Rip! A Remix Manifesto

Older Comments on Rip! A Remix Manifesto

• Posted 01/24/11 by m
  I am going to take this movie make my own copies and sell them to everyone I know! thanks !
• Posted 11/11/10 by Paul
  There is a BIG difference from a fair " nick ' or " pinch" or tribute from one artist to another. For one, an artist has talent that shows in his work. there is an evolution and growth, a natural progression that starts as copying and learning the music they love to building on that foundation and eventually finding their own voice and talents beyond that of their influnces. Most of those artists whose samples are being used have worked hard for many years to perfect their craft. Is this "music" that girl talk is making being given away ? if thats the case then fine, share away. if not, pay up or make your own music.
• Posted 08/06/10 by Jim
  Way to go! Not only copyright, but trade and salesmarking are divvying up and putting our language, our very means of communication under private ownership. Soon I won't be able to write that I blew my nose on a Kleenex. MacDonalds acts now as if it owns every word which begins with Mc or Mac. They recently sued and won against a mom and pop sushi restaurant named Macsushi here in SF. The irony is that companies spend huge amounts of money to put their product; their song or movie into the popular culture. And when they succeed in creating a new icon, they sue anyone who was susceptible to that advertising. I vote for a future where language, ideas and artistic expression are free and available to all. Cut up lives! Here's to a Cutupian society!
• Posted 05/29/10 by Shanks57
  I LOVED this film! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!!! 5 out of 5 stars- this is the way the world needs to turn! I was very ignorant about re-mixing before watching this, and feel very informed after seeing this. I think that our entire way of living and thinking has to change, and adapt with the times and the technology. Girl Talk and all the other artists out there, including film producers/makers that created this MUST continue! Bravo! Thank you for making such an enlightened film!
• Posted 05/16/10 by Marilyn
  @Derek - The film DOES present the formerly reasonable copyright laws that protected an individual's right to profit from his or creations and the common good, and it reiterates the need to return to that balance. In a country where capitalism has run amok, it stands to reason that its citizens would be indoctrinated in the notion that owners are gods, but that is neither inevitable nor the model in many countries. That's why conservatives and capitalists fight tooth and nail against socialism because it means they'd have to learn how to share. We're run by a bunch of greedy brats whose favorite bumper stick was "He who dies with the most toys wins." Note to Snag Films: no subtitles in the Brazil scenes. Can you provide them or a transcript in English?
• Posted 05/16/10 by Marilyn
  @Derek - The film DOES present the formerly reasonable copyright laws that protected an individual's right to profit from his or creations and the common good, and it reiterates the need to return to that balance. In a country where capitalism has run amok, it stands to reason that its citizens would be indoctrinated in the notion that owners are gods, but that is neither inevitable nor the model in many countries. That's why conservatives and capitalists fight tooth and nail against socialism because it means they'd have to learn how to share. We're run by a bunch of greedy brats whose favorite bumper stick was "He who dies with the most toys wins." Note to Snag Films: no subtitles in the Brazil scenes. Can you provide them or a transcript in English?
