What do you think about Brett Gaylor's manifesto? Do you agree or disagree? In what ways does it connect to your daily life? In ways does it affect how you view your courses and your EWM major? How do you view the future of remix and remediation?
I strongly agree with the ideas and movement of the manifesto. The reason I agree is because in Brett Gaylor's manifesto film he says the past tries to control the future and I am a part of the future being a 21 year old young man. Also, I don’t think that people should be limited to express their ideas and feeling because they can’t use pieces of their own culture. This applies to my everyday life because I attempt to make music and beats in my leisure time and copyright laws limit my creativity because I can’t sample original songs for my own beats and/or my own songs. Now that I am aware of the punishment for disobeying copyright laws I can’t act like I don’t know any better and I have to be careful of who I let hear my music because the material I use is not original and violates copyright laws. My views of EWM have not changed much but my respect for the major has changed. If I was not in this major I probably would have never heard the copyrights and the copylefts, for this knowledge I have a new respect for this major. My future will still be ran by the past in terms of copyrights and remediation. But maybe in my kids future remixing will be encouraged and the future will determine its own destiny.
The remix manifesto is a very eye-opening piece of work. I have read about the copyright laws countless times, seen movies about them, and studied them in school but never before have I seen actual examples of how the laws can affect my life. In fact, just an hour ago I was listening to something that is endearingly called a “mash-up,” where you take two different songs, strip them down and combine them into one easily recognizable song. This is a more simplified version of the remixes that “Girltalk” creates, but works upon the same principles. I am almost certain that these are illegal and violate some copyright law, but the amount of enjoyment that I get from these simple music files greatly outweighs the amount that I care about copyrights. This raises the question- are copyright laws something that people actually abide by, or a mere tribulation in the creative process? Not only with songs, but the same applies to visual media as well. As an artist, I understand how necessary universally understood symbols, such as the Nike swoosh or Mickey Mouse head, is to get a point across. I do not think that I should take money, time and permission to allow this to happen. There is the possibility of having these symbols used against the same company they represent, but in a country where free speech in a inherent right to humanity, I believe that is a risk you have to take (and pray that your company does not deserve such criticism). This has made me realize the volatility of media, of which we have studied in class and have to come be very close to. I’ve realized that I want to be free to use what I want, how I want, because now it’s not just stifling my ability to create, but my ability to enjoy.
Personally, I think that Brett Gaylor makes valid arguments in his manifesto. He backs each point up with facts and what has happened in the past. I definitely agree with his argument. Girl Talk is actually also one of my favorite artists, so I could really connect with Gaylor. I’ve liked his music since I was a freshman in high school. I saw him in concert this summer in Miami and the way he created a completely new sound from preexisting music just amazes me. I cannot even fathom how many songs I have heard in his songs, loved the individual sample, and listened to the original version of the song. I am not an EWM major but it does affect the way I view this class. I see how much we read and learn from previous works and kind of expand on it on our own. If that is copyright infringement, then how are we supposed to learn and grow? I hope that the future of remix and remediation grows, I think that copyright law needs to be changed dramatically. I know that I absolutely love mashups and I hope I can keep hearing these.
Brett Gaylor's manifesto is very effective. His cinematography elucidates his arguments in such an appealing way. I agree with Gaylor that copyright must be amended. How can someone create something without using influences from someone or something else? One quote that stuck out to me was "no one creates in a vacuum." This all connects to my daily life because I have started listening to Girl Talk, therefore I am a supporter of his copyright infringement, and I, admittedly, have downloaded music from the Internet. This affects how I view my major because I realize that big changes need to be made in the world of copyright, and hopefully these changes will be in the process of being made when it is time for me to get a career. I hope that the future of remix and remediation is bright. I think that people should have the right to take something already created and make it their own. That is the key premise: make it their own. I understand where some people are coming from that since it has already been created it "cannot be original" but in our society today, it is not practical to expect people to not use old material. Don't artists create to influence and teach people?
I am a firm believer in everything Brett Gaylor decided to argue against. His video was definitely all about factual information. I strongly agree with manifesto because i do believe everything comes from an idea in the past, for example, love songs couldn't have been created without love being felt first and music could not have been created if it wasn't for the first person or first group of people to create a beat. Everything comes from the past and only betters as we go on into the future, but if individuals try and stop that from happening for their own individual needs like greed or money, then you change how the rest of the world evolves. I'm constantly listening to music, so of course this has a lot to do with my individual life because i enjoy music but downloading so much of it at once costs a lot of money. Generations today are a lot more involved in the music world rather than previous ones but companies an the government are making impossible for the generations to feed off and express their own individuality through a piece of music, etc. It doesn't effect my view of my major or any of the courses I am taking only because they are course i have to take in order to further myself in my future but it does effect my use of the material i will use to write my articles in the future. The future of remix and remediation is the future. Remix and remediation expand the minds of others and let individuals express their individuality. Patents and laws only prohibit minds from expanding and its not just with music it is with everything just as Gaylor said with the patents on science, they prohibit people from gathering data from other scientists and remixing it but also adding their own "beat" to it so that the cure for a disease could be found a lot faster.
