Feedback Crit

+ Very informative animation

+ Nice graphics

+ Lots of facts and figures

+ Obviously done a lot of research into the subject

+ Liked how the graphic product was not print based

+ It was interesting

- Not sure whether you are focussing on the internet or sampling copyright

+ Good/clear presentation skills

+ Interesting subject + broad range of research with the categories of interest

+ Different + interesting outcome

+ Good Presenting 

+ Experimental video

-Could have been more visual

-Tedious

+ Focussed 

+ Passionate

+ Good research

+ Interesting Solution

+ Well Constructed

+ Good Colours

+ Good Narration!

+ Good/Clear presentation skills

+ Interesting subject & broad range of research within the categories of interest

+ Different & interesting outcome

Final Video

I am pretty happy with the final result. The bright visuals really make the block of information easier to digest, particularly the timeline, which is hard to picture without a diagram.

Animating

The first important task was to separate each of the vectors into individual files ready for import. Layer separation is important for sections of an illustration that need to be animated separately. Within After Effects I separated these files into section1,2 and 3 to declutter my workspace. Secondly I needed to chart which time different elements need to be in shot (as it needed to be in sync with the voiceover.) 

After this, it was a case of setting aside a long day to animate in the way I had planned. This was a fairly straightforward process, but became a little frustrating to keep the audi and visuals exactly in time.  I learnt a shortcut that saved me a heap of time towards the end of this project; cmd, shift + D. This splts whatever you are working with in the timeline and moves the remainder of the track to a new layer, where it can be deleted. Prior to this I had been manually entering the in and out points of each element. 

Vectors Completed

I've produced all the vectors needed to animate. This afternoon I need to move them into separate Illustrator files in preparation for after effects. 

The script

I have decided to create an animated video to give an overview of the history of copyright and it relates to the development of filesharing and hiphop/remix culture. Kind of a visual essay.

Taking information from the sources I have recorded on this blog, I collated a script to act as a voiceover for the animation:

We live in a time when the culture we enjoy, and that of our parents, is owned and controlled by corporations. Copyright law has made engaging with the images and sound we consume difficult at best, and illegal at worst. Cut and Paste culture is at risk, but it wasn't always this way…

Prior to the Statute of Anne, all works were in the public domain. If you wanted to take someone's story and make a play from it, you could. If you wanted to create a translation,  you could. Culture was advanced by building on the work that came before it.

The Statute of Anne was passed as an act of parliament in 1710, putting into place a copyright term of 14 years for creative works, with an option to renew for another 14 if the author was still alive.
However, at this time, only 5% of works were registered, meaning that the other 95% immediately fell into the public domain and could be freely built upon by other creators.

Today, most books fall out of print within a year and then are traded in the used book market, outside copyright regulation and financial gain for the publisher. Despite this, they are still protected by copyright law for a large term that limits how their content can be used.

In the first 100 years of the formation of the USA, the term of C was changed only once. In 1831, the initial term doubled from 14 to 28, making the maximum copyright protection 42 years.

Then in 1909, the renewal term also  jumped to 28 years, totalling 56 years maximum

This remained the norm until 1962, at which point congress began a path that would see them extended the terms of copyright 11 times. They rose again, and again, and again, and again, and again until 1976, when it rested at the life of the author plus 50 years or 75 years from creation of works owned by corporations.

Here, its important to mention a technology that was fundamentally at odds with culture being locked down for this length of time: sampling.
Sampling became the new, most efficient creative tool to transform and build upon works of the past  to create new statements. Hip-hop pioneers utilised it to craft their style by sampling and manipulating the breaks from old funk records. Allegedly, the most sampled drum beat ever is Clyde Stubblefield's performance on James Brown's Funky Drummer.

Hip hop begin as a largely performance based art, centring around local parties. In this context, sampling recorded music did not need the permission of the recording artist. By the 80s, Hip-hop became a carefully crafted genre centred around recording. Utilising increasingly inventive combinations of sampling and rapping, this use went largely unregulated until hip hop started to reach mainstream appeal and became big business, attracting lawyers of the record companies to enforce copyright law and demand compensation for the "clearing" of samples. This made the legal application of the technique difficult for the vast majority of DJs and artists who had been practising within the genre without a high level of financial success.

