WK1 Copyright Reading or the Realization of Change

I had no idea the Copyrighting Issue had gotten this bad. Perhaps the fact that I seldom watch the news or notice anything about this sort is probably reason enough. After going through parts one through three, I couldn't believe something like this had happened or had received so much attention. I do want to state I knew about copyrighting and those rights beforehand, but I didn't realize how big this has gotten.

Before I had get into the important part, I have a few things to say. I want to just thank the people who out together the "Good Copy, Bad Copy" Documentary. It was extremely well done, and it brought to light a lot of things I had never seen before. I cannot begin to say how many of those myths I believed, perhaps I am ganging up on myself but I felt really dumb for not being as knowledgable on the subject. It kills me to not be able to really tell people about it, when you don't know and are asked. I do know now and are able to tell. The "Fairytale" video featuring Disney made me laugh a lot and it was extremely more informative than I thought it was going to be.

On the serious note, I do feel in our current "remixing" culture that it is necessary for a society to thrive it must be able to recycle. There are plenty of old film and music that could be used copyright-free, and I too do not know why a system isn't in place to let people use it. If not our past will continue to gather dust and rot the selves.

I do feel that allowing others to reuse other creations is the greatest form of compliment and only benefit the author/artist, not if it is to downgrade or hurt another, the recycling of another's work should be allowed. I cannot begin to explain often I cannot find mash-up videos on Youtube or remixed music because it has been taken off or removed because they were forced too. These videos and pieces of music weren't bad or vulgar. They were forms of expressions from another that I had connected with. Isn't art all about expression?

A while back I was going through a very bad time, it was like most students at High School, it was a new school and I had no friends because I was going to a school outside of my normal district. Needless to say it was an extremely rough first year. The only thing that helped me get through it was focusing on my studies and listening to music. By that time Youtube was new and everybody was posting things on it, mostly AMV, Tributes and the sort. I had found an extremely moving video involving Disney's Stitch and RyanDan's song "Tears of an Angel". At the time, Stitch was my most favorite Disney character for many reasons, one of which was that I felt like Stitch, I felt like an alien in my school and I felt like no one liked me because I was bad or something. In any case, if you've ever heard the song "Tear of an Angel" it is one of those song that is both sad and uplifting. The moment I saw this video it made me feel like everything was going to be okay. If a movie, regardless of how it was made or who it was by, can help people, even if its just one, it should be allowed. The video has long since has been taken off, Youtube was much stricter in the early days, and I could not find the user or the video anywhere on the internet. I am better, but the video had great cuts, timing and flow and it just matched the music so well. I really think that as long as it doesn't change the "economic" value of something or isn't negative I think that a video has the potential to affect someone's life. Why take away that chance? Isn't a life worth more?

Getting off my soap box, along those lines of film, music too should be safe from harm with remixing. The Brazil music is bringing new life to old classics. I don't know how people can catch the same guitar chords from fifteen seconds of a song, when it is manipulated to sound like something else. That to me is rather excessive. If film can mix horror and comedy in B-rated films, I don't know why amateur artists can't be allowed to mix English Rock and Rap. I'm sure there is a matter of principle in all of this, and I am not saying that it can't be valid, but it doesn't make it entirely right either. Music to me is like feelings, not one person can own the right to exclusive own one emotion and no one else can have it. The copyright laws aren't as practical as they think they are. One of the videos claimed that before the 1920s Copyright lasted for about fifteen years, not seventy plus. Film and music isn't like traditional art that can be kept in a museum under lock and key or in a safe. Film and music has to be enjoyed and experienced . With the current technologies it is easy to make the same film and music to fit your needs, your moods and customize it to your preferences. Why make the original ones the only ones?

(I do realize this is becoming lengthy so I will wrap this up ^^;)

Creative Commons is out there for the new up and coming artists out there who have vision and wish to keep it. When all it takes is for a link to be passed out, no wonder it is just as easy to take it and claim it as your own. The new generation needs to know what Creative Commons is and use it properly. I use it myself on a User-Run News Site. When you post articles, you have to use a Creative Commons or you can post it. Writing articles on your free time is a great way to get your writing out there and it is about what you want it to be about. Having it stolen is not cool by any means. I know Youtube is starting to use it now too and other Digital Art sites and Photo sources, but I am not aware of any Music sites that use it yet. I wonder why that is? Creative Commons is a great way to protect yourself and protect your work. Please do not neglect this free resource.