I think that Gaylor made very valid points throughout his video while delivering the information in a very effective way. The whole video kept me interested and I think that it is relatable to many people. Copyright infringment laws should definitely be changed. The fact that they can charge $1,000's per song is ridiculous. While I understand that the artist must make money off of their song some people are just too poor to go purchase an entire album. Music helps people get through things, it touches people in so many ways and downloading a song here and there should not be grounds for someone getting charged hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, the lady shown in the video had only downloaded 25 songs, let the lady enjoy the music and go after the people who have downloaded hundreds of songs, the ones who are abusing downloading music. I think that Girl Talk was a very good example, I personally love mashups and it isn't something that should be prohibited. If the person isn't deliberetly going out of there way to "copy" the original music it should be legal. Remixes and remediations are a part of everyday life, it's harmless. I think that in the future this will continue on and I hope that eventually the copyright laws will become more relaxed. This connects with my everyday life because I always listen to remixed music, it helps me get through my day. This has just opened up my eyes more and helped me better understand some of the things we talk about to do with remediation in my EWM classes.
I thought Gaylor’s manifesto was very effective. The points of his argument were clear and well established. The stylistic choices and editing were “edgy,” aesthetically pleasing, and appropriate for the subject matter. The fact that Gaylor released the film and made it open to public use and comment definitely strengthens the message. Unlike many viewers, this was my first introduction to any sort of current ideas on “copyright laws;” I’d learned about the basics, but never about the practice. Although I’m admittedly uniformed, for now, I agree with many of the ideas of the “manifesto.” It is very obvious that culture builds on itself. To “lockdown” ideas to the point where this can no longer happen, especially in this day and age, where there are new means of artistic expression, and a potential for greatness, seems unfair to me. I found many aspects of the laws ridiculous. The fact that children were "implicated” in copyright infringement, the amount of money charged for just a brief use of a song is ludicrous, and, in the case of “illegal” downloading, the fact that none of the huge fines go to the artists themselves, the ones reportedly being “protected” also show that the law should be amended. It would be different if someone stole artist’s works and posited them as their own, but this is something completely different; it is clear to everyone listening to a “Girltalk” remix who really wrote the songs included. In my daily life, and in my major, I can definitely see that culture builds on the past. I don’t think anything is truly original. As a writer, I know that every time I read something I like, bits and pieces of the author’s style get incorporated into my own. Friends who are visual artists tell me they do the same thing with artists they admire. I hear all kinds of “mash-ups” and songs that sample from others. In the future, I think that remixing and remediation will be easier. It’s becoming so widespread with technology, it will not be quashed.
I thought Brett Gaylor's manifesto was very effective in its attempt to bring light and attention to the issue of remixing and copyright. I know that before we watched the movie in class, I didnt realize just how much control companies and corporations had over the material and "intellectual property" they owned. I feel like I agree with him more than I can find reason to disagree; I dont feel that everything should be open to the public domain but I do agree that culture, especially in today's society is building off of ideas from the past. I dont think it is reasonable for us to assume progress is still possible if we squash the ability to improve or change earlier ideas. I dont think the manifesto changed my view of my courses or major, but it did open my eyes to the future struggles technology and media communication will face as remediation and remixes continue to expand in our culture. I feel like they are such a vital part to our society in the 21st century, that it would be naive for us to ignore them. I feel like their future is highly dependent on whether copyright laws are revisted and redone to accommodate them into the legal view of cultural development.
I agreed strongly with the copyright manifesto. I feel as though remediating and remixing are inevitable in today's society and culture. Part of this, though, I think is attributed to the act of new ideas and laziness (for example, Disney stories). Copyright laws, however, are limiting the imagination. Past ideas and creations are often the inspiration for so many artists today. We, as a human species, live off of what others are doing and take those ideas to forward ourselves in society. It's the same as having a father and son. The father could have been retired military and had started his own business in engineering. Perhaps the son then is inspired to take after his father and go to the military and eventually start his own company. Nobody is saying he can't do that. Likewise, I feel like when works are copyrighted to the point where people are sued for remixing or remaking an idea, that they are actually using their own ideas to produce a new or different view to an earlier idea. This is seen with the developing of new medical treatments, why can't it be the same for pop culture? Copyright laws are even limiting education because of how much content one is allowed to use to make a point. As an EMW major, I now have to be even more aware of these laws because there will be times when I will have to use other's works to make a point. However, this does not change my view of my major. I think that copyright laws will soon change, however, that may not be for the better because of the greed that companies have now-a-days, and the goal to be on top. I fear that these laws will become even more controlling.
For the most part I agree with Brett Gaylor’s manifesto. I would agree with the idea that we must build on the past and that copyright laws need to be toned down. Personally, I find it absurd for record companies to sue people who have “stolen” music. I think it shows a dark future in which every one is sued over the smallest of infractions. I find this idea of “intellectual property” to be taken too far. Sure, there needs to be some sort of regulation, but I don’t think it is necessary to sue impoverished families for downloading 24 songs. Copyright laws in general are extremely applicable to my life. As an avid music lover, it’s difficult for me to understand how record labels can justify thousands of dollars in fines for 3 minutes of music. As a student, copyright laws are important because not sourcing the proper authors as references can land me in trouble for plagiarism. Also, as a student my teachers are sometimes unable to copy and give us materials because of copyright laws, which could potentially make the curriculum less enriched. For me, the future of remixing and remediation would be one in which the laws were less lengthy on how long a material was copyrighted, as well as the fact that the public domain was larger.
