#ripremix

[0jrafs0]

「失礼しますが、RIP❤」 “Excuse My Rudeness, but Could You Please RIP?❤” - JRAFS R...

[andrewppurdon]

RIP! A Remix Manifesto

1. How can one promote remix culture and expect corporates to respect artists’ intellectual property?

You can't. You simply have to accept that if you are going to be an advocate for a remix culture, when content by an independent artist is used by a corporate for merchandise or advertising you simply have to be okay with that. You cannot apply a double standard when it comes to who can or can't use who’s material. 

2. How does one define one’s intellectual property?

I don’t have an answer to this. If Person A makes a painting of a fish, does it now become plagiarism to recreate that painting in any way shape or form, as long as it involves a fish? On the flip side, if Person A makes a painting of a fish wearing high heels, at what point is it acknowledged that Person A came up with the idea of putting high heels on a fish and that this idea was theirs?

3. When does it become okay to use another person’s intellectual property?

 I suppose anything we do from using pencils to digital drawing is all essentially using someone else’s idea. So does it then become okay to use someone’s idea when it has been monetised and has become mainstream?

[goldfishbymatisse]

RIPREMIX! AFTERTHOUGHTS

1. What is the annual income of Warner Time?

31,27 billion USD

2. Which company paid the most in copyright fees?

SAP was ordered to pay $1.3 billion

3. What creation has had the most copyright infringements?

Undetermined

[lucajpeg]

Rip! Remix - tut response for Chris

Is Girl Talk a good representation of subversive music?

In Rip.Remix Girl Talk is presented as the forefront of subversive music culture. He is the only artist used to showcase remix culture. They make him out to be some kind of outlawed cowboy in the music industry

As a white American male (who is a lot more visible and safer socioeconomically than, for instance, minority groups producing music) I’m not sure that he is the best representative for subversive music culture, or at least, I don't agree with the documentary using Girl Talk as the only representative for remix culture. Girl Talk is quite commercially popular; his music is available on Apple Music and he’s played at Coachella, arguably the biggest music event in the States.

 I was excited when the documentary maker introduced the name “Girl Talk” (I hadn’t heard of him before and assumed that “Girl Talk” would be someone femme). I was a little disappointed to discover that the “girl” of Girl Talk was just another white dude presented as some kind of founding father, with little regard for the work put in by other – unrecognized – people. Maybe to better represent the subversive music industry a more diverse group of musicians could have been used?

 How did people receive the documentary?

The documentary received mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes the film received 42% from critic reviews, with an average score of 5/10 (though this was only based on 12 reviews). It was more popular with audiences, who gave the film an approval rating of 75% (from 328 user ratings). One should bear in mind, however, the demographic making up the Rotten Tomatoes critics – a majority of which are other white men from the Global North (namely the States).

 What is the difference between remix and theft?

In poststructuralist linguistics there is a theory that all language is citation. Every word we use is a citation of the previous times that word has been used. Every time we speak, we are using words that have been used before.

Similarly, a postmodernist approach recognizes the intertextual “soup” of reference and iteration from which we are all working and producing art.

Isn’t all art some kind of remix? Nobody is producing art in a vacuum, and most work comes from some form of collaboration (even if it is just the process of spitballing ideas with your friends, or the inspiration drawn from other artists).

Approaching the idea of creative theft, I wonder what is being stolen. A lot of emphasis is put on the notion of protecting artist’s original “ideas”. But I wonder if maybe the emphasis should be put on protecting artist’s work, rather than their ideas. Especially, work that goes unrecognized. I think this is especially pertinent when it is the work of less visible and more vulnerable people. For example, the fashion industry often uses (without reference or acknowledgement) the seminal work of the queer community. And within the queer community, white queer people (namely men) often receive lot more visibility and recognition than those who paved the way before them. So often the work of trans femmes and people of colour goes unrecognized, while white gay men receive pats on the backs for their “groundbreaking” work.

A good example of this is the “iconic” shoot actor Ezra Miller did a few months ago with Playboy Magazine. Ezra Miller (a rich, white actor) dressed in feminine outfits was hailed as a groundbreaking gender bender. But how many trans femmes have walked in the streets wearing similar outfits and received nothing but hatred and violence? Is it so groundbreaking for someone with so much visibility and safety to do what other people have been doing (and putting their lives on the lines) for decades?