• Posted 04/03/10 by Steve
  I definitely agree with the re-examination of the copyright laws, but I find it very disturbing that artists, such as Jagger and Richards, can get paid from the lawsuit their publishing company fights, when their music is inspired by and ripped from soul artists who don't have the money or don't care to battle in court. If you ask any artists who or what are their influences, they will be able to rattle off names and nouns without a problem. If you ask those same artists; they could pin-point their influences in their own art. "This sound inspired me, and I just played in a different way," "The brush strokes of [insert artist] captivated me and I wanted to incorporate his style." You have artists all over suing for "chord progression," "phrasing," and "sound." Hell, singer Aaron Hall (R&B;group Guy) tried to go after R. Kelly because he said, "He took my style and even the tone of how I sing." If that be the case, then Charlie Wilson (The Gap Band) would have the same right to go after Aaron Hall. I'm not saying we can just "take" someones piece of work and call it our own, by no means. But when people are getting sued for one or two notes that are barely recognizable, that's ridiculous [George Clinton (Parliament Funkadelic) vs NWA...the judge even said that George Clinton fans can't even recognize it). What Girl Talk does is nothing different than what DJ's have been doing for years, mixing and mashing up artists of all genres. I have CD's in my collection from the 90's put together just like Girl Talk's. Mixtapes used to be "sponsored" by record labels and encouraged. DJ's and mixes set a mood for a party, a show; and according to the copyright law, if any one of us has made a cd or tape with a mix of music and gave it to someone... um yeah, we broke the law. I agree with getting clearance for a sample if its the core of a song, but to say "that's my snare," or "that's my chord progression" is really trying to take ownership of something one didn't really create. There are 88 keys on a grand piano, which makes it limited in the chords, sounds, patterns, and/or progressions. And since I'm a drummer who has recorded quite a few songs with my 12 piece kit, does that give me the right to go after every band? Copyright definitely needs to be re-examined, people need to get clearance, and people need to stop being so greedy! Question: why is it that copyright lawsuits only occur after a song gains "pop"ularity?
• Posted 03/29/10 by donny
  i agree with the previous poster - copyright laws are in place to PROTECT the creator, the artist. the filmmaker here seems to be confusing corporatism with copyright. in reference to girl talk, there are countless musical recording artists (many thousands) who offer their music completely free of copyright under creative commons licenses. if you choose to use popular recordings that were made in a big-budget studio (madonna, billy joel, elton john, hall and oates, etc), you're going to have to pay for that right. and in a sense, you are actually supporting that type of music making by re-popularizing it. this is a similar issue to file-sharing -- the most popular recordings that people download for free are all the big commercial artists, made with studio budgets in the tens or hundreds of thousands. stuggling artists who record on a budget in their home studios would probably love it if people were downloading their songs for free - it would be great promotion. but the reality is 90% of downloads are for the same 10% of music - the big popular stuff. and you don't get that big popular sound for free. it takes a lot of time, equipment, people and money to happen. the whole industry (consumers included) is a snake eating its own tail. people who download popular material for free will do it to the point where it is no longer being made.
• Posted 03/09/10 by Derek
  This is a wonderful documentary, really well done. However, it also angers me to no end and I was frustrated by the film halfway through. I really didn't want to go off on a rant, but the more I watched the angrier I got. So here we go ... I wish someone as gifted as the director clearly is, would produce a more balanced argument on the important issue of copyright in the digital age. Not only because it is a subject that touches on what intellectual property means, but the future economy of the creative industries. Instead the film presents a half baked, childish manifesto, so simplistic that it echos those of tea baggers and 3rd world dictators. Girl Talk's A/B comparison is also a fundamentally flawed argument. It is true that "culture" is built on top of the past - absolutely no question about it. But there is a difference between building a house out of brick and mortar and building a house by stealing someone else's house. By using those old blues players you actually make a good argument "for" IP protection and by using the Verve track that samples the Rolling Stones you actually reinforce that argument further. For example because those old blues players lived in a time of racism and poorly defined copyright laws they never reaped the benefit of their talents and in many cases died poor and anonymous. A generation of musicians mostly forgotten except when referenced by those who profited from their talents. Second, in case of the Verve track, the backbone of the song is based on a Rolling Stones sample. The band was forced to pay the Stones royalties and will have to every time they play that song (the smarter thing to do would've been to get permission in the beginning or come up with their own riff). Absolutely there needs to be re-examination of existing copyright laws to address the way media is consumed in the digital age. However to state everything as fair game offers no protect to the actual artists who labor over creating original compositions versus those who lay in bed, copy/paste and reap the benefits from other artists work. Under your manifesto there would be no Beatles, no Rolling Stones; we would live in a world of Girl Talk, Britney Spears and Lady Gagas. I guess that would be fine for kids, but it would be darker world for real artists trying to make a living. I'm sure Girl Talk is making nice bank from his day job as a bio scientist.