In 1998, the "Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (as it delays the time until micky mouse will enter the public domain) expanded terms by 20 years. Making the copyright protection on works the life of the author plus 70 years or 120 years after creation for work owned by a corporation. From 1973-2003 the average term has nearly tripled  from 32.3 years to 95 as a result. In addition to this, all works serve the max term, regardless of whether the creator wants this to be the case and C exists even if the author does not mark the work copyright or pass available copies

It is in this period of time that a technology evolved which would challenge and change the role of copyright forever: The internet. On the internet, everything is copy. When you send an email, it is generating a copy, when you load a webpage, it is downloading a copy to your computer. Copyright was no longer only just applicable to publishing of protected work, it was applicable to every digital act that invokes content; textual, visual or audible. This is why giving a CD to friend is a legal act but the same activity online is a crime. With this massive increase in the control that could be had over copyrighted works, also came protocols such as bittorent and P2P that allowed super efficient sharing of files directly between network users, without the need of a centralised, corporate broadcaster. control was both given and taken away from both sides. The internet also put an end to the age of passive consumers. Now everyone is involved in the amateur (i.e. for fun) critique, interaction and production of content.

In 2001, Creative Commons was born to seek to redress the situation that creators could not chose how their work is used. Instead of "all rights reserved", it lets users (or licencors) make use of a "some rights reserved" licence. For example to grant permission for work to be remixed or manipulated for noncommercial uses. The implementation of these tools is creating a healthy, and growing digital commons, full of work that can be consumed, copied and built upon within the boundaries of copyright law.

The story doesn't have to end here though. All of this video, from the sound to the vectors and the AfterEffects file have been made freely available under CC0 No Rights Reserved licence, meaning anyone can take this work, remix and build upon it for any purpose they see fit. Enjoy.

Voice-over recorded and EQ'd 

RIP: A Remix Manifesto

A highly stylised film on the topic of copyright law vs free culture told through the lens of the music of Girl Talk, who constructs songs purely by sampling and combining songs together into mammoth new productions.




Notes:
Girl Talk- We will look back at people having a problem with collaging two songs together as silly

Equivalent to taking the notes from a Beatles song, rearranging them, putting it through a new pedal and calling it your own song.

Muddy Waters - copied to make - Led Zeppelin Whle Lot of Love
This May Be The Last Time (The Staple Singers) came from an old traditional blues song -> The Last Time (Rolling Stones) -> The Last Time (instrumental) (Mike Oldfield) -> Bittersweet Symphony (The Verve)

Happy Birthday - 1851 but dtill not in the public domain, owned by Warner Chapel

Girl Talk - Feed the Animals

21 songs sampled in 3 mins
4 corporations - 21k per song each = $210,000
+ labels = $262,500
x12 = $4m to clear his album
If any of the 85 corporations involved don't like mashups, they could pull the plug

The printing press could spread ideas around the world

Statute of Anne - 14 Years

Keep inventing better copy machines

Napster offered $1bn for a licence to allow its users to continue sharing - Major labels said no.

Cory Doctorow - In 18 months, we had built the greatest library in history.
50 million Napster users - enough to change the outcome of an election

Chuck D - The power goes back to the people

C. Doctorow - We all pretend we're not copyright criminals, like masterbation in Victorian times.

Lessig - We can't make our kids passive, we can only make them pirates.

So extreme to apply this to developing nations

FAIR USE - Quoting in your essay. Use it to make your argument.
Should have the same right with film.

No way the labels will allow use of their music in something that criticises them.

It is literacy for a new generation.
People participate in the creation and recreation of their culture

Walt Disney Creativity - Updating the public domain

Air Pirates - Mouse Liberation front
Very important Babies / Disney

Extended c terms
Created before 1923

If you want to be a mashup artist like Walt Disney, you have to work outside the law.

The debate in 2000

I found this televised debate from 2000, when Napster was at its peak. Even 12 years later, the discussion doesn't seem to have moved on a great deal, with little resolution between the two sides of the argument. A lot of what Chuck D and Lars professes actually come true though. internet distrobution does facilite great things for emerging artists and encourages a more exposed, global music marketplace. It also does allow grey-area entrepreneurs to profit from distributing copyrighted material, both film (which wasn't possible at this time) and music.

