Before I had watched this intriguing documentary on remixes
and copyright infringement, I had relatively standard views on the matter. I
didn’t really see past the surface level of the arguments. I have always been a
believer in copyright and protection to ALL kinds of intellectual property. It
is a very important right that I believe we have. My problem was that I had
never seen the shades in between. If I create a piece of music or art, I don’t
want anybody taking what is rightfully mine and claiming it as their own.
When I started delving into this documentary, I saw the
shades of gray between. It is a challenging subject because I believe there is
no drop-dead line that determines what is protected and what is public domain.
Corporations are currently taking advantage over the otherwise good (in theory)
system we have in place. They have taken so much control of previous released
content and placed such a focus on ownership rights that it seems that
recreating our culture (as in remixing songs) is becoming less and less
possible. As I said before, I firmly believe in people’s right to intellectual
property, but I think these large corporations are bending the rules towards
their favor so that they can profit off of others creativity. Now, let’s ponder
that point for a second. They are utilizing copyright laws (which are set in
place to PROTECT people’s creativity) to suppress people’s creativity.
The reason why remixes are not entirely bad is because a lot
of times, the new product looks or sounds nothing like the old version of the
song or other piece of culture. The documentary highlights an interesting
“artist”. I put artist in quotation marks because some might question his
artistic ability. The artist is named Girl Talk. He is a very interesting
biomedical worker by day and a rocker remixer by night. He has taken remixing
to a stage that I have never been exposed to before and it was actually quite
exciting and thrilling to hear his new type of music. He is among a rising
genre that has come about as a result of rising technologies that enable our
creative juices. With the simple press of a key, he is able to take beats and
melodies and countermelodies and harmonies from anywhere in the world and mash
it all together to form one wild song. This is where music is headed as seen in
the rise in popularity of computer-based music such as dubstep and I believe
that the music industry, in a failed attempt to keep up, is trying desperately
to pull this creativity back down using the law. They don’t want these
“heretics” to gain too much of an influence and greatly alter the industry;
that would prevent them from making money, you know.
I see it like this. I’m writing this blog right now. A
little later I’ll upload it to my blog and you’ll be reading it (hopefully).
Say that what I’m writing in this blog is extremely interesting to you so you
decide to copy the whole 800+ word thing and post it as your OWN blog! If I
caught wind, I probably would be a little mad that you stole my creativity
because I spent good time to create this piece. But this blog is composed of a
variety of words in it, right? If you looked at my blog and said to yourself,
“Whoa, I really like how he used the term ‘rocker remixer’ in the third
paragraph! I’m gonna use that!” If you use the words in a different way to
create a totally different blog or post or tweet, I could care less. There are
only so many words in the English language! Just because you used two of my
words, doesn’t mean I think you stole my ideas.
It’s the same with music! I watched as Girl Talk mashed
together fractions of a second of beat from one song with fractions of a second
of a melody from across the world. The creativity does not lie in the blip of a
sound that comes from that miniscule part of the song. The creativity lies in
the person who has taken this miniscule piece of nothing and transformed it
into a head-banging, enjoyable piece of art. The fact that a random guy with a
computer can just make songs is truly astounding.
I think if copyright laws should protect anyone, it should
be fixed to protect artists like Girl Talk who are simply creating their own
music. Girl Talk, like others, has changed the songs so much to a point that
they sound like a new product. While this gets into a shady area of
qualification, copyright laws should not be used by these corporations to
hinder progress towards an innovative future in music.
I'd be interested in hearing your take on the pros and cons of copyright of other intellectual property outside of music and art. Particulary as it applies to research, medical and otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI think that it ultimately depends on the situation. I would generally say that intellectual property regarding research, medical, or inventions should be protected. Regarding everything I believe that intellectual property should be protected. I think my main point of concern was that in these remixes, the remixers were the ones that needed some protecting because THEY had created something new; not these large corporations. The same can be said about research. While I strongly believe that scientists should get credit for their work, I think that the basis of science and research is to build off of one another. Use past research in order to make further advances in the field. As long as their predecessors are acknowledged,I think the new researchers have as much intellectual property there as their predecessors. Those are some of my thoughts.
ReplyDelete