Remix Manifesto Feedback Questions

1. The film focuses on copyright and the fight between the creative minority and corporate majority.
RIP delivers a fiercely persuasive message to its audience. Copyright law is enabling the ongoing privatisation of contemporary culture to the detriment of society; and that the open exchange of creative content is pivotal for continued community growth in the digital era.What do you think about current law of Copyright?

I think that the current law of Copyright started out with good intentions to protect and credit the creators, but like all things, it became corrupted by the greed of big businesses that saw it as an opportunity to make money off creators in the name of protecting their clients. I think that it quickly devolved into something that was taken too far and its purpose has become ultimately twisted to serve the companies that don't actually have the best interest of their clients in mind, just lining their pockets in the name of their clients.

2. Remember the Gaylor's manifesto? 1. Culture always builds on the past, 2. The past always tried to control the future. 3. Our future is becoming less free, 4. To build free societies, you must limit the control of the past. He uses these to shape and create a compelling argument for the reconsideration of Copyright and the reclaiming of contemporary digital culture. What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Gaylor?

I agree mostly with Gaylor because his manifesto is a model that can be applied to many cultural and moral issues in the past. I have noticed that something like this always comes back around in a vicious cycle, just with a different core issue. 

3. The film unfortunately does not address this question.
If no one pays for the use of artists' work, then how could artist survive? How do you claim your work that is worth anything? This film is distributed with the the business model of selling the documentary at no fixed price. Although it has been successfully adopted across a wide variety of online content providers, what do you think about the advantages and disadvantages of this model?

As an artist, I've noticed that it's difficult enough right now with the current version of the Copyright law to survive and make a living with such a career. Other people rarely pay even minimum wage per hour spent on artwork right now; for example, I got offered $5 on a piece that I had spent about 1 week consistently working on it. You could argue why pay anyone for anything because there could always be someone unfairly taking advantage of that system. If nothing is worth anything anymore then what is the use of money?

An advantage of this could be that this model advances the creative limits of the society to transcend the current restrictions of the Copyright law.

4. Your general thoughts on the film?

While most of the documentary seemed like a good idea, I don't know how well it would work in this current social climate and attitude. Additionally, it concerns me because I do not know how I would survive as an artist. This model could devalue the work that any creator creates; musicians, artists, writers, soft sciences, liberal arts could all become worthless and seen as hobbies or societal obligations to beautify the society without any real benefits. I could see this as another step toward getting rid of liberal arts majors, stop teaching music and art in schools, and encouraging people to enter in STEM fields in order to make money and support themselves and their family.