rIp: A Remix Manifesto Remixed

To infringe, or not to infringe?  That is the question.  The film RiP:  A Remix Manifesto is an incredibly eye-opening view into the anarchic sub-culture of “remixers”, a title given, by this film, to names as prolific as Walt Disney, Andy Warhol, and many more.  The film goes to great lengths to offer its viewers a first person perspective into the world of copyright infringement, and the sub-culture that it has inevitably spawned. 

            Believe it or not, there was a time when people understood that in order to foster creativity, you have to not only utilize but to also embrace collaboration.  Walt Disney is likely one of the most profound and well-known orchestrators of “remixing” in recent history.  The film goes on to demonstrate that all of Disney’s earliest works are in fact just “remixes” of earlier literary works.  These works, such as Snow White or Alice in Wonderland, were a source of inspiration for Walt Disney, and as they were free for him to amend or to interpret, he did so by creating the memorable animated versions that we all know and love.  In the great words of Bob Dylan, however, “the times…they are a’changin’”. 

            After Walt Disney’s death, the Disney Corporation fought for the laws of copyright to be changed, and were successful.  This put a majority of copyright control into the hands of major corporations and out of the hands of creators and innovators.  Of course, as with anything in current society, this didn’t, doesn’t, and won’t be acceptable to millions of the Earth’s population.  From grass roots movements to intentional infringement, people have begun standing up against a world that is run by a handful of billionaires. 

            The film follows an artist, using the term lightly, that goes by the stage name “Girl Talk”.  This man takes 2-3 second samples of a song, then distorts and alters them to fit with samples of other songs, then claims the work as his own.  This causes quite the dilemma in the legal realm, because there is such a thing as fair use.  It seems to be a never-ending battle between lawyers and, what I’m going to call, DJ’s.  To say that what Girl Talk does should be illegal seems extreme, but on the other hand taking upwards of 20 songs that you didn’t write, mashing them together, and calling them yours doesn’t seem right either.  Is it your interpretation of those songs?  Absolutely, but I’ve always been taught to give credit where credit is due.  Yes, you imagined this mix all on your own, but remember that without the original snippet of music that someone else created, you wouldn’t have the track that you are calling your own.

            The film makes an excellent point that writers are allowed to cite portions of other authors’ works provided an appropriate citation is made crediting the original author.  This seems like a fairly straightforward practice, and it’s unclear to me as to why this couldn’t be a universal practice across all mediums.  If I could suggest anything be changed, it would be as simple as crediting the original creators when you sample their material, be it audio, video, photographic, medicinal, utilitarian, literary, or innovative in nature.

            Ultimately, it comes down to the almighty dollar though, and the scenes that depicted those punished for infringement epitomize the principle flaw in capitalistic societies.  People who hardly have anything are forced to give up their homes, their freedom, and their hard-earned money to pay back billionaires who lost maybe $8 in revenue.  Now, I understand that adds up, but does the punishment for an insignificant crime really need to be so extreme?  I mean seriously…I’ve seen rapists get less severe punishment. 

            There is no quick fix for this issue, because both sides are adamant that they are right.  Unfortunately, one side has a much larger advantage than the other.  It was nice to see that artists themselves have finally started to grasp the concept of collaboration though.  Radiohead took a big financial risk when they offered their album up to be modified in an unlimited capacity to the general public.  What’s more interesting to see is bands like U2, who have previously been staunch defenders of copyright law, bending and changing their stance in order to help their image.

            While none of this seems conventional, there is merit to those who intentionally break the law.  They have taken a piece of history, and made it current.  Much like you enhance a recipe by adding or taking away ingredients, these mixers are spicing up the way we think about and interpret music.  I will say it again; I don’t think this method of creating should be illegal, but I do think appropriate credit should be given to those who had the original thought or idea. 

Here is the full film for those interested in watching, which I HIGHLY recommend!!