RIAA and MPAA

I have focussed heavily on the proponents of free culture without properly exploring the other side of the argument, the main supporters of which are the US lobby groups RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).

From http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major music companies. Its members are the music labels that comprise the most vibrant record industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate recorded music produced and sold in the United States.

From http://www.mpaa.org/about 

The Motion Picture Association of America

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA), together with the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and MPAA's other subsidiaries and affiliates, serves as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries in the United States and around the world. MPAA's members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. We are a proud champion of intellectual property rights, free and fair trade, innovative consumer choices, freedom of expression and the enduring power of movies to enrich and enhance people's lives.

As representatives of all major US content distributors, they defend vehemently against any threat to the revenue of these corporations. It is through these umbrella organisations that much of the current copyright legislation was advised on, and they continue to take eforts to put an end to the free distrobution of music online. 

Lilly allen - It's not alright

In 2009, Lilly Allen called out against filesharing, showing support for a government-backed scheme to limit the internet access of repeat offenders. This involved starting a blog;"It's not alright", which showed newpaper cuttings and posted articles to demonstrate the damage of filesharing. It has  long since been removed.

Here's an outline of the plans by the Guardian:
"After a three-hour meeting in London, the Featured Artists Coalition, which emerged as a breakaway lobby group in the summer, backed the government's proposed introduction of "technical measures" to combat the rising tide of copyright theft. If they ignore two warning letters, persistent illegal filesharers should have their broadband connections throttled "to a level which would render filesharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access", according to a statement after the meeting."

From the same article:
Earlier in the day Lily Allen, one of the few younger artists to speak out against online piracy, said she was dropping her public campaign against copyright theft because "the abuse was getting too much". She had set up a blog "It's Not Alright" – in reference to her first album Alright, Still - collating artists' views after her comments that "filesharing is a disaster" for new talent. In its statement last night the FAC, expressed support for Allen and condemned "the vitriol that has been directed at her in recent days"

"we have a responsibility to put these options forward for people to debate and consider because we want to see talent protected. We want to see talent properly compensated otherwise that talent is not going to produce the music that people want to hear in this country."

 John Petter, head of BT's consumer division, warned yesterday that suspending the connections of users caught illegally downloading copyrighted files could cost £1m a day – or £25 a year for every broadband customer in the country. BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor, however, angrily retorted that BT's figures are "unsubstantiated" and the company should "recognise that reducing illegal use of its network is a cost of running a socially responsible business".

Ironically, the response is this:

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That's not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalises BT's many customers who use the internet legally," he said.

Torrentfreak contacts Allen to point out that she distributes mixtapes on her website that are themselves in breach of copyright legislation. Her response was that “I made those mixtapes 5 years ago, I didn’t have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then…,”

They comment on this:

"In fact, the old Lily from 5 years ago is not too different from the hundreds and thousands of casual file-sharers today. Copyright is a complex issue and the boundaries between right/wrong and illegal/legal are not always that clear. Instead of waging a war against file-sharers on the blog she could have tried to pass her knowledge about copyright on to the public."

This is an excellent summary of the whole event in song form by Dan Bull.

Excerpt: "Put music back in the hands of the people; make the majors and amateurs equal. If anything labels strangle the freedom you claim they're saving by banning this evil. That's the actual reason; you see; and please don't compare sharing to stealing - I've not took anything off you, I'm just spreading love for what you do. Sownloaded you songs for free, then I bought my mom your CD. She likes it too, she keeps telling me, all because I pirated an mp3."

Lessig - Free Culture

I'm only half way, but this has been a really helpful book in terms of research, pointing me to court cases, practical case studies and statistics that support the need to re-consider the scope and function of copyright law.

From the introduction:

"A free culture is not a culture without property, or in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in which creators don't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom."

Case Studies:

Disney - Walt Disney took stories from the public domain and added his own 'magic' though animation and sound recording (e.g. Snow White, Cinderella, Bambi). Steam boat Willie (which sparked Mickey Mouse as a character) came as a direct parody of Steamboat Bill, a film released in the same year.  After his death, the Disney Corporation were one of the strongest campaigners to change the term of copyright to limit those who want to create in the same way today. 

Betamax - Disney and Universal shut down Sony's Betamax as it had the potential to record copyrighted content. Today this functionality is considered fine. 

