Copyright Criminals

In the internet age, the "remix culture" born with Dadaist painters and poets in 30s, and re-born musically in the late 70s and 80s, with the hiphop which would dominate for the next 40 years, has fully blossomed today, when cheap, available tech means that preteen kids routinely chop up pre-existing music, video, visuals, text etc, in meme culture, or relted forms like "Youtube Poops", "Nightwave", or even just the humble mix-tape. Hell, even pre-existing snippets of computer code are re-mixed and used for newb purposes by "script kiddies", or forms like "Machima", where video game assets are re-used, as a cheap, DIY way to make movies.

Copywrite law was created for a long-past age, before even the casette-recorder existed, when copying and re-arranging art just wasn't even physically possible, for most kind of media.

Disney became the media giant it now is, by taking advantage of pre-existing art (Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, etc), taking advantage of the fact that copywrite vanished after just 25 years, in the era when Disney Studios got rich... but now Disney are one of the most vicious prosecutors of small/young artists, trying to do EXACTLY what Walt Disney did, when he made art from 50yo kid's stories. Now, Disney used their power, to lobby government to perpetually extend the time before copywrite lapses. If you re-mix 90yo Disney characters or stories, even obscure ones they barely use, Disney will sue into bankruptcy, for doing EXACTLY what Walt Disney did, with other artist's work that was 40 years younger, at the time.

Copywrite needs to be DRASTICALLY re-written, to allow small/young artists the same opportunities of artists in the past. An obvious, common-sense idea would be looking the length of time copywrite holds, which Disney extended from 25 years after publication, up to 75, 90, sometimes 125 years after publication, and insterad REDUCE it, in keeping with our fast-paced culture; Copywrite should lapse after 15 years, maybe even 10 or 5 years, to allow other artists to remix and re-use that media, while original artist keeps collecting royalties on the original recordings. This wouldn't significantly impct trhe ORIGINAL artistt's income, but it WOULD give young/small artists a huge amount more freedom, and opportnity to make a name.

The laws today were written to suit big business; The classic albums that pioneered the use of sampling, from the 80s like P. E's "Nation of Millions..." or Beastie Boys "Pauls Boutique" would be 100% impossible for a band starting out today, or even a multimillionaire, established star, because the legal hoops for those sample-rich LP's would just be impossible to negotiate.

Laws should be written, to ALLOW and PROTECT small, emerging artists gaining a foothold, where they can contribute to the economy, and the culture; Not to lock small artists out, in order to protect old, established wealth/big business. Technology means copywrite law is getting less and less enforcable, anyway, because any kid with a $150 phone can re-mix music and video into a new and unique (and copywrite-infringing) artwork, and anonymously distribute it around the world, seconds after it's creation, all without leaving their bedroom.

The main impact that copywrite law really has, aprt from shackling small artists, is making law-breaking routine for millions, probably billions of people who consume media online, often not even aware that something as simple as a jpeg file of some dopey meme may be technically illegal.

Copywrite law (in it's current form) is an outrdated relic, that's been abused by the lobbying power of big business, to criminalise normal people, stifle artists, and make the super-wealthy, even wealthier.

This is an entirely illogical "documentary." Firstly if I think it is ok if people take my car without permission it doesn't mean I get to decide everyone else has to accept their car being stolen.

For every Clyde Stubblefield that thinks no copyright is ok there are hundreds of creative persons and artists who say no, since that is their only source of income for their work. Incidentally had Stubblefield gotten proper royalties from the hip hop artists who took his work he might not have died destitute.

Beyond that this documentary is full of misportrayals of the law and the case law. Even the writer ridiculously claimed his trademarking of ":freedom of expression showed problems in US IPO law, when in fact his allowed trademark over that was preliminarily granted, extremely narrow and thrown out. So he didn't prove you can trademarked anything. He showed actually the law worked since he was unable to sue anyone. Essentially all McLeod proved was he doesn't really know a thing about IP law.

This documentary was made in the spirit of hip hop, by people who obviously know, understand, love and appreciate hip hop and the ideas that are presented by and through it. It was touching to see Clyde Stubblefield - James Brown's ex drummer - who was the creator of funky drummer - the most sampled piece of music - who is happy for others using his creation, does not care about the money, and only as a side note mentions that some gratitude would have been appropriate, but doesn't make a big deal out of it. It was also nice to hear views which are against sampling, with one of them being something like "sampling isn't creative, but in anyway the law should not be involved". Highly recommended to anyone who likes Hip-Hop, Rap, R&B or even popular music.