Bound 2 Copyright Law

These are the various moments that stood out for me concerning the creative process and copyright infringement. Good Copy Bad Copy was fascinating in how it presented the complications that derive from such issues by using a wide variety of examples from all across the world. As a global dilemma, it only makes sense to showcase how this is an issue for everyone in various contexts.

3:30 -

This moment of the film explicates what sampling is and how it functions in creating music. Sampling is when an artist takes a “sample” of a previously recorded piece of music that is not of their own creation, the sample is used to create new music. This in itself can be problematic because of copyright law and the risk of infringement. However, as the film puts forth what is the harm in remediating when samples can at times become so far removed from their original context? At that point can it still even be considered copying when it’s been manipulated? Good Copy Bad Copy illustrates the muddy waters of sampling by showcasing artists such as Danger Mouse and Girl Talk who’ve created unique tracks by remixing and mashing up various musical artists. Girl Talk is an artist who creates track with multiple layers of beats, vocals, instruments, etc. from a plethora of sources to a point in which at times the original recordings aren’t even discernible from their original context thus making something completely original from borrowed material. His music is also available to download for free, so it makes one really ask, what is the harm then? 

The harm that does occur comes from lack of recognition and acknowledgement in some particular cases of sampling. This is what muddles the waters of sampling and copyright infringement. What comes to mind is the case of Kanye West and his track “Bound 2” in which he majorly samples a hook from “Bound” by the Ponderosa Twins Plus One, it’s the main refrain that echoes through the song again and again but Mr. West in fact, did not credit the original artists in anyway or provide compensation for use of the track. Naturally, they wanted to incite a lawsuit. This case illustrates the harm in sampling as people feel an ownership to the intellectual property they create. When credit is not given due, this is when issues arise.

30:12

This was fascinating because it illustrates the dilemmas of enforcing copyright infringement in how there really lacks value in trying to punish piracy as it the cost of outweighs the gain of punishing pirates. The man involved with Nigerian cinema says “If I convict the pirate, the pirate will not put money in my pocket. He will still continue to spend my that I pay the government as tax.” This is very true! He then continues to explain that the pirate will have to be housed, fed, etc. at the expense of the public. It’s an interesting paradox. Moments before this quote (20 seconds) the Nigerian filmmaker in his car explains how Nigerian cinema attempts the combat piracy by trying to not create situations that allow for it to happen. Such as by releasing a film on time before a pirated version hits the public. In this day and age, companies need to rethink their methods of distribution but what is also paradoxical is they also have to accept that piracy will not die no matter how hard it’s combatted. The film uses The Pirate Bay as an example around 16:00~ to show the force of piracy online. 

55:40

This moment really encompassed the spirit of the film and it’s message. Here we have Girl Talk listening to the remixed Gnarls Barkley track, “Crazy” that we saw produced earlier in the film in Brazil, remediated into the style of Techno Brega. This American artist then takes the Brazilian Techno Brega remix of an American song and remakes it into another remix of his own creation, “I’m remixing the remix” he says. He compares it to folk culture and calls it collaboration and sharing of ideas. This analogy is a beautiful way to describe the nature of the digital age. Who is really experiencing the harm in copyright infringement? It doesn’t appear to be the consuming public but rather corporate execs who are upset with not getting their residuals on intellectual property that does not even belong to them. I believe this is why the concept of Creative Commons is so important, creators should have a say in the way their works are distributed, not the individuals (the companies) that facilitate it. Copyright law should be for protection of artists but it doesn’t function in this way when individuals are being sued thousands of dollars from pirating on their ISPs. It’s a very curious dilemma.