Remixing Copyright Law

[roxybeast]

<center>"Remixing Copyright Law"
by Beth Isbell</center>

So I just watched this movie "RIP! A Remix Manifesto" ...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/88782/rip-a-r ... -Biography

The movie argues basically that copyright laws are preventing creativity, and in most respects are far too restrictive to the benefit of big corporations more than the public or artists, or the art itself. For the most part, I agree. To the extent, however, that the movie suggests any use should be allowed and the re-mixer should keep all the profits, I don't.

Seems like the answer here is sharing. I'm an artist. I'm a lawyer. I also do work for a major label. I have also worked with local artists and establishments doing booking or promotion. I liked some of the re-mixes in the movie. I'm glad that they are out there.

As an artist or label, you put sweat and time and money to get your idea down & to be able to pay your bills. On the remix like the one they showed with the copyright czar in the room, by the time he got done, none of the original music was recognizable, still Elvis Costello played that guitar, paid for the guitar, the studio, had the idea, the label paid for pressing, distribution, lots of money to get it out there. Girl Talk then takes all that work and remixes it. The end result is unrecognizable. On the other hand, some of Girl Talk's & the other re-mixes, obviously ripped off the best beat out of Nirvana songs, or Queen, etc. Frankly the re-mix would suck if you took out the obviously stolen riff.

But I'm not against allowing anyone to do this with pre-existing music. Let them use it however they like, re-mix, create, whatever. The only limit I would impose is that the original artist could object to "obscene" use - if you took their work and made it obscene, I think the original artist should at least be able to stop that kind of use. Not any kind of use, mind you. Not where the original artist just didn't like the new use. Only obscene use.

I suppose that another line that needs to be drawn, in a sensible way, is when they begin to profit from it. Now, it's stupid to go around suing kids downloading for free of the internet. Or streaming music or movies. So use should be allowed. No fee, no infringement. With this caveat, give the original artist credit. Playing the remix, even distributing it to friends or publicly on-line, should be permitted. The problem is when the re-mixer tries to profit off of it. "It" being other people's work. Selling tickets to his concert, selling CDs of the re-mix.

My answer would be to do away with licensing fees and any necessary pre-approval. Everybody would be free to use, re-work, re-mix, re-create, etc., as long as they acknowledged the authors of the original work. But at some point, if they are trying to profit from the re-mix using someone else's work, they should have to share the profit with the artist's whose work they are using and compensate them. That's only fair.

Remix the music. Remix the profits.

So maybe you allow distribution of up to 100 or 1000 CDs of the re-mix for free. Give it away to friends & fans. Maybe even let the re-mixer keep all the profits off the first 100 or first 1000 units. You allow it to be played on the radio, but require all artists work that is sampled in the re-mix to be acknowledged somehow by the internet or commercial radio station - maybe by tagging the song so it shows up on your radio or in a pop-up, etc. That helps drive traffic & customers to both the re-mixer, the radio station & original artist.

But after the threshold is reached & the re-mixer sells 100 or 1000 CDs or downloads (whatever limit is agreed upon), then all profits generated after that point must be fairly shared and split with all participating artists, i.e., the re-mixer AND all artists sampled. And the same kind of system for live re-mix concerts with a threshold on the number of fans that bought a ticket to the event, e.g. 5,000 or more, and lower percentages. Perhaps the re-mixer should be allowed to keep 10%-25% of all profits from re-mix CD & music sales (even substantially more for live re-mix performances), and then the remaining pot is split up among the artists sampled based on the percentage of their work actually used in the final product. And perhaps there should be some adjustment of the percentages for remixes in which you can't recognize any of the original works, compared to those that borrow and heavily rely on a very recognizable riff. Such that an arbitration panel would look at 1) the exact percentage of use of each artist in the work, and 2) adjustment for any recognizable riffs that become a major theme of the work.

With that kind of system in place, re-mixers would be free to do whatever they wanted and share whatever they create, as long as they shared a fair percentage of any profits over a certain threshold with the other artists whose work is also part of the final product.

That's my suggestion for a sensible approach to copyright law that works for everybody.

[roxybeast]

I want to add that I am not suggesting that there be no protection for the creators/owners of original works against those who post their entire work without their consent or try to profit by posting it (through advertising) or by reselling it. There still should be some period of exclusive rights for the entire work, but not 70 years plus life, or even 14 years, ... something more in the 5-10 year range would be more appropriate. But, within the limitations outlined above, copyright law should be re-worked to allow partial use in remixes or other ways which advance & foster creativity.

I also think that something needs to be done about music websites that merely re-post songs on their sites and then sell advertising to their benefit and fail to distribute any of the advertising revenue, or in some cases money generated from sales of the artists music back to the artist. As a musician, I have my music for sale on several legitimate sites. But I frequently find my songs for sale/download on other sites that I have never heard of and with whom have never entered a contract. Perhaps they entered into an agreement with one of the legitimate sites on which I post my songs for sale and are accountable to that site, and ultimately to me, by that agreement. But if they are, that is news to me. I do not know if they are or who they are. I don't know if they have sold my music and pocketed the profits or not. Artists should have the right to demand an accounting from all such sites on which their music is offered for sale without direct consent or at least require them to explain under what rights or agreements they are re-selling the artist's work. It is a growing problem, and one that needs immediate Congressional attention.