So Amazing, So Illegal
Jamie gave me a nice writeup of a mashup where the writer shares some random youtube mashup video that you maybe have seen before called the Mother of all Funk Chords. It's a pretty amazing artistic achievement and probably worth at least a quick glance of your time. But the larger point should be taken seriously. He says "If your reaction to this crate of magic is 'Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who "did this" with our IP?' instead of, 'Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,' it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page. Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like."
it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.
Can anyone explain what the hell this means?
So you can laugh all you want to...
I don't speak for most people, but I personally can't stand mashups. I don't find anything entertaining about it, there's maybe three I've heard out of all that have been good. It falls into the same group as artists like 50 cent taking "Crazy Train" and putting it into a song as background vocals or whoever did the same to "Riders on the storm."
In short, get off my lawn!
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
nobody would ever produce music, art, or literature. Which is also why works need to be protected for a century or longer.
Theirs goes, 'ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.' Ours goes, 'ding ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.'
The future of entertainment seems so old (so old).
it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page. Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like
Right! Wait. What?
I write music... well, modest little piano pieces. I haven't uploaded any videos of me playing to youtube (yet), but I would be THRILLED to find that my stuff had been reworked into something like this.
Then again, I have considered issuing my tunes as open source (there's some places to do that online.)
This space available.
I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.
You thought wrong. This is commonly thrown around /. as if it's gospel, but the fact is there's no magic number that qualifies something as fair use.
Traditionally, the fair use defense is based on four factors, one of which is the "amount" or "substantiality" of the work that's infringed. That language is as murky as it sounds. The movie 12 Monkeys got in trouble for showing less than a minute of a weird looking chair, and if things hadn't been worked out, it could have been enjoined from distribution. If you're unlucky enough to have infringed the "heart" of the work, even if it's only 5% overall, you might not have a fair use defense.
There are a number of cases that involve sampling, and the way things have gone, it seems that the current consensus is "license it, or don't sample." Hell, even if you do license, you might not be off the hook - remember the whole "Bittersweet Symphony" debacle?
It's unfortunate, but this is the current state of things.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
We try not to use that kind of insensitive wording anymore.
You mean "words of ethnic descent".
But the future of entertainment is not a 320x240 flash video with a "mashup" of random songs.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Hi, Bureau of Political Insanity here. I'm afraid your phrase "words of ethnic descent" is no longer the preferred phrase. We believe that this is still too much of a segregation between "words of ethnic descent" and "words of non-ethnic descent."
From now on all words, regardless of hue, palette, or Pantone reference, shall simply be refered to as "words." For instance, these words are just words, they are not "coloured words", "words of ethnic descent", or "words which have been highlighted because they signify something different to any other word. They are just as useful as the other words, and we applaud their contribution to society without at all decreasing the contributions from all other words, regardless of origin."
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Don't get me wrong, I think this kind of stuff is AWESOME. But it's not novel.
Emergency Broadcast Network was doing this kind of stuff in the early 90s, and released a record, Telecommunication Breakdown, that was all made in this style. They even wrote software to do it, and U2 had them do the ZooTV footage for one of their 1990s tours (including the alternate "Numb" video with machinery.) There are videos online. Their work was also a critique of the role of media, marketing, broadcast media, etc., so there was an extra political layer in there.
That said, I think the remixing of video samples in the same way that we remixed audio samples in the past is definitely an obvious (yet delicious) advance in the way we make music... or video... or art or whatever you want to call it.
Here's a link to get you started on EBN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_Network
Creed.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.