Interesting facts:

For its first 100 years, America did not honour foreign copyrights. (But today are tough on developing nations flouting theirs) 

If every download were a lost sale...then the industry would have suffered a 100% drop in sales last year, not 7.6

Fears of technology:

Valenti - Tapeworms 

Quotes:

Thomas Jefferson - 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.'

Timeline:

Public Domain born 1774

EFF: Electronic Frontier Foundation

An exceptionally well respected organisation on the internet, EFF does more than anybody to combat injustice between governments and users of the internet:

From https://www.eff.org/about

"About EFF:

From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990—well before the Internet was on most people's radar—and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.

Blending the expertise of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF achieves significant victories on behalf of consumers and the general public. EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations. By mobilizing more than 140,000 concerned citizens through our Action Center, EFF beats back bad legislation. In addition to advising policymakers, EFF educates the press and public.

EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit and depends on your support to continue successfully defending your digital rights. Litigation is particularly expensive; because two-thirds of our budget comes from
individual donors, every contribution is critical to helping EFF fight—and win—more cases."


For my project I am particularly interested in their work in one particular area:


"Intellectual Property


You'd like to move the tracks you bought from Rhapsody to a personal stereo like Apple's iPod but the copy protection prevents you. Creating or using the software necessary to make the switch could put you behind bars.

You want to distribute your band's music but the P2P system that's revolutionized your ability to reach listeners is being sued out of existence a company claiming to own a patent to all streaming media technology is demanding licensing fees and record labels are breathing down your neck over the samples you've looped.

You want to criticize Vivendi Universal on your website or blog but the plug's been pulled on your "vivendisucks" domain name because of its unflattering reference to the company's trademark.

EFF fights to preserve balance and ensure that the Internet and digital technologies continue to empower you as a consumer creator innovator scholar and citizen."

Reflection on the project so far

I've come across so much by this point, I feel I need a post to pause and categorise what I have seen and explore so options for my graphic representation of these histories.

All the histories involved in this dialogue so far:

Technology
History of computer technology
History of the internet
History of recording technology
History of Broadcasting

Music
History of popular music
History of music business models
History of filesharing
History of hip hop
History of dance music

Law
History of copyright
History of alternative copyright systems
History of physical property law
History of protest (in the areas of free speech and privacy)
History of the public domain

Popular culture
History of Disney
History of mash-up/remixing

All of these concepts have met in the modern area to create a range of huge issues that essentially stem from this statement:
In the greatest time for human creativity in history, we also have the least access to cultural material in history. 

Creators are not able to transparently (and legally) build on the culture of their times, or allow others the right to build upon their works as has been our tradition in every other period of human history.



Graphic outcome
This project is about awareness-raising, and so I think a print-based product would be missing the point as this is a conflict of the computer age. I should be taking the wealth of cultural material I have come across, editing and adding my own creativity to it and passing it on to allow others to do the same.

I think an animation to simplify what is an endlessly complex issue would be perhaps most appropriate. I may want to make use of the rich body of open material I have found through this project. Steal This Film opens up all of its footage and text transcripts under a share-alike CC licence (meaning anyone can build upon it). There is a great deal of content on Flickr, Wikimedia, youtube etc on the issue, which is released under similar licences.

CC0 Licensing

One Creative Commons licence I am particularly interested in is CC0, which allows authors to waive their copyright protection and allow their work to be used for any purpose by anybody, reinstating a public domain. Here are the details from creativecommons.org:

About CC0 — “No Rights Reserved”

CC0 enables scientists, educators, artists and other creators and owners of copyright- or database-protected content to waive those interests in their works and thereby place them as completely as possible in the public domain, so that others may freely build upon, enhance and reuse the works for any purposes without restriction under copyright or database law.

In contrast to CC’s licenses that allow copyright holders to choose from a range of permissions while retaining their copyright, CC0 empowers yet another choice altogether – the choice to opt out of copyright and database protection, and the exclusive rights automatically granted to creators – the “no rights reserved” alternative to our licenses.

The Problem

Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.

A Solution

CC0 helps solve this problem by giving creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law. CC0 is a universal instrument that is not adapted to the laws of any particular legal jurisdiction, similar to many open source software licenses. And while no tool, not even CC0, can guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction, we believe it provides the best and most complete alternative for contributing a work to the public domain given the many complex and diverse copyright and database systems around the world.

