Review: RiP! A Remix Manifesto (2009)

[Mark R. Leeper]

                     RIP! A REMIX MANIFESTO
                (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

     CAPSULE: This is an 86-minute documentary protesting
     our current very restrictive copyright laws.
     Canadian Brett Gaylor writes and directs this film
     documentary looking at the act of creating popular
     music by mashup--taking samples from many works of
     art--some copyrighted--and recombining them.  The
     film explores the question of music, movies, stories,
     etc., being sampled and becoming a part of a new
     piece of art.  The issues are complex and the
     approaches to the solution are even more so.  This
     film makes it hard to agree with either side.
     Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10

[This is a documentary on a controversial issue.  I will try to
review the film as objectively as I can.  Also I will interpret the
film, but none of what I say will have any legal merit.  If you
want to copy, remix, or remash, any pre-existing work of art you
should probably talk to a lawyer first.  I'm a film reviewer, not a
lawyer.]

We have to start with some basic definitions.

Intellectual property: Anything created using the intellect.  This
includes ideas, melodies, or mechanical devices.

Copyright: The right to copy and use a piece of intellectual
property.  Copyright is a commodity that can be bought, rented, or
borrowed.  It can also be illegally usurped.

Public Domain: The set of all intellectual property that is not
controlled by copyright.

Mix-Ups: A new pieces of art made from sampled bits of old pieces
of art.  Sometimes there are thousands of sampled pieces in a new
mix-up.

Mash-Up: A new piece of art made in part or in whole from ideas of
old pieces of art.

Re-mix: A new piece of art made in part or in whole from old pieces
of art.

The latter three definitions are different but closely related
concepts.  People are currently taking bits from pre-existing
material and mixing them and electronically altering them so they
may be unrecognizable and combining them to make new music.  The
problem is that what is being sampled is copyright material.  The
copyright owners are complaining that this is a form of
infringement.  Given the degree of modification one might ask why
not start with public domain sounds?  Unfortunately writer/director
Brett Gaylor never examines this possibility.  Gaylor is an
admitted fan of re-mix artist, a male who goes by the name Girl
Talk but whose real name is Gregg Gilles.

RIP! A REMIX MANIFESTO tells the history of copyright law, which
has been extended and made more monstrous over time.  Current
copyright laws say that a work of art does not fall into public
domain until seventy years after the original artist is dead.  Due
to intricacies of the law, some characters apparently do not fall
into public domain even though the copyright has long run out on
the initial works creating the character.  Tarzan and Mickey Mouse
are prime examples.  The Disney Corporation has been particularly
aggressive and egregious in fighting to extend copyrights on its
intellectual property.

Gaylor brings in expert testimony from Stanford professor and
political activist Larry Lessig and from science fiction writer
Cory Doctorow.  Still, all to often as a viewer I wanted to stop
the proceedings and argue with the screen, as there were obvious
problems with the case being made.  It is suggested that the
copyright laws should be eased because "everybody" infringes on
copyright, and making plagiarism illegal will only create a
generation of lawbreakers.  But even Gaylor admits that the
copyright law is there to protect artists.  While he argues that
all art should be legal to copy, he does not look at the effects of
such a decision.  Gaylor takes a first step by saying his own film
is copyright free and he invites people to copy it.  It is,
however, not clear there is much in the film that would be of value
for others to take.  But in addition, it is not clear that even his
film is really as free from copyright as he claims.  [See the note
at the end of the review.]

Watching this documentary can be a little too much like trying to
read "Wired" magazine.  The format is supposed to be hip but very
much gets in the way of understanding the case being made.  And the
case being made seems ill considered.  The film raises good
questions, but does not answer them.  Gaylor intentionally makes a
good case that there are serious flaws with current United States
Copyright law and unintentionally makes just as good a case that he
and his buddies are not the ones to straighten it out.  I rate this
film a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. RIP! A REMIX MANIFESTO
will be released to DVD on June 30, 2009.

Note: It should be noted that while the film itself labels itself
in the credits a "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share
Alike"--I think that is a noun phrase--and suggests a desperately
needed web site to visit for an explanation.  The web site says,
"Page not found; The page you are trying to reach is nowhere to be
found. Someone on the staff is to blame for this! Rest assured, the
proper person will get the proper amount of blame and humiliation
dealt to them."  That page also seems to have links to remixes.
The DVD package labeling has signs saying it is a "Creative
Commons"--probably a noun phrase--rather than being copyright
material.  However, the DVD case also contains labeling for a 2009
copyright for SteelEyeFilm and for the National Film Board of
Canada.  In plain, simple English this all means that you can
reproduce the film, remix it, and/or remash it, as Brett Gaylor
suggests you can do in the text of the film, or perhaps you can't.
Specifically the creative commons rights given to you shows up in
the case labeling symbology as "BY" with a men's room symbol and
"ND" with an equals sign.  However, the initials DRM show up in a
circle with a slash through it, meaning that DRM, which may or may
not mean "Digital Rights Management" is not allowed.  But you do
not have a right to copy the material because even though Brett
Gaylor grants you that right in the text of the film, people other
than him hold a copyright on the film, among others the National
Film Board of Canada who are, of course, an arm of the Canadian
Government.  The above is purely interpretive on my part and is in
no way legally binding.  In the words of Lou Costello, "I don't
even know what I'm talking about."  Before sampling, re-mixing, or
re-mashing any of this the material in the film, legal counsel is
strongly recommended.

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1397511/>


					Mark R. Leeper
					mleeper at optonline.net
					Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper