copyRIGHT
Intellectual property. That is the name of the game within the copy right, and their job is to place restrictions on the general public who feel entitled to mix up media. After all, somebody worked hard to produce that song/video/photograph, and ultimately deserves credit where credit is due. America IS a country based on capitalism, and if big business is losing its grip on its product, we could very well spiral into a post apocolyptic society where 12 year old kids can remix music without being personally persecuted by some of the largest companies in the world. And obviously nobody wants that. But, seriously- sarcasm aside, the copy right does present some valid points. Artists (theoretically) work hard to produce their music, and as musicians, what they make is directly tied to their livelyhoods. So before we go out and make a mash up of Jay Z and Michael Jackson, we should take a moment to ask ourselves, am I taking away something from somebody else without their permission? Would my remix offend/disturb/depress the original artist? I don't know about Jay Z, but I have a feeling that Mr. Jackson wouldn't be bothered quite as much. ( too soon?)
copyLEFT.
The artists that produce the music that people make mash ups of are filthy rich. They could buy me, my parents and my dog 10 times over and have enough money left to build us a nice desert island on which to spend the rest of our days. When you are a millionaire ( or billionaire, for that matter) a couple hundred thousand dollars here and there doesn't seem that important. This is the 21st century, people. We need to move away from a culture dominated by big business and corporations. After all, look where that got us the last time. As we move into an era dominated by the internet, the iphone, and every other kind of wireless streaming device out there, media gets harder and harder to control. People have more freedom to express themselves, to help shape the way that our culture moves. Positive change only occurs when society collaborates, and remixes allow the public to do just that. Intellectual property is all about greed. Somebody got rich off of somebody else, decided that he ( or she) really liked his brand new maserati, and spent the rest of his days plotting ways to keep other people from profiting off of his "intellectual property." But mash up artists aren't really profiting are they? Girl Talk, the biggest mash up artist in the business, gives his songs away for free. And free songs never hurt anybody.
So where do I stand?
I know that I originally said that I wanted to lay out both sides of the story, but I am admittedly a little biased. I consider myself very liberal, and I am sure my posts indicate to you where I stand. However, while I don't agree with/ like the ideas of the copy right, I can understand their point of view. If there is ever going to be harmony between these two sides of the mash up wars, both are going to have to step into the others shoes. I know what I think, but that doesn't necessarily make my opinion right. Do research, find out for yourself, make your own decision, and shout your beliefs to the world. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about?
No comments:
Post a Comment