RiP: A Remix Manifesto

I saw a version of this film that was 86 minutes in length. As the film itself asks the audience to remix it, I can't really know which version I actually saw.

That, in fact, is one of the problems with the remix culture that was completely ignored by this documentary. How does identity or trademark get protected in the remix world? While it is of course impossible to prevent infringements from happening, there should be a reasonable response to violations, along the lines of libel and slander and fraud. I'm sure the people who use IMDb to read comments such as this one want some assurance that we're all talking about the same thing, or else what is the point? This is a much larger issue than just that of course.

The other problem I had with this film is that it failed completely to address the elephant in the room, which is software, whether it's cracked, hacked, or open source. It kind of boggles the mind how you can actually use software in the production of a film about cut-and-paste culture, and miss it. I guess it doesn't have a Girl Talk beat, eh? (Jeez, isn't there anyone out there better than Girl Talk?)

As some other comments have noted, the above two flaws, combined with the lack of any real proposal or at least a survey of ideas on how to proceed forward, mean this film can't really be a 9 or a 10, at least on my scale. There is such as thing as intellectual property, and the film itself notes that this has been recognized since the printing press, in the form of copyright. It's not going away, and saying "oh well, whatever" isn't enough.

But I do give the film an 8, because it does a great job of showing the cancerous growth of the copyright and patent industry, which isolate us from our own public cultural experience, and stifle creativity and innovation by extending well beyond what was originally intended, to the point of making criminals of the world's youth, bankrupting everyday people, and putting sick people's lives at risk. I particularly found the revelation near the end, about the direction of US policy at the end of last century interesting and shocking. A country like Canada must do all we can to ensure that bad US decisions don't become our problem to be solved by giving away a chunk of our sovereignty. F that, my friends.

I look forward to a followup that addresses the flaws of this film.

This documentary in general focuses around copyright, and the right to remix old music from other artists and it makes some very good points. You only have to look at YouTube to see for yourself; how many video's per day do you think get pulled because it contained some footage, music or sound (even when it concerns fan-art!) that is owned by some company? What started as a battle against copyright-thieves now evolved into a battle of control and money.

Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica makes an appearance, in the form of an old interview concerning the whole Napster-debate which is hypocrite to say the least; tape-trading back in the day is what made Metallica so well known to begin with, so this is nothing more then a moneygrabbing issue from him.

If you want to know more whats going on behind all the anti-piracy campaigns, then watch this. Its well worth the watch.

An increasingly relevant open-source(!!) documentary that somehow manages to ignore hip hop producers of the late 80s and 90s whose sampling was an inherent part of the genre. Regardless, an important look at the definition of art, plagiarism, the relationship of artists with those who seek to make money off of them, and how the music industry inevitably sees sampling and art as a means for profit.

We are the sum of all our experiences and what we have learned from other people. Only a new born baby could possibly be 100% original. What happened to George Harrison with the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine legal case was ridiculous. We need to restore sensibility to our copyright laws. The net effect of today's copyright laws are self serving to the corporations and rarely benefit the original creator. As mentioned previously the original creator is lucky to receive 10% of the final selling price. As with everything else today corporate property rights have higher priority than almost anything else including our democratic freedoms.

But I do agree that some protection must be there so that one is rewarded for their hard work. My suggestions: Time limit such as with patents. Too much great creativity is rotting away because some greedy person (most likely not the author) wants more. Don't allow copyrights to be sold. Only the original creator can benefit from his/her work.

I had to watch this film for an English essay and it is very informative. As a person who loves music and is getting into remix music for parties, this documentary realized how much corporations suppress about ability to share ideas. I used to watch YouTube a lot and I used to always hear of my favorite creators getting videos deleted because they used copyrighted music. I also go on TikTok frequently and some trending songs get taken off of TikTok due to copyrights leaving videos without sounds and users not understanding the context of the video. I believe that to improve as a society, we must build on each others ideas, not trying to make original ideas and not let others use them, that is selfish. Although I'm all for taking away power from corporations, I would like to hear more of their side to see if there is any reason other than money that makes them safeguard intellectual property.