Using CC0

Unlike the Public Domain Mark, CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world. However, it can be used to waive copyright and database rights to the extent you may have these rights in your work under the laws of at least one jurisdiction, even if your work is free of restrictions in others. Doing so clarifies the status of your work unambiguously worldwide and facilitates reuse.

You should only apply CC0 to your own work, unless you have the necessary rights to apply CC0 to another person’s work.

Cory Doctorow

Internet Rights activist and science fiction author, Doctorow talks about the limitations of an internet of suspicion, where sofware monitors your activities and your files just incase you are violating copyright. He creates quite a good analogy for DRM, equating it to a book publisher telling you that you can only put their book on shelves bought from a particular shop. This talk is a particularly fascinating one, and more succinct than many of his others that I have seen.

Creative Commons

I've never actually taken the time to digest and understand what Creative Commons actually means, although I have seen its licences used all over the internet. Through my research avenues, I kept finding it mentioned again and again, so I had to investigate. I was blown away by the simplicity with with the issues I have been exploring are actually being solved today at a grassroots level. I think it would be against the spirit of this project if whatever graphic product I produced wasn't released entirely under CC for anyone to make use of.



Taken from the Creativecommons.org website:

What our licenses do

The Creative Commons copyright licenses and tools forge a balance inside the traditional “all rights reserved” setting that copyright law creates. Our tools give everyone from individual creators to large companies and institutions a simple, standardized way to grant copyright permissions to their creative work. The combination of our tools and our users is a vast and growing digital commons, a pool of content that can be copied, distributed, edited, remixed, and built upon, all within the boundaries of copyright law.

How do CC licenses operate?

CC licenses take effect and are operative only when applied to a work in which a copyright exists, and even then only when a particular use of the work is prohibited by copyright. This means that CC license terms and conditions are not triggered by a use permitted under any applicable exceptions and limitations to copyright, nor do license terms and conditions apply to elements of a licensed work that are in the public domain. This also means that CC licenses do not contractually impose restrictions on uses of a work where there is no underlying copyright. This feature (and others) distinguish CC licenses from some other open licenses like the ODbL and ODC-BY, both of which are intended to impose contractual conditions and restrictions on the reuse of databases in jurisdictions where there is no underlying copyright or sui generis database right.

All CC licenses are non-exclusive -- creators and owners can enter into additional, different licensing arrangements for the same work at any time, a practice known as dual-licensing. Note, however, that once granted, CC licenses are not revocable in the absence of a breach, and even then the license is terminated only as to the particular licensee.

License design and rationale

All Creative Commons licenses have many important features in common. Every license helps creators — we call them licensors if they use our tools — retain copyright while allowing others to copy, distribute, and make some uses of their work — at least non-commercially. Every Creative Commons license also ensures licensors get the credit for their work they deserve. Every Creative Commons license works around the world and lasts as long as applicable copyright lasts (because they are built on copyright). These common features serve as the baseline, on top of which licensors can choose to grant additional permissions when deciding how they want their work to be used.

A Creative Commons licensor answers a few simple questions on the path to choosing a license — first, do I want to allow commercial use or not, and then second, do I want to allow derivative works or not? If a licensor decides to allow derivative works, she may also choose to require that anyone who uses the work — we call them licensees — to make that new work available under the same license terms. We call this idea “ShareAlike” and it is one of the mechanisms that (if chosen) helps the digital commons grow over time. ShareAlike is inspired by the GNU General Public License, used by many free and open source software projects.

Searching for open content is an important function enabled by our approach. You can use Googleto search for Creative Commons content, look for pictures at Flickr, albums at Jamendo, and general media at spinxpress. The Wikimedia Commons, the multimedia repository of Wikipedia, is a core user of our licenses as well.

The Licenses

Attribution
CC BY

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-ShareAlike
CC BY-SA

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.

View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NoDerivs
CC BY-ND

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NonCommercial
CC BY-NC

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC BY-NC-SA

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

View License Deed | View Legal Code

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

View License Deed | View Legal Code


A Brief History of Creative Commons:

Lawrence Lessig TED Lecture

This heartfelt speech by Lessig is a well-framed argument and the solution of a balanced system of copyright, all without mentioning his own Creative Commons licensing system. Some words I particularly like from this:

"It's not about left and right, its about right and wrong"

There is extremism on both sides e.g.

