RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?
from the remix-this dept
A few years ago, we wrote about the ridiculous hoops filmmaker Brett Gaylor had to jump through in making his film, RiP: A remix manifesto. If you haven't seen it, you should. As you might imagine, it's a movie all about culture and remixing, focusing quite a bit on the artist Girl Talk, but also featuring a number of other folks you probably know, including Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig. Here's the trailer:However, as I just discovered, if you head over to YouTube, you can find the movie in pieces... but apparently part I has been disappeared down the copyright hole thanks to a copyright claim by eOne, an "independent music company."
Whether or not you think this music is original isn't the point. Because the rules of this game don't depend on who made the songs. They depend on who owns the copyright. And according to the people who do, sampling even a single note is grounds for a lawsuit. That means these kids should not be dancing. And you shouldn't be watching, because using these songs in my movie is against the rules too. And the fact that there are people out there calling my favorite artist a criminal, is exactly why I need to make this film.To be honest, I have no clue how long that clip has been down, but it does strike me as quite ironic. As far as I know neither Gaylor nor Gregg Gillis (who is Girl Talk) has been sued for infringement. And even though the movie (and Girl Talk's music) are widely available all over the place...apparently eOne decided that it couldn't have that on YouTube.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brett gaylor, cory doctorow, fair use, larry lessig, remix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Youtube can go.
There's plenty of alternatives out there now. I'm sure there will be more in the future. Vote with your content, take away those ad revenues. Show the system who's running this show. That's the only way progress will be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube can go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theives is gonna steal, haters gonna hate, law is gonna fight
thank god people in hollywood respect artists enough to negotiate contracts, pay people for their labor, and allow them to decline deals they find inequitable.
it's called, "consent". there can be no liberty, without consent.
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: theives is gonna steal, haters gonna hate, law is gonna fight
So, sorry to disappoint you, but if Hollywood worked like the Internet people would get paid. The right people would get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube can go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube can go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Youtube can go?
Of course it does. The legal system is geared so that the richest party in a dispute wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Youtube can go?
not really. the law sides with copyright holders. if the work is being used or exploited illegally it's pretty cut and dry. remixes are not protected under fair use. that's why there's an entire cottage industry dedicated to sample clearances. it's really not that hard if people make the effort to do so.
nearly three decades of hip-hop shows that it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube can go?
You're using a clip that is clearly fair use, but can't afford to defend yourself in court? You lose! Even though what you did is perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: couldn't resist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
down with everyone who illegally exploits artists, performers and songwriters for profit, wouldn't you say?
http://ethicalfan.com/2012/04/wall-of-shame-april-2012/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I couldn't agree more. Copyright is what protects artists from illegal exploitation.
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/copylike-org-evil-corporations-we-dont-like-them/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thieves and Criminals - aka RIAA/MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's refreshing
as a music documentary filmmaker myself, I know what a PITA this can be, but as a creator myself, I respect the work of others.
a little respect goes a long way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best quote ever
-Rick Cairns, Music Industry Lobbyist
This is the type of mentality that the copyleft is up against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. There was no service to legally meet her needs at the time of her lawsuit, but there is now. Her basic human nature has not changed, wanting to listen to what she wants when she wants, but the technology caught up. So exactly why is she guilty now?
This seems simple. Jamie should have to pay whatever Spotify would pay for the use of those 24 songs. Let's assume she listened to each song 20 times.
I really want to say, let the RIAA figure out the math on that, but they would arbitrarily assume she listened to each track 10 million times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW
- really? - How So? Spotify is a legally licensed services paying royalties to performers and songwriters. How were the songs licensed that Jamie Thomas was distributing and how much was she and those illegally operating providers paying performers and songwriters? Uhm, that would be ZERO.
https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/artist-exploitation-calculator-internet-edition/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling all trolls
I really want to hear from the trolls on this one. Jamie Thomas is being held accountable for listening to music for personal use while Girl Talk is PROFITING from "samples" (cue the Darth Vader music).
Why? The copyright laws were clearly meant to prevent Girl Talk not attack the consumer base. Tens of thousands of lawsuits were initiated against consumers but NONE against Girl Talk. Why?
What about RiP? Besides being a documentary, it is clearly for PROFIT and should have to pay millions in license fees, according to the law. So rally the troll troops and give us a response that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling all trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taiwan works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taiwan works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting.
(Page 3, 2nd from bottom on left). I find this oddly amusing, and yet disturbing at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting.
For those who don't want to go look, on Hulu, the film is one of the titles filed under eOne.
Issuing a false takedown "in good faith" is allowed under the DMCA, but this casts serious doubt upon eOne's intentions. On Hulu, they're claiming ownership of the film, and presumably they're the ones getting paid when people watch it there. If they are hijacking the film's profits, then actual financial harm is being done and Gaylor may have grounds for a 512(f) case.