The Remix Manifesto was a very intriguing movie. I agree with his point of view to an extent. While existing copyright laws have serious flaws, I'm not sure making all intellectual property into the creative commons is the best way to deal with the issue. Perhaps the video just didn't go over it; how would an artist who put all of their works into the creative commons make money? Would they have to merely depend on the generosity of their audience? This concept applies to my life a lot. If I write anything, who has the right to use it? If I put a video on youtube, do I have an inherent copyright to the material, or could a corporation use the footage and then copyright my material? This affects how I view EWM because it applies to how I will eventually use my major. Anything you write, or edit, could be considered intellectual property, so in which ways would the projects I work on be affected by copyright? Would copyright pose a serious dent in the creative process? Right now, the future of remix and remediation is up in the air -- it is unclear whether the conditions will worsen with unfair restrictions, the content will become completely free, or society will strike some balance in between.
I agree with Brett Gaylor's manifesto video.I thought that he used good examples to for his argument like Warner Chappel and the Happy Birthday song, and Walt Disney. The Copy Right laws should be revised. Since the world is changing and technology is growing then Copy Rights should emerge as well. What would happen if laws were never changed? African Americans would still be abiding the Jim Crow laws. Maybe that is taking this a little too far, but when you think about it it is like the same thing, Prosecuting people to keep control. How would the world be if there wasn't any upgrades? we would not be where we are today as far as technology with computers and communication devices which is used in everyday life. This affects my everyday life because when I watch the television I see cartoon characters from other shows merged into one like robot chicken and it makes me wonder if they are violating the Copy Right laws. As an EWM major my future will rely on technology and I do not want to to worry about remixing something and spending five years in jail for violating Copy Right laws. In this world everyone is after control and trying to find ways to make a dollar. There should still be restrictions for remix and remediation, but it needs to be fair and consistent. I just hope that there will be a solution for people on both sides of the Copy Rights so future remix and remediation can be expressed freely.
I agree with a lot of Brett's information. Even though he did not purpose a solution in the documentary, he provided a lot of logos for his argument. Its main purpose was informing the public of what is going on with remixing and corporations that own these ideas. It was a documentary to rile up an audience not to provide a change.
I think personally it connects to my everyday life. As a filmmaker I am constantly using remediation and remixing in my own work, but I am not the only one. Young filmmakers alike are doing this as well, and not just young filmmakers, but professional filmmakers as well. Here are some examples. Steven Spielberg constantly takes shots from other movies such a John Ford and puts them in his film; just watch the new trailer to his film War Horse and you will see multiple shots taken from the Fordian school of directing. Martin Scorsese is known for taking shots from thousands of different films and putting them in his own, but making them original to his own style. There are many, many more: Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppla, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michelangelo Antonioni, Chris Nolan, etc... I couldn't imagine if cinematographers and directors copyrighted shots and directing styles, the entire world of cinema would be in complete shambles.
In my opinion remixing and remediation is not a crime as long as you use it in your own style or if it has a purpose to your work.
Everyday I am grateful for being in my EWM major. The information I pull from materials I use for knowledge in filmmaking. What McCloud taught me I will most definitely use in films, and the many other articles on stating an argument and how to run with it too. I see it all connecting to storytelling in some way or another; I believe every story has a purpose and it is just like arguing your point. Stories have a purpose and using my basic points for arguing which are the 5 canons of rhetoric, I believe I can tell a good story using this structure.
In the future I hope that corporations will be more lenient on people for trying to express themselves using remix and remediation, but unfortunately I don't see it any time soon. Once people get off their high horse and allow people to express themselves I believe corporations will most definitely make more profit off of these ideas and remixes, because what I saw Girl Talk doing is most definitely an art even though I was critical at first the documentary did change my perspective. So I am hopeful, but still very unsure about the progress.
I found the manifesto to be very convincing, though obviously biased. I’m sure that there are valid points to the reasons behind the actions of the many companies attempting to enforce these restrictive laws. Gaylor’s use of present day experiences definitely helped his case. He used figures and examples from many different music genres or sections of culture so that at least one could hit home with the viewer. I, for example, had not previously heard of Girl Talk or other people he mentioned but religiously follow Radiohead and Stephen Colbert. I agree with the argument that copyright law needs to be updated to the times. Technologies have updated extensively over the last decade. A majority of cultural aspects have changed to accommodate for these advancements yet copyright has remained the same (if not moved backwards). This long-term vacation in the stone age has definitely affected me. As someone who throughly enjoys expanding her musical tastes, I can’t afford to purchase all the music that catches my ear. The case is the same with books I use to research topics for school. If they are unavailable at the library and are not on any databases, I can often find them elsewhere in the darker corners of the internet. For a while when I was younger, my mom would ground me if she found downloaded content on my computer. We were living in fear of these producers and copyright lawyers.
Though I thankfully never received a letter of warning, I had a roommate who did. She had previously entertained guests at our apartment and one of them had used her laptop to illegally download ONE Beyonce song. Within a month, Comcast had sent the entire apartment a warning letter which explained that at that moment, no charges were presented but they could be in the near future. Even though the letter included the IP address which had downloaded the song, Comcast threatened to cancel our services (even though they had said they were in no way apart of the possible suit). For one song that we did not even have, was this really necessary?
