconds for each sample on the track. Is that too long of a clip for Gregg Gillis to use in his art? I don't think so. I can listen to a 30 second to 1:30 minute clip of any song I want to on iTunes without paying.  Not to mention he's not just straight playing a part of each song straight up, he's mixing vocal tracks from one artist over an instrumental track from another. He's taking what has already been done by others, and improving it in his own way. 

Another point I've come to realize is that Girl Talk is not technically making money off the music/sampling itself. I got his album for free, and I've always heard his mixes and seen videos for free. Girl Talk has not made a single dollar off me. The artists he samples sure have though. Gregg makes money off of his shows, which I see as performance art. Would I have to pay royalties if I held a show and simply read a 5 minute speech by Martin Luther King Jr.? (I don't think I would, but I could be wrong.)