I enjoyed the Lessig video and thought he really hit the important issues right on the head. I would complete disagree with those of you that say there is too much ‘emphisis’ on remixing. Lessing makes the case that remixing should be possible and those that do it should not be criminals. Even though in the present climate, the RIAA, MPAA and our elected officials would like nothing more.

This issue goes way beyond remixing IMHO. The Internet has rendered traditional business models obsolete, and those with stacks of cash are fighting and suing everyone in sight in order to make it go back how it was instead of learning how to adapt.

Lessig says something like “We are all living against the law.” I feel like this is scary proposition, but I immediately understood. The culture that we produce, that the musicians, artists and writers produce, I believe, belongs to everyone. Do it for the love, not the money.

The first tie I noticed the change in the air was when napster took the digital media file-sharing concept to a mass-media level. Since then obviously many things have changed. Digital media is the next significant method of media distribution. Even the highly touted, newly crowned champion of HD media - Blu-ray is only a few months from obsolescence. It should change as much as it can to stay abreast of consumer desire. While digital media piracy is still prevalent, by offering consumers a way to download music legally, the number of law-abiding citizens who can afford to do so, pay for and download their music with a clear conscience.

With the onset of file sharing and digital media, entirely new derivative genres have appeared on the intarwebs:

Machinima - the art form whereby amateur filmakers take video engine game footage and create their own episodic content not unlike a bizarre form of puppetry:

Red vs Blue is probably the most famous example of Machinima (and most profitable) The video game engine used is borrowed, but the scripts are original, and in the case of Red vs Blue, often hilarious.

,a href=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=jT2uLZGCJTU&feature=PlayList&p=20FBEB9BD70830BC&index=5″ rel=”nofollow”>Anime Music Videos (commonly called AMVs) are a huge, albeit niche/cult genre that uses edited versions of anime and sets them to music. The music and video is all borrowed, but the prowess of some of the editors is beyond compare.

Another example of borrowed material made anew through the magic of editing is called Recuts. See some of your favorite films of old recreated.

There’s plenty of originality to be found in works of a derivative nature.

Like Aranya and Sol, I worry a bit that with all this emphasis on remixing our content will become less fresh and that we will become lazy. But with Creative Commons and the examples of Radiohead and Metallica mentioned above, it seems that the truly creative people are moving in the direction of establishing a system of sharing. Money complicates things, of course. We are creators too, and while most of us don’t need to get rich, we probably want to be able to live off of our creating.

Like Josh … I want to get paid for everything I do, for the most part. For blogging though … I guess I have no expectations to be paid for what I write or redistribute. But, either way, the way copyright laws are now, Journalist can’t really make money off the internet. If I could get paid for every time something I’ve written has been mentioned or posted on another website or blog … I could possibly not be in school right now and be living the happy life (well … maybe not, but…).

As far as remixing and stuff … “there is nothing new under the sun,” right? Or is there? Is there a balance for artists and writers in regards to copyright laws? Do we want other people gaining fame and fortune over our work, even if it’s only a portion of it? And don’t we all use the work of others to act as a muse for our own to some extent?

As a journalist and writer, I always want to make sure my work is attributed to me, and is accurately presented…and that I get paid for it if I can.

As a blogger, I need to make sure the material I am in most cases redistributing is presented accurately and fairly, and that I am allowed to reproduce it…and get paid for it if I can.

When I wrote my senior thesis as an undergrad, I interviewed and worked with an organization that I quoted some materials they provided to me. We were going to be working on a book collaboratively, but after I completed my work and presented it to my source, they ended up assuming my idea, and never following through on the book idea.

Knowing that my work is on file at our university library, and that I have several copies, however, put my mind to rest. But what worries me is how EFF interprets fact and idea copying.

“Copyright only protects the expression — the combination of words and structure that expresses the factual information — not the facts themselves.”

Because my thesis was predicated on factual content, taken, and presented in a certain way, does that mean that they could turn around and present the same information in a different structure?

Or would simply citing my material in their presentation be legal?

The miles of red tape, along with complicated case law will only be able to tell. Copyright law is changing on a case-by-case basis in the court system, but I feel the liabilities should rely on the original producer of the work. Wait, but what about the person they work for, and are being paid by?

Shit.

So correct me if I’m wrong: Our kids are bucking big-brother read-only norms, thanks in part to this new, flexible and customizable platform, and it is vital that our kids are allowed to create and remix their transformative (not copied) “art” in an open community without being told they are criminals?

Yeah? Okay. Sure. Fine. “You’re not criminals.” Make all the ma-na-ma-na videos you want. New-fangled karaoke for all!

But be careful…content transformation isn’t always transformative in a good way. One of the most successful business models in music over the last 20 years has been remixing. It’s not new. From Vanilla-Ice ripping Queen/Bowie to Puff Daddy ripping every ’70s soul track every recorded.

For a while, everybody was doing it - from Jermain Dupri to Kanye West, and hip-hop music has suffered. Some people say it’s dead, and I am inclined to agree, and that is very sad because there was poetry and musicianship underneath much of that mess.

Why dead? Because there is no longer an emphasis on NEW. Hip hop music has regressed so far that the most recent machinations are remixed nursery rhymes.

Look at movies and theater…so many remakes.

Partly the fault of the business people in control? Yes. Money talks. But in our culture, there isn’t enough emphasis on NEW.

Little government money for music and crayola in classrooms.
Programs are cut left and right.
Generations of artists never develop.

Much like bloggers need mainstream media - “remix art” needs original art.

Someone needs to write “ma na ma na,” “I Will Survive,” and “Endless Love.”

The copyright question is meaningless if there is nothing new to copyright.

This would never happen, but part of me want copyright law made more strict to deter talented artists from lazily reshaping new works when they could be making their own.