The following is the first essay I submitted for my MDIA 1020 class, Media and the Creative Process. Here are my thoughts of what I had to watch/listen to...
The first video I decided to watch was Rip!: A Remix Manifesto. Being a fan of Girl Talk, I was pleasantly
surprised to hear of his involvement in the documentary. His presence in the
video made perfect sense to me, considering that his line of work consists of
taking the works of others, turning them inside out, mashing them together, and
making something new out of them, possibly even making it better. After
noticing how articulate he is in sampling various songs (especially percussion
parts), it really seems that many parts of his music are unrecognizable from their
sources. Therefore, I liken Girl Talk’s creative process to making sirloin
steak out of lasagna. The product is completely different from what came before
it. This may be why he is able to profit off of some of his music. I took a
look at his collection of music on iTunes and surprisingly, there was music
there! Granted, only two of his albums are on there, but I find it remarkable
that he’s able to sell his work in the first place.
Of course,
people have tested the limits of copyright law before, stretching the
distinction between fair use and copyright infringement. Dan O’ Neill probably
falls under the latter. When people parody other characters, they usually
change certain parts of the character so they can legally separate themselves
from the copyrighted characters they choose to mock. Not O’ Neill—he’s
shameless in his infringement of Mickey Mouse. Not only did he make a carbon
copy of the character, but he also put him in situations Disney wouldn’t
approve of (such as, but not limited to, selling dope, shooting thugs, and
performing oral sex on his wife). So what’s the difference between O’ Neill’s
“interpretation” of the Mouse and the paintings on the side of Very Important
Babies daycare center? O’ Neill intended to profit on the works of someone else,
with little to no modification to the original work (unlike Girl Talk), V.I.B.
did not. It reminds me of a car wash my father used to take me through when I
was little. The employees drew various characters in window paint outside of
the building, from Spongebob Squarepants to the occasional Shrek. I don’t
remember anyone suing the pants off of Mike’s Car Wash, but then again, I
didn’t know better back then. At least they weren’t painting Disney characters.
If O’Neil were a bit more modest on his parody of Mickey Mouse, perhaps he
would’ve gotten off the hook. Or maybe he just should’ve parodied a different
character created by someone else. Maybe then Disney wouldn’t be on his ass.
I agreed
with director and narrator Brett Gaylor on his opinions of remixing and fair
use and the like, but I didn’t quite understand his views on piracy. He doesn’t
explain them well, and instead, glosses over them with a couple of clips. While
remixing and piracy aren’t mutually exclusive, remixing content isn’t an indication
that the material remixed was pirated. Therefore, I feel like the small section
on piracy was out of place. I could fix
that if I wanted to, considering Gaylor is letting laymen like me remix his
works.
I think I’m
beginning to understand why intellectual property laws exist, and it makes
sense for them to be used in various fields, but after I watched the segment on
Brazil, I couldn’t help but to think that it would be most beneficial for
professionals in the medical industry to be able to exchange ideas without fear
of litigation. Gaylor hit the nail on the head when discussing the cure for
cancer. The objective of medical research should be to discover methods to
enhance and save our lives. If one researcher wants to derive his works upon
the works of others, should that really be a big deal? If the end result is a
more effective problem, then it should be even more beneficial to the populace.
The objective of medical research should not
be “make money first, save lives later.” It should be the opposite way
around. This is why I applaud Brazil’s copies of US-patented HIV medication.
They wanted to save lives first, so
they took the US’ HIV pill and made it more accessible. If we’re trying to
limit the spread of HIV, shouldn’t we be getting more of these pills out?
That’s what Brazilians seemed to think.
The next
video I watched was Whispering in the
Leaves, an interview with legendary wildlife sound recorder Chris Watson.
Since I’m not well versed in the field of sound design, I felt an odd blend of fascination
and confusion. Fascinated to learn, but confused due to my unfamiliarity.
Unlike remixers, Watson isn’t bound to the choice to either ask permission and
pay royalty fees or face the dark side of copyright infringement laws. But now
that forms of life can be patented, will that change? If Watson discovers a new
insect that has previously been patented, will he have to pay fees to the
patent holder? Is recording the insect an act of copyright infringement? Would
this be an even more ridiculous patent than Apple’s infamous rounded corners? The world may never know.
Also, just
a random thought: I’m pretty envious of Watson’s job. He gets to travel the
world doing what he loves. Myself? I’d love to travel all sorts of places for
it. I can only dream…
The last
media I explored was called “Who’s Gonna Pay For This Stuff?” It’s an hour-long
discussion on the dwindling amount of ways content creators’ revenue can be
defined from. Whether it’s advertising, pay walls, or sponsorships, what most
people have found so far isn’t a catch-all method. No combination of the
methods is a guarantee. Digital media is a property more lucrative than oil,
but many of the people involved hardly get paid, if anything at all.
This
doesn’t just affect remixers. This affects everyone. It affects the average Joe
YouTuber to multimillion-dollar corporations. If you advertise, people will get
annoyed and run ad-blocking software, cutting a fraction out of your payment. A
pay wall is a steep price to pay for many people, and the crowd doesn’t fund
every project. There are corporations that don’t have this problem. They
believe that if anyone should pay for that stuff, it should be the people
accused of piracy and the others accused of modifying copyrighted content
without permission. These organizations, record labels and studios alike,
charge individuals thousands of seemingly vestigial dollars. None of that money
goes to the people who create the content. It’s unfair that the most profitable
businesses in the industry create a profit through litigation.