Auto-takedown of content from Youtube which has any C material in it, 
without considering fair use at all. 

A generation who rejects copyright and believes the law be a nuisance

Balance
Policy makers will not understand until its too late. Solution:

We don't have a public domain, so artists should choose how their content is used and businesses should embrace this through neutral platforms. More free can then compete with less free.

(On a generation of creators)
"We made mixtapes, they remix. We watched TV, they make TV."
You cant kill the instinct technology produces, you can only criminalise it.

"We can't make our kids passive again, we can only make them pirates"

Hip Hop Culture

The feel of hip hop was based on sampling the drum breaks of funk records. The documentary Scratch gave a good view of this from the turntablists point of view, and PBS' Copyright Criminals used production crew The Bomb Squad as an example of this process in classic Hip-Hop. I decided it would be beneficial to get some insight into the early development of this style and the cultural identify that surrounded it. The following documentaries were excellent:

WU: The Story of the Wu Tang Clan

This film explores the development of the rap scene in Staton Island and the individual talent that came together to form the Wu Tang Clan. It charts their expansion into the biggest rap crew ever, all the while showing how Hip-hop as a whole had evolved over this time. It provides a really genuine perspective, using interviews with the members, archive footage as well as friends and family to give an insight into their world.

Dave Chappelle's Block Party



A much more light-hearted and contemporary hip-hop film. In this, comedian Dave Chappelle creates a block party in his hometown, inviting huge artists like Mos Def and Talib Kweli (Black Star), Common, Kanye West, Erikah Badu, Dead Prez, John Legend, Jill Scott and the Fugees. It is a film born of a real love of the genre and the passion of the artists and fans.

Lawrence Lessig - Free Culture

Lessig is a lawyer specialising in copyright law and notable for his libertarian stance on such issues. In free culture, he goes into great detail to explain the history of copyright law and how we can learn from the lessons of the past. More importantly for this project, he looks at how technology is changing and the gap between what consumers are doing and what corporations think they should be doing. I've taken a lot of information from this, and a lot of notes which I'll post here for convenience.

Stallman - Free software, Free Society

"A free culture is not a culture without property, it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom."

Justice Douglas - "common sense revolts at the idea"

Armstrong FM radio

Most, if they recognised this change, would reject it. Yet most don't even see the change that the internet has introduced.

For the first time in our tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share culture fall within the reach of the law.

Free culture vs permission culture

I don't believe in gods, digital or otherwise

"if value, then right"
NYU law professor Rochelle Drey fuss

...The distinction between republishing someone's work on the one hand and building upon or transforming the work on the other. Copyright law at its birth had only publishing as its concern; copyright law today regulates both.

Richard Florida - "Rise of the creative class" + regulation of the creative class

"Disney's great genius, his spark of creativity, was built upon the work of others."

Rip, mix and burn

The average term of copyright used to be 30 years

Public Domain

Doujiushi -> committees that review Doujiushi reject any comic that is merely a copy

If Disney animators had stole a set of pencils to draw Steamboat Willie, we'd have no hesitation in condemning that taking as wrong.

"Walt Diney creativity"

"Excuse me Albert Einstein, but may I have permission to use your theory of relativity to show that you were wrong about quantum physics" - permission culture

Photography - image rights
Media literacy

One learns to write with images by making them and reflecting upon what one has created

Blogs - reasoned discourse - Asynchronous debate - No financial conflict of interest

Open source software FS/OSS

Ed Fellen of Princeton -> The "right to tinker"

For the first 100 years, America did not honour foreign copyrights (yet they persecute developing nations for doing the same)

If every download was a lost sale...then the industry would have suffered a 100% drop in sales last year, not 7.6%

Disney and universal shut down Sony's Betamax as it had the potential to copyright content.

Tapeworms - Valenti

Thomas Jefferson - "He who recieves an idea from me...

The publisherss...had as much concern for authors as a cattle rancher has for cattle

Public Domain born 1774
Fair use

"Cut and paste" culture

12:58
Tue 17 July

In the first 10 years of America:
14 year term if registered before becoming public domain. If the author was alive, they could renew this at the end for another 14.

