RIP: A Remix Manifesto

I thought this was a really interesting video. I feel like we’ve all been guilty at some point in our lives for copyright infringement but have never actually faced any of the consequences. It was surprising to me that the film pointed out that the majority of people that were caught and (attempted to be) disciplined were those that were least likely to actually have the money that the companies were seeking. It seems like that’s intentional targeting, but for what purpose? Personally, I feel like there shouldn’t be any legal action taken for copyright infringement if the perpetrator is using/remixing the content for personal enjoyment and not monetary incentives. Once someone starts making a profit on snippets of others’ work is where it starts to get foggy. This ultimately leads to a discussion of really just how similar the remix is to the original, and how much (little) usage is just the right amount to not be considered stealing. There’s a fine line that needs to be drawn with a little more leniency in order to compensate for the growth and unique development of music, videos and their creators.

I lean more towards the copy left of the spectrum. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that people should not own their intellectual property and profit from it. I just think that there should be a better balancing system. Companies use their superior resources to bully congress into passing laws that benefit them but stifle the average internet user. I think that as long as someone does use the material for profit, then downloading something shouldn’t be that huge if an issue.

This video was eye-opening and interesting. When it was mentioned by one of the girls that she owed over $200,000 for downloading music, I was shocked just because of how often we all probably used to do that. It didn't seem then that we would have real repercussions but hearing it from the people that did have to deal with the consequences was interesting. It also seemed harsh considering she wasn't using it to make money. I have mixed feelings about copyright infringement laws so I see both sides of the issue but the people being targeted in the video seemed unlikely. Overall, the video was informative on what can happen if you don't abide by these laws. 

The most interesting part of this video to me is its eye-opening stories about copyright infringement. The balance between protecting intellectual property and inspiring creative content is a difficult medium to find. On the one hand, creators shouldn't just be allowed to steal ideas and projects from others, and benefit from them, without consequence. I do think, however, that remixing and making entirely new media based off of the content of others is fine. The internet and its resources are all about allowing users to be creative and express themselves in a way that respects the creations of others. The ideal situation lies somewhere in which personal rights and ideas are protected, but playing off of others' ideas is encouraged to a certain extent.

I wasn’t sure I agreed when the registrar of copyrights said, “you can’t argue your creativity if its based on other people’s stuff.” As a design major, I have taken many art classes, and I’ve been taught by many different instructors that finding inspiration is a critical part of the creative process. And often times this entails looking at or incorporating already produced pieces. I think that as long as there is a significant difference in composition or credit given, creators shouldn’t have to face copyright punishments. I think copyright laws should also be lax with those who aren’t gaining any monetary compensation. But I understand that if the law were too lax then even more people would engage in copyright infringements. It becomes a slippery slope when trying to regulate and create a fine line between deterring illegal activity and promoting creative expression. 

I found this video very interesting because I relate to it on a personal level. As students, we have to be highly aware of everything we put our name on, ensuring that it is original content, as not to plagiarize. However, there are only so many original ideas out there, as one would certainly discover if they were to say try to create a never before seen invention. In this film, it becomes hard to believe that copyright laws are so strict that we break them every time we sing happy birthday in a restaurant. The argument that these DJ's are copyrighting seems ludicrous since the finished product sounds nothing like the original song. It is comparable to writing a book report; they are reusing the main ideas, but putting them into their own words. And surely my 5th grade book report on Tuck Everlasting is nothing like the original novel.

I feel that there is a fine line between copying others' work and using inspiration and pieces from it to be creative. I feel that the remix portion of the video was interesting because these creators were using pieces of a work already published but taking those and being creative and making something new. I agree with Lawrence Lessig's comments about copyright. He explains that with copyright, making it illegal will not stop peoples actions and people will still be using that work, but in secret. I feel that there needs to be a happy medium where people are not directly copying other producers work, but others should have the ability to take pieces and ideas of another's work and use that to create another original creative piece. I agree with the thoughts at the end of the film where they discuss the future of Creative Commons and others being able to use produced work with good intentions. 

I thought this film was very interesting and the topic was not something I have thought much about in this context. In all of my high school and college classes we have spent time discussing plagiarism in written text form, but I never think to extend that concept to other types of creative content. I think that people are entitled to profit from their creative work, but it seems hard to regulate since the internet as a whole is still fairly unregulated. 

I believe the film brought attention a topic average Americans rarely consider on a daily basis. However, I was enrolled in a music course last year that covered the history of country music and the idea of originality and copyright have always existed. I truly appreciated how the documentary mentioned in the beginning how this is not a 21st century problem, but this idea of copyright infringement has existed ever since country became popularized as a music genre. Throughout its history, singers and songwriters would always get paid less than record corporations because of copyright laws. Despite the long history of copyright issues, it is evident that questions concerning copyrights has become more prevalent since the creation of the internet. I was particular intrigued by the segment when they discussed "21st-centry literacy" because it is true individuals have more tools and avenues to express themselves. However, with those opportunities, come restrictions of freedom from copyright holders of the past. This is the very point the creator of this documentary was attempting to show and I think he did an excellent job by tying in some lawsuits filed by the past in order to control the freedom of expression from the culture of the future.

