Bootleg Culture

Like the previous article, I agree that parts of copyright are outdated and need to be reinvented, but I do not believe the solution is all together getting rid of copyright. If, right now, we have the problem that people "with the financial resources to pay licensing fees...get to make songs with sampling", if we were to completely get rid of copyright, I believe that the people with the most power and influence will be the only ones making money off a work. If someone creates a work, and someone else decides they like it and want to get all the credit for it, copyright still exists in that context to protect the original creator. Without copyright, if some nobody made a work and were trying to make money off their creation and some big name, like Beyonce decided that they wanted to take that piece and claim it as their own, more people would buy the Beyonce "made" piece than the nobody made piece. A lot of artists live off what they create, and while a lot of them have enough money to support a small country, not all of them do.

Below I have a youtube of a Star Trek/Battlestar Galatica mashup. It takes the 2009 Star Trek voice over and adds it to scenes from Battlestar Galatica. One of the things I sometimes wonder about, particularly with "trailer" mashups, is how do people know what is real? Someone unfamilar with Battlestar Galatica and Star Trek, might think that's really what Star Trek looks like.

Is copyright outdated?

In part I do believe that copyright is outdated. I think the methods used to enact copyright are outdated, as evidenced by McLeod's example of the Grey Album--the EMI tried to shut people down, but they ultimately weren't able to dissuade people from hosting the album on their websites. With the amount of different media outlets that are out there, it becomes harder and harder to regulate copyright because of the sheer mass of people out there breaking copyright, and the amount of different outlets to get information out there.

I do think the idea of copyright is still very valid. I do believe that artists are entitled to some amount of compensation for their works when other people use them, and I do believe that it is the artist's right to have some control over how their work is used.

I like the idea of mashups and remixes--one of my favorite bands is Legion of Doom, and they take two different songs and blend them together one on top of the other. Some of their work is absolutely beautiful. All of their work is not for profit and is only available through webhosting. Legion of Doom take two different artist's work, similar to the Jay-Z and Beatles remix, and creates a new, unique song. I think mashups and remixes can be a really great way to create new and interesting art, but if not used properly it makes it difficult for artists to keep control over their own work. Recently there was a little controversy over the new Guitar Hero. There are clips of an avatar made in Kurt Cobain's image singing songs that Kurt was would never have agreed to. His widow, Courtney Love, sued because she felt it was disrespectful to Kurt's memory to have his likeness singing songs he was opposed to.

That's where I think things can definitely go wrong with mashups and remixes-- you risk using an artist's creation, an artist's baby, essentially, in a way they may have never have wanted it. It is disrespectful to the artist to use their art in a manner they would never have wanted it.

Here is a youtube of a Legion of Doom song where they take a song by Dashboard Confessional and put it over a song by Brand New.