The EWM major is pretty groundbreaking. I believe that the students who complete it will be apart of a generation of editors, publishers, journalists, and many other careers who will work to change the laws so they are more effective for all participants (the producers, bands/authors, and the audience). The courses which we are enrolled in now are definitely providing a solid foundation on which we can begin to build our opinions and suggestions for how to better the future.
Remediation and remixing will always grow, especially as technology continues to. In my opinion, the level of audience participation will only grow as more medias become available in different mediums. Radiohead’s release of their materials is an example of what I think the future holds. The surge of Harry Potter remixes and remediations is also an illustration of how the public will react to something it feels strongly tied to and the ease with which it expresses itself.
Brett Gaylor's manifesto is well-made. The four points are all described well and overall I think Gaylor made a quality documentary about a major issue. Personally, I agree with everything Gaylor says in the video. The copyright laws are not up-to-date the way they need to be, and they cater more to corporations than to the creation of art.
In my own life, I have known dozens of people who have downloaded music, films, software, etc. illegally. The penalties for these crimes exceed those of manslaughter. The primary argument of the RIAA/MPAA is that the illegal download of these files slashes the profits of artists/designers. However, those who download the files say that they wouldn't even consider the alternative (paying) even if it became the only option--to the downloaders, the files simply aren't worth the price put on them. Furthermore, many sites through which content is downloaded require subscription and an above-1.00 upload/download ratio, which they claims leads to more purchasing of files in order to upload to increase one's ratio.
The video had little impact on my view of EWM and its curriculum. I knew most of these issues coming into this major at FSU. As for the future of remixing and remediation, I believe it will remain how it is for a few more years but within the next twenty years will shift back toward favoring creation as opposed to securing of artistic ideas. (I don't have much to base this on other than the fact that there will be more people familiar with modern technologies in Congress.)
I really liked the manifesto, and I completely agree. Before this, I really had no idea how serious the issue of copyright law really was. I mean, I’ve heard about it in the past, but I never really thought that it pertained to my life. One thing that I especially liked about the film was how it brought to my attention just how powerful Disney really is. Growing up in Central Florida I went to Disney World all the time. And I always looked at them as such a nice and happy company. I never would have believed that they would force a school to remove some cartoon paintings off of the walls. I also really like Gaylor’s four points. The way he structured his argument was gripping. And as an EWM major, I one day hope to have a career in the fields were copyright is majorly important. But this can’t really persist. Copyright law has to change. I view the future of remix and remediation as being a much more open, different, and free place.
I liked Brett Gaylor’s manifesto. It was very informative especially for those who do not know much about copyright law or haven’t taken a class that touches upon the subject. I have learned about copyright law before but this made me see it in a whole new light. I do agree with the manifesto somewhat. I do agree that the life span of a copy right is too long. Yes the original fourteen years was to short but the life plus seventy years for a person’s work and ninety-five years for a company’s work are too long. Most things by then have not been popular for at least fifty years. There should be something in between, like thirty or forty that way there can be enough time for the owner to make their royalties. If the original owner isn’t alive anymore having it extend the amount of time copyright is at now is giving royalties to those who didn’t create the work, which is almost like someone like Girltalk making royalties off of his mash ups. It connects to my daily life because so much of what we do without realizing it involves copyright material and I have to be careful in the ways I use that material. It affects how I view my courses because a lot of material is used in ways that can be considered copyright infringement. It affects the way I see my major because a lot of what we do is remediating, repurposing, etc.. so we have to find ways not to copyright infringe.
The future of remixing and remediating is up in the air. If we continue on this path of locking up creativity with these copyright laws we will never get anywhere. We need to focus more on expanding our culture, creativity, knowledge, and abilities instead of focusing on greed.
I think the manifesto is well executed, and I agree to a certain extent. Yes, copyright needs to be rewritten, but its going to take time and effort to make it happen, and people potentially "abusing" copyright in its current state isn't going to make the higher-ups want to change it any faster. I enjoy art in all forms and I'm all for free speech and creativity, and I liked their view on it nonetheless.
The manifesto caused me to wonder how many ideas are really out there being told every day, though our courses and the media itself. I honestly can't see a future without remix and remediation. Its been happening for years already, and people thrive on it nowadays - what is out there to COMPLETELY stop them? A letter asking them to stop? Yeah, that's effective.
I thoroughly enjoyed and agreed with Brett Gaylor's manifesto. I can relate to this documentary heavily as it effects countless factors in my daily life. Being a part of today's digital generation, it is near impossible to interact with the internet and the digital space without stepping on the shoes of some big company that has intellectually copyrighted something or another. As this is my first EWM course, and I lack extremely favorable views about my needing to take EWM (I'd much rather major in Journalism), I don't quite know how this will effect my coursework in college. As far as how this effects the future of remix and remediation, I don't forsee it being as big of an issue as Gaylor tried to portay. Yes, corporations are trying to sue individuals and (in vain) copyright ideas, but I feel that mankind can't simply stop remixing and remediating media because the law says so. Civil Disobediance will catch up with the corporations and the law regarding copyright will likely be revised again at the Supreme Court level within the next 20 years at the current rate of events. I just hope that the fourth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) will be considered at whatever future judicial hearing take place, because charging a women several million dollars for downloading 24 songs, isn't just unethical, it's unconstitutional.
