Ridolfo
and Rife within their first page of information regarding Maggie's case states,
"first, we describe Maggie's case, provide an overview of rhetorical
velocity and remix, and then address intersections between copyright,
rhetorical velocity, and the commons" (223). Within their opening
paragraph it is clear to see that Ridolfo and Rife agree that remix plays an
ideal role in deciphering rhetorical velocity and copyright. Good Copy, Bad Copy illustrates a means
of several different artists scopes of rhetorical velocity and how different
countries deal with the issues of copyright infringement.
While
viewing this video, I could only help but notice how confusing and bothersome
copyright law proves to be. It's clear to see that Good Copy, Bad Copy was created some time ago (2007). These laws
still haven't changed and it proves that this is still a problem today. To put
it into more modern terms, take for example current pop icon Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swifts album 1989 was only readily available at stores that sold CD's.
Swift took her album off of Spotify because she believed that her music is art
and that CD production has lowered over the past several years. Now, some may
question whether the young icon took her music off of Spotify to increase her
sales production and others might argue that she is a "true artist"
and believes in tangible music that we are able to keep. I think this is a
question that society ponders (not frequently of course) but at the time, definitely.
If you haven't heard the news, this link listed is definitely a good read-
The
first quote taken from Good Copy, Bad
Copy that captured the idea of textuality as a paradox was taken from a beginning
clip. "If you're a hip hop producer and you're taking a beat from a
recorded piece of music, playing with it in the studio and making it into
something else, you're always risking being sued for copyright
infringement" (3:32). Andreas Johnsen and Ralf Christensen did a good job
at including this lawyers input regarding copyright. Throughout Good Copy, Bad Copy several people
really cleared up just how big of an issue copyright law is.
The
second quote proving the aforementioned would be when there's an interview
between writer, Lawrence Lessig and an interviewer. The professor states,
"Creative Commons is a tool for artists to mark their creativity with the
freedoms they intend it to carry. It's important that it's artists are doing
this" (22:32). When the professor stated this quote and related it back to
his English studies and scholarly essays, it made me think. We always remix our
research papers when we look up scholarly sources to incorporate into our
arguments. Not only does Good Copy, Bad
Copy illustrate copyright via music but as well through textual evidence.
The
third quote was taken from a clip at the end from DJ Girl Talk. He states,
"Society as a whole has a lot to learn from these emerging cultural forms
of production, that are taking place in the poor areas of the world"
(52:21). The main argument here is that if we allowed multiple forms of artistry
to remix then we would have more cultural knowledge and a variety of perspectives.
DJ Girl Talk even states that he was making a remix of a remix from a Brazilian
DJ. There is no question that creativity is present in today's modern culture.
However, the regulation of creativity only makes me fear just what our future
in regards to music will look like. If we took up ideas from Nigeria or Brazil,
I think our culture would contain more of a variety and I think that is the
true definition of a remix. -Anjelica MacGregor
Anjelica,
ReplyDeleteI really like the point you made about how we remix our research papers by using other authors’ works to back up our own arguments. I think that is exactly the kind of collaboration and remixing that the creators of Good Copy Bad Copy want to encourage—a culture where people can use other people’s work, not for profit or personal gain, but to create something new, uplifting, informative. I don’t think anyone is condoning the appropriation of someone else’s work to market as your own or sell for a profit. Instead, I think they are pushing for collaboration, and for artists to build on—not steal—other people’s work. Like we do in our papers, artists should be able to use other artists’ work as a launch pad to help them get where they want to go in their own artistic journey.
I also agree with you that the film we watched does address how big of an issue copyright is, but they go way beyond just telling us that it is a big problem. They tell us why it is a problem, why it is a bigger problem in some places than others, and even guide us toward how the problem can be solved, but you have to listen closely. Taylor Swift’s taking her music off of Spotify would not stop those who own the CD format of 1989 from sampling and remixing her music, but I think it is probably safe to say that an artist who takes their music off of a sharing platform like Spotify just doesn’t want to share. At least, not without being compensated. (Although plenty of artists are willing to share their music—Lorde applauded an FSU a cappella group for their version of her “Royals” not long ago.)
I think that is the major issue that the film clears up—the fact that copyright law is concerned mostly with the artist’s ability to make a profit. In countries that are not as concerned with profit as they are with the art itself, copyright law is much more lax or even nonexistent, and creativity flourishes.
-Jessica Gonzalez
I like where both of you are going with the discussion regarding remixing. i think that the paper analogy is fantastic and definitely illustrates the point at hand. I strongly agree that our contemporary remix culture does not have some grand plan to rob the music industry of their deserved money, but rather, this is our means of unique creation. Today, an original work can be made from the piecing together of someone else's work. It is the way that a DJ remixes a song, or songs, that is in itself artistic. It is a fact that this is the direction in which our musical generation is heading. Girl Talk suggests that filesharing websites are the 21st century equivalent to a library and I think he is spot on. As music itself evolves, there is no doubt that the way that it is distribute will evolve with it. I think it's quite naive for those proponent of strong copyright laws to suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI also love that you brought up the point about the music industries in other countries. They are able to create and share their musical inventions with each other without fear of condemnation. We should aspire to that. Our capitalistic nation has prioritize profit and is thus sacrificing the dignity of music. Music should exist for the sake of music and for nothing else. In the film it is mentioned that so many of the individuals getting charged with copyright infringement are the biggest fans of these musicians. They don't intend to hurt the artist, and they most definitely are not. They just eblieve that this is a more fair and modern way of sharing and enjoying music. What is clear is that copyright law and enforcement is in serious need of revamping. We are in news, technologically radical times and the laws must adapt.
-Morgan