D.I.Y.

Rip. Mix. Make. – Saving The Right To Remix

Rip-mix-makeWith the realization setting in that stopping SOPA was just the beginning rather than the end of an ongoing struggle, calls are being raised to take proactive rather than reactive responses to such legislation. Rip. Mix. Make. is a creative campaign supporting fair use of creative work in remix videos that represents one proactive approach to issues of copyright.

The campaign calls for comments to the Copyright Office regarding creative exemptions to the Digital Rights Management provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You have 8 more days to participate in this campaign.

Rip. Mix. Make. is a project of Kirby Smith, creator of the web video series "Everything is a Remix," and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the leading organizations in the fight for digital freedom.

According to the Rip. Mix. Make. website, it is mandated that every three years, "in an effort to ensure that these DRM mechanisms would not impede lawful uses of copyrighted works," the U.S. Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress hold a DMCA rulemaking proceeding to consider exemption requests:

"In the 2012 rulemaking, EFF is asking the Copyright Office…for legal protections for artists and critics who use excerpts from DVDs or downloading services to create new, remixed works. These exemptions build on and expand exemptions that EFF won on the 2009 rulemaking proceeding for jailbreakers and remix artists."

Jailbreaking-is-not-a-crime-logoA related campaign by the EFF, Jailbreaking Is Not A Crime, addresses the right to use purchased equipment as one wishes, a right that is now of even greater importance as mobile devices become ubiquitous in everyday life.

As a child I remember creating collages out of images found in magazines. Later I came to understand that such techniques were developed by modern artists who helped change our understanding of art. So when remix culture began to emerge on a more widespread level, I was surprised at the intensity of the attack on the fair use of copyrighted content in the creation of new works. Though I'm not supportive of the overly simplistic "all piracy is good" stance of some web pundits, I do feel that overly controlling use of copyright protection has undermined creativity and the development of new art forms.

As EFF Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz states:

"Overreaching copyright law can hurt Americans' free expression and innovation rights. That's what we are fighting in Congress with the Internet blacklist bills like SOPA and PIPA, and it's what we are fighting here."

You have 8 days to support Rip. Mix. Make. and Jailbreaking Is Not A Crime by adding your comments for the Copyright Office. Please do so now!

More from Musicians on Remix Culture:
DJ Spooky, That Subliminal Kid, on Remix Culture
Girl Talk on the Process of Remixing Culture

Hypebot Features Writer Clyde Smith maintains his freelance writing hub at Flux Research and music industry resources at Music Biz Blogs. To suggest topics for Hypebot, contact: clyde(at)fluxresearch(dot)com.

Share on:

9 Comments

  1. EFF is funded by Google. Stop supporting any views from this organization. Artists hate them.

  2. I smell something rotten. Under current law, anyone that takes pieces of a copy written work, and uses them to create a new work CAN LEGITIMATELY DO SO, as long as the newly created work doesn’t blatantly steal large, unchanged portions of the original. It’s called “transformative adaptation”, and it’s a fair use, meaning that you don’t even have to license the sampled works from the original creators and publishers.
    To continue the “I used to cut photos out of magazines” metaphor, look at the great collage artist Winston Smith (famous in part to his awesome Dead Kennedys record covers), who did exactly what you’re talking about, he wasn’t sued by anyone.
    No, the problem is that this (and by extension, much of the ‘remix’ fans out there) is the road to having a moron mash together two songs, not add one bit of their own creativity into it, and want to sell it like they made something, without paying a license fee to the artist, their label, or their publisher. Real remixing is legit, but this smacks to me of the popular “I like free music, therefore everything should be free” movement, which is total BS.

  3. The problem with statements like “artists hate them” is that it’s only true if you add “some.”
    The music industry is divided over these issues as is the tech industry as are artist who are sometime part of both the music and tech industry.
    This attempt to speak for large blocks of people that are not in agreement is one of the absurdities of such discussions.

  4. Winston Smith not getting sued doesn’t really address the larger questions at hand.
    You said:
    “Real remixing is legit, but this smacks to me of the popular “I like free music, therefore everything should be free” movement, which is total BS.”
    Even though I said:
    “Though I’m not supportive of the overly simplistic “all piracy is good” stance of some web pundits, I do feel that overly controlling use of copyright protection has undermined creativity and the development of new art forms.”
    So I’m assuming you’re talking about the campaign rather than my stance.

  5. Not sure anyone likes Google.
    Good point that journalists should “out” companies that are paid by google.
    thanks for the tip!!!

  6. Clyde,
    Yes, I was talking about the campaign, not your personal stance. Campaigns like this one generally look for a wedge issue, while really wanting much more that even the general consumer would turn their nose down at, seeing it as exploitative and infringing upon artists rights.
    These are complex issues, and it’s great to have a discourse about them on a place like Hypebot, where the average reader is at least a little more familiar with the intricacies of the matter at hand. That being said, I’d be very careful about lending your name or support to something that may end up going much further than you would intend them to.
    Also, on the subject of Winston Smith, (or any other artist for that matter that uses previously copy written material to create new, original works) I think my argument has plenty of merit, since artists that use those previous works to create something that is substantially new, rather than blindly cut and paste, or mash two songs together without any thought, really do have license to do so, both in the letter of the statute, and easily seen by the way the courts have adjudicated on this subject.
    To those thinking about signing up for this petition, my advice would be the following- Making remix videos is fine, and it doesn’t need a petition to support what has been in the law for a long time. Just don’t take an entire episode of your favorite show, throw new audio over it, and call it “your” creation. Instead, use some creativity, and and figure out a way that you can truly engage your perspective audience with something that takes the material you want to use and changes it in such a way that your point is illustrated, and therefore remembered and discussed, by the power of your artistic merit.

  7. “I’d be very careful about lending your name or support to something that may end up going much further than you would intend them to.”
    That’s a very good point. Especially since I have access to such a visible public forum.
    Thanks for digging back in.

Comments are closed.