I strongly agree with the ideas and movement of the manifesto. The reason I agree is because in Brett Gaylor's manifesto film he says the past tries to control the future and I am a part of the future being a 21 year old young man. Also, I don’t think that people should be limited to express their ideas and feeling because they can’t use pieces of their own culture. This applies to my everyday life because I attempt to make music and beats in my leisure time and copyright laws limit my creativity because I can’t sample original songs for my own beats and/or my own songs. Now that I am aware of the punishment for disobeying copyright laws I can’t act like I don’t know any better and I have to be careful of who I let hear my music because the material I use is not original and violates copyright laws. My views of EWM have not changed much but my respect for the major has changed. If I was not in this major I probably would have never heard the copyrights and the copylefts, for this knowledge I have a new respect for this major. My future will still be ran by the past in terms of copyrights and remediation. But maybe in my kids future remixing will be encouraged and the future will determine its own destiny.
ReplyDeleteThe remix manifesto is a very eye-opening piece of work. I have read about the copyright laws countless times, seen movies about them, and studied them in school but never before have I seen actual examples of how the laws can affect my life. In fact, just an hour ago I was listening to something that is endearingly called a “mash-up,” where you take two different songs, strip them down and combine them into one easily recognizable song. This is a more simplified version of the remixes that “Girltalk” creates, but works upon the same principles. I am almost certain that these are illegal and violate some copyright law, but the amount of enjoyment that I get from these simple music files greatly outweighs the amount that I care about copyrights. This raises the question- are copyright laws something that people actually abide by, or a mere tribulation in the creative process? Not only with songs, but the same applies to visual media as well. As an artist, I understand how necessary universally understood symbols, such as the Nike swoosh or Mickey Mouse head, is to get a point across. I do not think that I should take money, time and permission to allow this to happen. There is the possibility of having these symbols used against the same company they represent, but in a country where free speech in a inherent right to humanity, I believe that is a risk you have to take (and pray that your company does not deserve such criticism). This has made me realize the volatility of media, of which we have studied in class and have to come be very close to. I’ve realized that I want to be free to use what I want, how I want, because now it’s not just stifling my ability to create, but my ability to enjoy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that Brett Gaylor makes valid arguments in his manifesto. He backs each point up with facts and what has happened in the past. I definitely agree with his argument. Girl Talk is actually also one of my favorite artists, so I could really connect with Gaylor. I’ve liked his music since I was a freshman in high school. I saw him in concert this summer in Miami and the way he created a completely new sound from preexisting music just amazes me. I cannot even fathom how many songs I have heard in his songs, loved the individual sample, and listened to the original version of the song. I am not an EWM major but it does affect the way I view this class. I see how much we read and learn from previous works and kind of expand on it on our own. If that is copyright infringement, then how are we supposed to learn and grow? I hope that the future of remix and remediation grows, I think that copyright law needs to be changed dramatically. I know that I absolutely love mashups and I hope I can keep hearing these.
ReplyDeleteBrett Gaylor's manifesto is very effective. His cinematography elucidates his arguments in such an appealing way. I agree with Gaylor that copyright must be amended. How can someone create something without using influences from someone or something else? One quote that stuck out to me was "no one creates in a vacuum." This all connects to my daily life because I have started listening to Girl Talk, therefore I am a supporter of his copyright infringement, and I, admittedly, have downloaded music from the Internet. This affects how I view my major because I realize that big changes need to be made in the world of copyright, and hopefully these changes will be in the process of being made when it is time for me to get a career. I hope that the future of remix and remediation is bright. I think that people should have the right to take something already created and make it their own. That is the key premise: make it their own. I understand where some people are coming from that since it has already been created it "cannot be original" but in our society today, it is not practical to expect people to not use old material. Don't artists create to influence and teach people?
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer in everything Brett Gaylor decided to argue against. His video was definitely all about factual information. I strongly agree with manifesto because i do believe everything comes from an idea in the past, for example, love songs couldn't have been created without love being felt first and music could not have been created if it wasn't for the first person or first group of people to create a beat. Everything comes from the past and only betters as we go on into the future, but if individuals try and stop that from happening for their own individual needs like greed or money, then you change how the rest of the world evolves. I'm constantly listening to music, so of course this has a lot to do with my individual life because i enjoy music but downloading so much of it at once costs a lot of money. Generations today are a lot more involved in the music world rather than previous ones but companies an the government are making impossible for the generations to feed off and express their own individuality through a piece of music, etc. It doesn't effect my view of my major or any of the courses I am taking only because they are course i have to take in order to further myself in my future but it does effect my use of the material i will use to write my articles in the future. The future of remix and remediation is the future. Remix and remediation expand the minds of others and let individuals express their individuality. Patents and laws only prohibit minds from expanding and its not just with music it is with everything just as Gaylor said with the patents on science, they prohibit people from gathering data from other scientists and remixing it but also adding their own "beat" to it so that the cure for a disease could be found a lot faster.
