Media Analysis

                    Recently I watched a decent documentary titled, "Rip! A remix manifesto" which did have disagreeable parts admittedly. It was pretty darned biased. But did it rub me the wrong way? (If you know what I mean) Nope. The main idea of this film is that current copyright laws are a wee bit bad. That is a bit of an understatement but the film was very against copyright laws. Here in Canada copyright lasts for the creators lifetime PLUS 50 years. This is absolute poppycock! The purpose of copyright should be to allow creators to profit off of their brilliance. They can't profit if they are dead, simply. Copyright beyond the grave is silly. If you're a bit odd like me and find yourself interested in copyright laws, there is a link to a video about it by a youtuber named CGPGrey about it. Link at the bottom of the post.



                    I didn't like the first half of the film focusing on one artist, Girl Talk, it filled me with a bunch of bull crap I didn't need to know. I don't care about this creator, there are a million different examples one could use to talk about the issues with copyright law and how it makes it harder to be creative, choosing a crappy musician that does remixes isn't the most powerful of them. In fact I could make the claim that the creator chose Girl Talk because he just liked them, which is blatantly biased. It is clear that the documentary focuses on how this affects the people recreating something from the past, and not how modern copyright law affects the original creators. Aye, this is biased.

                    The beginning of the documentary russled my jimmies, to be honest, the gunk about Girl Talk left me a bit upset but once it went onto different examples I started getting more interested. The documentary did mention an issue that needed mentioning, it just wasn't the strongest film I saw.


Video by CGPGrey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_7216&feature=iv&src_vid=n1Zvv5YBjLw&v=tk862BbjWx4