Oh, but I'm sure it's all just an honest mistake, a computer glitch or something. Gosh darn those automated processes.
(Attn: Gaylor�talk to a lawyer about this.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rap Hip Hop Pop Girl Talk Mashup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rap Hip Hop Pop Girl Talk Mashup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use My Stuff and never worry about stupid MAFIAA Greedy Tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you sign up for a YouTube account today, the max video length is 15 mins. If you go for a certain amount of time without a copyright/vulgarity/nudity claim against your account, (In my case it was about a year) They lift the time limit and you can upload videos that are any length.
If you upload a video that uses video or music, fair use or not, you can be flagged for a copyright copyright violation. If you don't fight it, and really, who wants to, you're now on YouTube's shit list for some undetermined time. When YouTube decides you've been good for long enough, then they give you back your video length freedom.
I have a Non-Monetized YouTube account with subscribers in the hundreds, around 400 I think, and recently got a strike. It was for a video that had been on YouTube for 2-1/2 years, and had almost 80,000 views. Now my account is limited to 15 min. videos for the foreseeable future. They also warn you that if you violate again during your punishment, your account could be permanently banned.
Content owners claim copyright theft left and right, and I think they do it more often than they should because they know most people don't have either the power or the will to get into a pissing match in court.
=====================
The other thing about YouTube that bugs me is that someone will claim copyright over one of my videos, and monetize it. That's fine with me, I just want the video to stay up. But I'm also notified at the same time, that they (the content owner) could change their mind at any time and have the video removed and I will get a strike against my account. It's all these mixed signals about what is right and what is wrong to upload that bugs me.
Uploaded one video that immediately got tagged as Blocked Worldwide, and it put my account status in the red. Immediately deleted it. Not 5 mins later I checked my email and it said that the video was ok, but there would be ads on it. WTF? I didn't uploaded it again.
Anyone who has had these notices on YouTube knows how weird the wording on these things can be, and how unclear they make it as to what's ok and what's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Youtube copyright violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
Stars and Stripes Forever was written by John Phillip Sousa in 1896. It was officially recorded in 1897, and was made the national march for the US in that same year. It is in the public domain. Unless they were getting you for mechanical rights violation for the particular orchestra which recorded it after 1923, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Further more, the community band I was in that recorded stars and stripes forever with released the song as public domain, and I am sure many, if not most other bands have done the same. I'd suggest fighting that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
And even further, the official one is performed by the U.S. Marine Corps band, and is public domain, whether anyone likes that status or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
Perhaps one day, the internet may actually work FAIRLY for artists and creators as Hollywood does with respect, permission, contracts and payments.
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
You mean like fairly paying artists that have been dead for 80 years with no offspring? Yup. This is the copyright maximalist's wet dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Building on culture doesn't mean photocopying it. It means making your own version of it, improving it, learning from it and INTERPRETING IT yourself. Just putting someone else's performance on and pushing a button isn't a new performance, it's just a lazy ass way for someone with less musical talent to claim to be a musician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once light was put on this matter the cockroaches must have scattered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of eOne...
Given the 2006 release of an album came with a contest for fans to generate a video for the single, I wonder whether such things will be possible under eOne (given how they went after the remix manifesto video).
It makes me sad when artists you respect join forces with companies that issue copyright claims when that isn't the focus of the video. Makes me wonder whether the fan contest video thing, which helped the album in terms of sales, will ever be possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speaking of eOne...
you got a lot of artists to disappoint you then...
http://www.eonemusic.com/
http://www.kochdistribution.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
funny hoops a hulu
- ah mike... really? "ridiculous hoops" like licenses clearances and permission? silly boy... you do understand that's how the adult do it in Hollywood, right? They ask permission, negotiate fees, issue contracts, pay the artists and allow the artist to decline if they want too...
Mike - do you think Hollywood film producers should be able to use whatever music they want in their films without licenses or negotiating with artists? What if film and television worked like internet exploitation? You just keep making more and more arguments against artists being compensated for their work... why is that? Why are the only musicians you don't hate the ones that agree to give up their rights and lay down for you?
hmmmmmm....
here's how the adults do it, with respect:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: funny hoops a hulu
Tell you what, hurricane head. You'll only have the privilege to spam everyone with your nonsense when your sleeping giant artist friends come and vote every single one of your comments insightful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: funny hoops a hulu
LOL... afraid are we?
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/artists-know-thy-enemy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: funny hoops a hulu
The fact that you merely continue to paste the same hyperlinks over and over again is bringing your support (or lack thereof) into question. Come back when you've made some new blogposts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU don't get it.
Hmm. eOne owns the distribution rights to Rip: A Mashup manifesto.
So the producers of RIP sold out to the man for some cash.
Homework first: Then blog post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]