Only 5% of works were actually registered under the federal copyright regime. Hence 95% immediately went into the public domain. 1790-1800

Today, most books fall out of print within a year and then used books are traded outside copyright regulation

In the first 100 years of the Republic, the term of C was changed once. In 1831, the term increaed from 28 to 42 by making the initial term 28 instead of 14. Then in 1909, the renewal term jumped to 28 years, totalling 56 years max

Starting 1962, congress extended the terms 11 times + twice extended the future C terms

In 1998, the "Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" expanded terms by 20 years. In the 12 years after this, 1m patents will become public but 0 copyrights will. All works after 1978 (now before this also) only serve the max term.
Life + 50 years for authors
75 years for corporations

After the SB Act the term became 95 years
From 1973-2003 the average term jumped from 32.3 years to 95 as a result

C exists even if you don't mark your work copyright and if you don't pass available copies

Due to the nature of a digital network, every use can be considered another copy. This means ebooks are treated differently. If the C owner says you can only read it once a month this would be legally acceptable.

"Unregulated uses were an important part of free culture before the internet".

Copyrigt code

DMCA regulated devices that were designed to circumvent copyright protection.

Aibohack -"fair use" cannot be a defense to the DMCA

"The question is not whether the use of the copyright material was a copyright violation. The question was whether a copyright protection system was circumvented."

Cartoon 1981 - Paul Conrad

Guns can be used for good or bad -> copyright circumvention kills nobody

Technology can erase fair use

Code becomes law // Rules are built into tech, violating these rules is also breaking the law.

MPAA Stats

mpaa-infographic

Copyright Criminals - PBS

This documentary for the american Public Broadcasting Service is one of the best I have seen and covers a lot of different ground from the likes of RIP and Good Copy Bad Copy by looking at the issue through the lens of Hip-hop. It does well to maintain an air of impartiality, while demonstrating well the frustration of artists who spend years developing their creative process, only to be told it was illegal and sued. Now their creativity is considerably more limited and filled with worry than it was in the late 80s and eary 90s.

I particularly liked the comparison between samplers and photographers. In response to the argument that sampling is lazy and less artful than playing a musical instrument, the interviewee retorts that painting a picture is more artful than taking a photograph of something, but that doesn't stop photography being a powerful creative tool.

RIP: A Remix Manifesto on Q

This interview with the creator of RIP: A Remix Manifesto summarises and expands on many of the points he makes in the film. As well as raising some additional avenues of research I had not considered. Here are some notes from this:

Negative lens - culture jammers 

Multi-nationals don't need to ask our permission to bombard us with images

Yet we have to ask permission of them.

Legal risks:

As filmmakers we feel like we're not breaking the law, we're working within what the law should be

Sypic ottawa. Law depends on who you ask. If you're commenting on the original work it is Fair use. Nobody has made a film about this. 

Disney Corp are litigious. But Walt Disney was the biggest remix artists of all, brought old work to life for a new generation. Mikey mouse was a parody. The year Mickey Mouse was about to fall into the public domain they lobbied US Congress  to have copyright terms extended so that nobody could do to Disney what he had done to the Brothers Grimm and other creators. 

Girl Talk would have to pay $4m dollars to clear his album. But it is impossible to guess.

There should be space in the law for this kind of creativity. It almost brings us back to original forms of culture where people contributed a lot more. Only a chosen few can sample. Kanye can sample, Beck can sample because they already on a record label and money can easily be exchanged between labels. 

Amateur creativity should be unregulated. 11 year old at a workshop made a mash-up and it was immediately taken down by Youtube. Warner Bros wouldn't give him the time of day, nor would he have the money to interest them. 

Mash-up and Web 2.0 creates MORE opportunities for revenue. If you sing a Madonna song, you can pay a royalty to the song writer, if you sample, there is no easy process for paying for this. 

Girl Talk has a hard time selling his music. Plus he could be sued. 

John Oswald - Sony had all his CDs destroyed. 

So much of their lives take place on the internet. Everything you do on the internet is a copy. So the same laws that used to apply to corporations now apply to people. For previous generations, culture is something to be consumed, not manipulated. 

Bestie Boys, Public Enemy pave the way. 

We lose the ability to comment on culture without using the material we are criticising.