I think Lessig has some really
good points in the passage we read this last weekend. Those points being that
the booksellers or publishers as we know of them today, were creating
monopolies because of all the so called “Creative Material” that they owned; which
in their case was the material from authors that worked hard to create those
stories. I found this very interesting because how is what they did there;
profiting from material they had no right to other than buying the original
from the author and providing a small cut to the original author, different
from how re-mixers do things today.
I
guess what I’m saying is yes remixing takes skill, it takes musical genius to
mix those songs into something that becomes a new thing all together but in the
end the argument is still did they have the right to use that material. Did
they create anything themselves other than a sometimes shot in the dark of two
songs being mixed together? Then what does the original artist have to see for their
hard work. As the video on Friday, Copyright
Criminals (2009), brought up with the drummer that most of the remixing
population uses “Where is his credit or an acknowledgement of ‘Thank you for
your beats’”?
But
bringing back to the text I see how the error then with the booksellers applies
to now, as the publishers or music record labels say “The song is my property”.
How is the song their property and in this fact I agree with Lessig that these
industries don’t care about the author of the piece of music or the book, they
care about losing money and staying in control of the material. It’s an overall
scheme that the industry runs and it’s disturbing that they get away with what
they do on a daily basis and make millions doing so.
So really shouldn't the right of the song be
placed in the Artists hands, or to the band that created the album, what do
they see from the album in the long run other than a short “Hey thanks for
making us a crap ton of money, here is your % cut”. Where does the line get
drawn on copyright is my question, where should the line get drawn for those
that had no part in creating the music or book in the profit from the selling
of that creative material?
I really like the way you talk about remixing as more of a talent. We don't often think of remixers as people who posses talent. Mostly we discuss these people simply talking about and asking how what they did was wrong, or could it be okay? We debate about whether or not their work is legal. So it is very interesting the way you put it, because some of my favorite musical artists are ones who actually remix songs and redo others' works!
ReplyDelete