ReplyDeleteI think that Gaylor made very valid points throughout his video while delivering the information in a very effective way. The whole video kept me interested and I think that it is relatable to many people. Copyright infringment laws should definitely be changed. The fact that they can charge $1,000's per song is ridiculous. While I understand that the artist must make money off of their song some people are just too poor to go purchase an entire album. Music helps people get through things, it touches people in so many ways and downloading a song here and there should not be grounds for someone getting charged hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, the lady shown in the video had only downloaded 25 songs, let the lady enjoy the music and go after the people who have downloaded hundreds of songs, the ones who are abusing downloading music. I think that Girl Talk was a very good example, I personally love mashups and it isn't something that should be prohibited. If the person isn't deliberetly going out of there way to "copy" the original music it should be legal. Remixes and remediations are a part of everyday life, it's harmless. I think that in the future this will continue on and I hope that eventually the copyright laws will become more relaxed. This connects with my everyday life because I always listen to remixed music, it helps me get through my day. This has just opened up my eyes more and helped me better understand some of the things we talk about to do with remediation in my EWM classes.
ReplyDeleteI thought Gaylor’s manifesto was very effective. The points of his argument were clear and well established. The stylistic choices and editing were “edgy,” aesthetically pleasing, and appropriate for the subject matter. The fact that Gaylor released the film and made it open to public use and comment definitely strengthens the message. Unlike many viewers, this was my first introduction to any sort of current ideas on “copyright laws;” I’d learned about the basics, but never about the practice. Although I’m admittedly uniformed, for now, I agree with many of the ideas of the “manifesto.” It is very obvious that culture builds on itself. To “lockdown” ideas to the point where this can no longer happen, especially in this day and age, where there are new means of artistic expression, and a potential for greatness, seems unfair to me. I found many aspects of the laws ridiculous. The fact that children were "implicated” in copyright infringement, the amount of money charged for just a brief use of a song is ludicrous, and, in the case of “illegal” downloading, the fact that none of the huge fines go to the artists themselves, the ones reportedly being “protected” also show that the law should be amended. It would be different if someone stole artist’s works and posited them as their own, but this is something completely different; it is clear to everyone listening to a “Girltalk” remix who really wrote the songs included. In my daily life, and in my major, I can definitely see that culture builds on the past. I don’t think anything is truly original. As a writer, I know that every time I read something I like, bits and pieces of the author’s style get incorporated into my own. Friends who are visual artists tell me they do the same thing with artists they admire. I hear all kinds of “mash-ups” and songs that sample from others. In the future, I think that remixing and remediation will be easier. It’s becoming so widespread with technology, it will not be quashed.
ReplyDeleteI thought Brett Gaylor's manifesto was very effective in its attempt to bring light and attention to the issue of remixing and copyright. I know that before we watched the movie in class, I didnt realize just how much control companies and corporations had over the material and "intellectual property" they owned. I feel like I agree with him more than I can find reason to disagree; I dont feel that everything should be open to the public domain but I do agree that culture, especially in today's society is building off of ideas from the past. I dont think it is reasonable for us to assume progress is still possible if we squash the ability to improve or change earlier ideas. I dont think the manifesto changed my view of my courses or major, but it did open my eyes to the future struggles technology and media communication will face as remediation and remixes continue to expand in our culture. I feel like they are such a vital part to our society in the 21st century, that it would be naive for us to ignore them. I feel like their future is highly dependent on whether copyright laws are revisted and redone to accommodate them into the legal view of cultural development.
ReplyDeleteI agreed strongly with the copyright manifesto. I feel as though remediating and remixing are inevitable in today's society and culture. Part of this, though, I think is attributed to the act of new ideas and laziness (for example, Disney stories). Copyright laws, however, are limiting the imagination. Past ideas and creations are often the inspiration for so many artists today. We, as a human species, live off of what others are doing and take those ideas to forward ourselves in society. It's the same as having a father and son. The father could have been retired military and had started his own business in engineering. Perhaps the son then is inspired to take after his father and go to the military and eventually start his own company. Nobody is saying he can't do that. Likewise, I feel like when works are copyrighted to the point where people are sued for remixing or remaking an idea, that they are actually using their own ideas to produce a new or different view to an earlier idea. This is seen with the developing of new medical treatments, why can't it be the same for pop culture? Copyright laws are even limiting education because of how much content one is allowed to use to make a point. As an EMW major, I now have to be even more aware of these laws because there will be times when I will have to use other's works to make a point. However, this does not change my view of my major. I think that copyright laws will soon change, however, that may not be for the better because of the greed that companies have now-a-days, and the goal to be on top. I fear that these laws will become even more controlling.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I agree with Brett Gaylor’s manifesto. I would agree with the idea that we must build on the past and that copyright laws need to be toned down. Personally, I find it absurd for record companies to sue people who have “stolen” music. I think it shows a dark future in which every one is sued over the smallest of infractions. I find this idea of “intellectual property” to be taken too far. Sure, there needs to be some sort of regulation, but I don’t think it is necessary to sue impoverished families for downloading 24 songs. Copyright laws in general are extremely applicable to my life. As an avid music lover, it’s difficult for me to understand how record labels can justify thousands of dollars in fines for 3 minutes of music. As a student, copyright laws are important because not sourcing the proper authors as references can land me in trouble for plagiarism. Also, as a student my teachers are sometimes unable to copy and give us materials because of copyright laws, which could potentially make the curriculum less enriched. For me, the future of remixing and remediation would be one in which the laws were less lengthy on how long a material was copyrighted, as well as the fact that the public domain was larger.
ReplyDeleteThe Remix Manifesto was a very intriguing movie. I agree with his point of view to an extent. While existing copyright laws have serious flaws, I'm not sure making all intellectual property into the creative commons is the best way to deal with the issue. Perhaps the video just didn't go over it; how would an artist who put all of their works into the creative commons make money? Would they have to merely depend on the generosity of their audience? This concept applies to my life a lot. If I write anything, who has the right to use it? If I put a video on youtube, do I have an inherent copyright to the material, or could a corporation use the footage and then copyright my material? This affects how I view EWM because it applies to how I will eventually use my major. Anything you write, or edit, could be considered intellectual property, so in which ways would the projects I work on be affected by copyright? Would copyright pose a serious dent in the creative process? Right now, the future of remix and remediation is up in the air -- it is unclear whether the conditions will worsen with unfair restrictions, the content will become completely free, or society will strike some balance in between.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brett Gaylor's manifesto video.I thought that he used good examples to for his argument like Warner Chappel and the Happy Birthday song, and Walt Disney. The Copy Right laws should be revised. Since the world is changing and technology is growing then Copy Rights should emerge as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen if laws were never changed? African Americans would still be abiding the Jim Crow laws. Maybe that is taking this a little too far, but when you think about it it is like the same thing, Prosecuting people to keep control. How would the world be if there wasn't any upgrades? we would not be where we are today as far as technology with computers and communication devices which is used in everyday life.
This affects my everyday life because when I watch the television I see cartoon characters from other shows merged into one like robot chicken and it makes me wonder if they are violating the Copy Right laws. As an EWM major my future will rely on technology and I do not want to to worry about remixing something and spending five years in jail for violating Copy Right laws. In this world everyone is after control and trying to find ways to make a dollar. There should still be restrictions for remix and remediation, but it needs to be fair and consistent. I just hope that there will be a solution for people on both sides of the Copy Rights so future remix and remediation can be expressed freely.
I agree with a lot of Brett's information. Even though he did not purpose a solution in the documentary, he provided a lot of logos for his argument. Its main purpose was informing the public of what is going on with remixing and corporations that own these ideas. It was a documentary to rile up an audience not to provide a change.
ReplyDeleteI think personally it connects to my everyday life. As a filmmaker I am constantly using remediation and remixing in my own work, but I am not the only one. Young filmmakers alike are doing this as well, and not just young filmmakers, but professional filmmakers as well. Here are some examples. Steven Spielberg constantly takes shots from other movies such a John Ford and puts them in his film; just watch the new trailer to his film War Horse and you will see multiple shots taken from the Fordian school of directing. Martin Scorsese is known for taking shots from thousands of different films and putting them in his own, but making them original to his own style. There are many, many more: Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppla, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michelangelo Antonioni, Chris Nolan, etc... I couldn't imagine if cinematographers and directors copyrighted shots and directing styles, the entire world of cinema would be in complete shambles.
In my opinion remixing and remediation is not a crime as long as you use it in your own style or if it has a purpose to your work.
Everyday I am grateful for being in my EWM major. The information I pull from materials I use for knowledge in filmmaking. What McCloud taught me I will most definitely use in films, and the many other articles on stating an argument and how to run with it too. I see it all connecting to storytelling in some way or another; I believe every story has a purpose and it is just like arguing your point. Stories have a purpose and using my basic points for arguing which are the 5 canons of rhetoric, I believe I can tell a good story using this structure.
In the future I hope that corporations will be more lenient on people for trying to express themselves using remix and remediation, but unfortunately I don't see it any time soon. Once people get off their high horse and allow people to express themselves I believe corporations will most definitely make more profit off of these ideas and remixes, because what I saw Girl Talk doing is most definitely an art even though I was critical at first the documentary did change my perspective. So I am hopeful, but still very unsure about the progress.
I found the manifesto to be very convincing, though obviously biased. I’m sure that there are valid points to the reasons behind the actions of the many companies attempting to enforce these restrictive laws. Gaylor’s use of present day experiences definitely helped his case. He used figures and examples from many different music genres or sections of culture so that at least one could hit home with the viewer. I, for example, had not previously heard of Girl Talk or other people he mentioned but religiously follow Radiohead and Stephen Colbert. I agree with the argument that copyright law needs to be updated to the times. Technologies have updated extensively over the last decade. A majority of cultural aspects have changed to accommodate for these advancements yet copyright has remained the same (if not moved backwards). This long-term vacation in the stone age has definitely affected me. As someone who throughly enjoys expanding her musical tastes, I can’t afford to purchase all the music that catches my ear. The case is the same with books I use to research topics for school. If they are unavailable at the library and are not on any databases, I can often find them elsewhere in the darker corners of the internet. For a while when I was younger, my mom would ground me if she found downloaded content on my computer. We were living in fear of these producers and copyright lawyers.
ReplyDeleteThough I thankfully never received a letter of warning, I had a roommate who did. She had previously entertained guests at our apartment and one of them had used her laptop to illegally download ONE Beyonce song. Within a month, Comcast had sent the entire apartment a warning letter which explained that at that moment, no charges were presented but they could be in the near future. Even though the letter included the IP address which had downloaded the song, Comcast threatened to cancel our services (even though they had said they were in no way apart of the possible suit). For one song that we did not even have, was this really necessary?