I found this video to make several good points concerning the importance of conserving the artist's right to create. I see merits on both sides of this issue. For one, in a market based society, it is important to reward the original creators of a work, so they might have the resources to continue to do so. However, I also believe that when an artist repurposes an extremely small piece of another's work, he/she should not have to pay a royalty. I understand that this introduces a significant amount of ambiguity concerning what exactly constitutes an "extremely small piece," but regardless it is silly for an institution to require an artist to pay a royalty for a small sample.

I really enjoyed Rip and thought it conveyed a complex problem through an approachable story. I saw a lot of parallels between the copyright and fair use issues and the recent events surrounding the fight for net neutrality. In both cases, the debate comes down to how much we are willing to allow companies to control the flow of information. In the case of fair use and copyright, it is an issue of artistic and cultural information. This makes the rules and boundaries difficult to define, and, as the film shows, easy for lawyers to obscure and exploit. I think creative materials should be able to be shared in short form or used for any creative purpose. I understand litigation for uploading a whole film or song for commercial gain but not for anything less. 

I thought this film was very intriguing. It really made me think what were the boundaries of an original artwork, and an homage/remix of an artwork. I think the video had more of an impact on me because I had an issue with copyright infringement on Youtube. I used to make gaming videos in middle school, and I added popular mainstream songs to go along with my gaming montage, but I got flagged by Youtube for violating their community guidelines and they eventually muted all sounds from my video. Now this problem is nothing compared to the lady who got fined $200,000 for downloading music, but still it was an example of the grey area of copyright infringement. I also used to download illegal music and movies back in the day not knowing the consequences of it, and it was nice to watch a video showing both sides of the story.

This video was very thought-provoking. It made me think about the many times that I unknowingly violated terms of copyright by downloading music and films from third-party networks. I never really thought about plagiarism beyond the lens of academia. One quote that especially stood out to me was "To build free societies, you must limit the control of the past". This quote made me think about net neutrality and the harsh backlash people that support the act received. What does a healthy balance look like? I will be sure to be more cautious of copyright terms, now that I have a better understanding of the history behind it. 

I enjoyed this video because it brought to light several points about copyright that I had never really considered in my daily life. I feel like in the age of the internet, creating strong copyright laws is becoming more and more difficult as there are many more ways to share music, movies, art, etc. without significant consequence. In some ways this is an issue, as the original creators of the art are not benefitting much as they necessarily should be from their own creations. However, this ease of communication also allows art to be spread much more quickly and efficient, which can make one's art have a greater impace on more people. As someone that has downloaded more than their fair share of 'illegal' downloads of music, movies, games, etc., I feel that it is probably too easy right now for your average person to get around copyright laws, however I don't believe that copyright laws should (or could) be too strictly enforced as it limits the spread of content. 

This was a crazy film to watch. I know I myself have wondered what is considered copyrighted and what is not. The laws have always been hazy to me, and I didn't know how they could possibly be enforced. For example, I produce family videos and put them on youtube with copyrighted music. Though I paid for the songs and am allowed to use it myself, I am not allowed to share the music without running into complications. I usually submit an appeal that is approved very shortly after... which only confuses me more. It was interesting to hear both sides of the argument, but I'm honestly not sure where I stand on what is right and what is wrong. If they try to limit the use of media (which is undoubtedly only getting more and more difficult), are they also limiting creativity? Blatant visual plagiarism is obviously wrong, but taking already published material and mixing them in new ways seems pretty harmless to me. From my experience, the people who post their creative mixes (whether that be of music, video, etc.) are not credited for the original material but are instead complimented for their creativity. It's definitely a complicated issue with a lot of grey areas, and I don't see it getting any more concrete in the future.

I thought this video was interesting to watch and learn about how copyright works. I think its important to acknowledge that people shouldn't misuse other peoples work or directly copy ideas. However, I think it is okay to gain inspiration from other peoples work and then create your own piece or remix it to encompass your own ideas. I did not realize how seriously the rules of copyright were enforced or if people even got in trouble. It is clear to me now that they are enforced and something to be aware of. I have had similar experiences to my classmates, where I've used music that I have purchased in the background of a Youtube video and I have had it taken down as well. I have always wondered if there is a way to avoid that. Overall, I am glad that we are allowed to use things for educational purposes without penalty. 

I loved the fast pace at the beginning of the video. He was showing how technology was growing at a fast rate so he used transitions to reflect its growth. Also for the meaning, I think it is okay to be inspired by someones work. I mean imagine where hip hop would be without people ripping of records. Now a day copyright law detract from free expression. Take Robin Thick's "Blurred Lines" which in my ears sounds nothing like marvin gays song, yet he lost the law suit. Humans are just observant learners and growth is diminished if you take that away.