Source: Playboy Magazine 

[alil2019]

Questions for documentary: Rip(mix) Manifesto

1) Is illegally downloading music morally correct?

It is a complex issue as people don’t always like the to pay for music which they consider free. They don’t consider it morally wrong and sample it illegally. Many people have been fined and forced to settle as a result. It is expensive to pay the fine.

The newest apps such as spotify and apple music create a loophole, where it is going through the apps instead.

2) How has the fair use law in the US made it easier or harder for people to copyright music?

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material such as illegally downloaded music without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder or company.

It is made it harder as Youtube can sensor the videos if they feel it against the law. Mainly the LGBTI videos have been banned. The law is supposed to be about the citizens freedom of speech but is it not included.

3) How goes the US policy for shipping laws and regulations affect the other countries.

The countries have to abide by these laws otherwise they will be sued and their products will not be sold in America. It is part of the trade agreements in which countries have to follow to export or import their goods.

[dom-contemp]

RIP REMIX DOCUMENTARY

Three questions: 

Is anything original?

Is remixing the same as copyrighting? 

Why are copyright laws so strict in the USA?

When looking at originality, it is difficult to say that anything is original. Everything created comes from prior inspiration from somewhere; be it nature or a previous artwork. Each creation draws upon what the artist has seen, heard or read in the past. So, in essence, nothing created, at its roots, is original, but what the artist does with the so called “found objects” or ideas is original. To look back, even Walt Disney took ideas from 19th century art in order to create what is seen to be the most historical cartoons of the 21st century. 

This leads me to my next question about remixing. Remixing, I feel is original. It is what an artist does with their work, in their unique way, that is original. Remixing is essentially creating something new and original. Copyrighting is different to remixing. Copyrighting is taking something that already is, and using it in another context, without much altering of the ‘original’ piece. In music, for example, remixing songs and using different samples of many songs in order to create a new type of sound and a collaboration of songs is not copyrighting. The laws on copyrighting will say differently, but I do not feel that this should be the case. Thus, remixing is different to copyrighting, because it is creating something new out of something that already is.

Copyright laws are very strict in America because all of the copyrighting associations are in America. The biggest companies who own most of the music in the world are found in the USA. Therefore, these associations are extremely strict with how the music is distributed around the country. By having these companies and associations in the USA, the control over the public and their use of copyrighting is immense. It is easily noticed when someone is copyrighting or pirating. Generally, America is big on control, and the copyrighting laws do fall under the mass control the government and big associations.

[jasoncontemp]

RIP!  A remix manifesto

These are questions derived from watching a documentary titled “RIP! A remix manifesto’. We then discussed the documentary and formulated answers to our own questions.

Does a sort of ‘copyright’ exist within the DIY culture?

As far as I am concerned (and have researched) there is no copyright of such on DIY products. There is simply a heavily weighted judgement of not being original. Many products are DIY-able and can be reproduced cheaply. Most companies do not act on such things, as they believe no publicity is bad publicity. They would be satisfied that their product is getting attention in the first place.

 Why are there no copyright strikes for songs played in Instagram stories?

When I created this question I was not fully aware of the new feature ‘Instagram music’. Instagram has now gained rights too many songs in the industry are available to put in peoples stories. However, there is a strict copyright system to detect music longer than 15seconds within Instagram posts. This is where copyright ‘fair use’ comes to play.

 Does GIRL TALK still produce music?

GIRL TALK has not released a ‘studio’ album since 2008 titled ‘Feed the animals’. He did however release song in 2018 titled ‘Trouble in paradise’

[vicmunley]

Doccie Task - RIP! A Remix Manifesto

1.  How do the copyright laws affect dancers?

Some dance videos may be silenced or taken down from social media, if they use a song that is protected by the copyright law. This can then lead to their whole account being removed. 

2. What are the penalties of breaking the copyright law in South Africa?

For the first conviction a  maximum fine of R5000 per infringement and/ or 3 years imprisonment. The maximum fine thereafter is R10 000 per infringement and/or 5 years imprisonment.

3. Where is GIRL TALK now?

His most recent album was released in 2010 and he performed at Coachella in 2014.