Johnsen and
Christensen’s documentary Good Copy Bad Copy effectively shows both sides of
the state of copyright law, and simultaneously the dilemma that arises from too
much freedom or too much rigidity in copyright law. The dilemma is expressed
clearly in the opener of the film with the musician Gregg Gillis, known as Girl
Talk. Gillis creates new music by combining, rearranging, and altering
preexisting songs. The product is wildly popular and controversial. His
creations typify the restriction of modern creativity in a society that
strictly prohibits reuse and sharing of creative property.
A part of the
documentary I found intriguing was the feature of Brazilian music producers. In
Brazil, copyright laws aren’t nearly as stringent as the US, and therefore
producers like the one near 41:00 minutes have the ability to freely remix and
then distribute songs. An entire culture of parties and events has been created
based on the new form of music production. This shows the inevitability of
music and file-sharing in the future, and also exemplifies the form creativity
will take in the future.
But, there’s a
downside to all of this sharing, and that is the question of who profits from
the original music? According to the documentary, because widespread media
piracy is virtually unstoppable, up to 6 billion dollars in revenue is lost
every year within the music industry. At 39:50 the marketing director for the
Reggae Music store discusses how free downloading means that the market for
buying music, through CDs and online sources, becomes fruitless. Copyright laws
in this way protect the revenue for businesses and music makers.
Perhaps the most
interesting part, though, is Lawrence Lessig’s perspective on copyright laws at
around 23:20. He uses himself as an example, referring to how students use his books
in their own work. He says this same method should be applied to graphic images
and music. He says people should have the ability to reuse creative property,
but without competing with or outright copying the original work.
I think Lawrence Lessig was one of the my favorite people in the documentary. (Besides Girl Talk). He seems very aware of the whole copyright situation and what it means to let his students use his work. But, also in how that "sacrifice" leads to a freer and "more vibrant economy." It just makes me question lawmakers and law in general. How many laws exist that completely take the human element out of consideration? But then to contridict themselves, how many laws exist that deal solely on human sentiment? It's like lawmakers can't decide whether they want to dictate as robots or people. Now I'm not saying they are bad people, I'm just questioning authority and what powers they should and shouldn't have. Should they be allowed to limit creativity in name protecting ideas of one person by that person (or company)? Specifically remixing that is so popular for our generation as we are in the "digital age". Why are people and big companies in the first place allowed to basically say, legally, "this is mine. this idea. work. and everything around it. MINE."
ReplyDelete(Yes, I got all this from reading your post.
...P.S. Great insight into how "an entire culture of parties and events has been created based on the new form of music production..." but then "[that] means that the market for buying music, through CDs and online sources, becomes fruitless." You revealed both sides of the coin.)