The EWM major is pretty groundbreaking. I believe that the students who complete it will be apart of a generation of editors, publishers, journalists, and many other careers who will work to change the laws so they are more effective for all participants (the producers, bands/authors, and the audience). The courses which we are enrolled in now are definitely providing a solid foundation on which we can begin to build our opinions and suggestions for how to better the future.
Remediation and remixing will always grow, especially as technology continues to. In my opinion, the level of audience participation will only grow as more medias become available in different mediums. Radiohead’s release of their materials is an example of what I think the future holds. The surge of Harry Potter remixes and remediations is also an illustration of how the public will react to something it feels strongly tied to and the ease with which it expresses itself.
Brett Gaylor's manifesto is well-made. The four points are all described well and overall I think Gaylor made a quality documentary about a major issue. Personally, I agree with everything Gaylor says in the video. The copyright laws are not up-to-date the way they need to be, and they cater more to corporations than to the creation of art.
ReplyDeleteIn my own life, I have known dozens of people who have downloaded music, films, software, etc. illegally. The penalties for these crimes exceed those of manslaughter. The primary argument of the RIAA/MPAA is that the illegal download of these files slashes the profits of artists/designers. However, those who download the files say that they wouldn't even consider the alternative (paying) even if it became the only option--to the downloaders, the files simply aren't worth the price put on them. Furthermore, many sites through which content is downloaded require subscription and an above-1.00 upload/download ratio, which they claims leads to more purchasing of files in order to upload to increase one's ratio.
The video had little impact on my view of EWM and its curriculum. I knew most of these issues coming into this major at FSU. As for the future of remixing and remediation, I believe it will remain how it is for a few more years but within the next twenty years will shift back toward favoring creation as opposed to securing of artistic ideas. (I don't have much to base this on other than the fact that there will be more people familiar with modern technologies in Congress.)
I really liked the manifesto, and I completely agree. Before this, I really had no idea how serious the issue of copyright law really was. I mean, I’ve heard about it in the past, but I never really thought that it pertained to my life. One thing that I especially liked about the film was how it brought to my attention just how powerful Disney really is. Growing up in Central Florida I went to Disney World all the time. And I always looked at them as such a nice and happy company. I never would have believed that they would force a school to remove some cartoon paintings off of the walls. I also really like Gaylor’s four points. The way he structured his argument was gripping. And as an EWM major, I one day hope to have a career in the fields were copyright is majorly important. But this can’t really persist. Copyright law has to change. I view the future of remix and remediation as being a much more open, different, and free place.
ReplyDeleteI liked Brett Gaylor’s manifesto. It was very informative especially for those who do not know much about copyright law or haven’t taken a class that touches upon the subject. I have learned about copyright law before but this made me see it in a whole new light. I do agree with the manifesto somewhat. I do agree that the life span of a copy right is too long. Yes the original fourteen years was to short but the life plus seventy years for a person’s work and ninety-five years for a company’s work are too long. Most things by then have not been popular for at least fifty years. There should be something in between, like thirty or forty that way there can be enough time for the owner to make their royalties. If the original owner isn’t alive anymore having it extend the amount of time copyright is at now is giving royalties to those who didn’t create the work, which is almost like someone like Girltalk making royalties off of his mash ups. It connects to my daily life because so much of what we do without realizing it involves copyright material and I have to be careful in the ways I use that material. It affects how I view my courses because a lot of material is used in ways that can be considered copyright infringement. It affects the way I see my major because a lot of what we do is remediating, repurposing, etc.. so we have to find ways not to copyright infringe.
ReplyDeleteThe future of remixing and remediating is up in the air. If we continue on this path of locking up creativity with these copyright laws we will never get anywhere. We need to focus more on expanding our culture, creativity, knowledge, and abilities instead of focusing on greed.
I think the manifesto is well executed, and I agree to a certain extent. Yes, copyright needs to be rewritten, but its going to take time and effort to make it happen, and people potentially "abusing" copyright in its current state isn't going to make the higher-ups want to change it any faster. I enjoy art in all forms and I'm all for free speech and creativity, and I liked their view on it nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteThe manifesto caused me to wonder how many ideas are really out there being told every day, though our courses and the media itself. I honestly can't see a future without remix and remediation. Its been happening for years already, and people thrive on it nowadays - what is out there to COMPLETELY stop them? A letter asking them to stop? Yeah, that's effective.
I thoroughly enjoyed and agreed with Brett Gaylor's manifesto. I can relate to this documentary heavily as it effects countless factors in my daily life. Being a part of today's digital generation, it is near impossible to interact with the internet and the digital space without stepping on the shoes of some big company that has intellectually copyrighted something or another. As this is my first EWM course, and I lack extremely favorable views about my needing to take EWM (I'd much rather major in Journalism), I don't quite know how this will effect my coursework in college. As far as how this effects the future of remix and remediation, I don't forsee it being as big of an issue as Gaylor tried to portay. Yes, corporations are trying to sue individuals and (in vain) copyright ideas, but I feel that mankind can't simply stop remixing and remediating media because the law says so. Civil Disobediance will catch up with the corporations and the law regarding copyright will likely be revised again at the Supreme Court level within the next 20 years at the current rate of events. I just hope that the fourth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) will be considered at whatever future judicial hearing take place, because charging a women several million dollars for downloading 24 songs, isn't just unethical, it's unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete