Despite the laws, numerous underground hip hop and electronic/dance music artists continue to sample. One of the more recent outcomes of this practice is the "mash up." In 2003, the San Francisco based Rebel DJs started Club Booty, the first regular mash up club in the U.S. Their tracks often combine disparate artists like Le Tigre and Missy Elliot on the track "Decepta-Freak-On" or Kanye West Vs. Beethoven on the disco mash up "Beethoven's Fifth Gold Digger." On the subject of copyright and the illegalities of mash ups they argue: No one would ever get to experience the joy or creativity of that piece of music because you know going through the proper channels in today's day and age is nearly impossible to get clearance, and ultimately is money changing hands here? In 99% of all mash ups there is no commerce, so…really copyright law shouldn't be getting in the way because copyright exists so people can make money (personal interview, May 2005). The practical position of the Rebel DJs echoes Lessig's point that copyright "does more harm than good when regulating (as it regulates just now) noncommercial copying and, especially, noncommercial transformation" (2004, p. 172) which it is increasingly doing. In other words, copyright should (and until recently did) include the freedom to build upon, or sample, the work of others. At the same time that the Rebel DJs continue to make their mash ups—so far lawsuit free—a growing number of artists are choosing to record and distribute their music independent of major labels in order to control what is done with their work. For instance, the San Francisco based indie band Karmacoda advocates the remixing of their music. The band hosted a remix contest online where it encouraged artists to remix their 2003 release "Evidence." A number of the remixes from artists as far away as Germany were compiled and released under the title "Altered Evidence" in 2004. Band members B. and Heather Pierce comment on the process: Well, we were thinking, what would other people do with our music and take it places that we wouldn't expect it to go and its inspiration? You sort of get a feedback effect of that and we've actually sent tracks out, sent our songs out and got them back and said oh wow...so it's sort of like inspirational. You get as much if not more back from what you put out there (personal interview, May 2005). When it comes to copyright law they also believe that laws should be in place to prevent people from stealing their work but that there should be a middle ground: ...we're open to the idea of sharing because it's so easy to communicate with people anywhere in the world almost instantaneously now for us, just ask us and if it's the right thing it doesn't have to be about money, you know. In this age, for independent artists the most important thing is exposure, is for people to know who you are. A great remixer or artist can take your material and make it even better. t's still part of you (personal interview, May 2005). Many artists and academics express similar sentiments that encourage the transformative reuse of culture. They believe that copyright laws protect artists, their work, and should ensure the livelihood of the commons, but feel that current laws are having the opposite effect of what they were originally designed to do. The result of the extremism of current copyright terms is a shrinking public domain and lockdown on creativity. What is important to remember is that remix and sampling are not new to digital culture. Historically they have always been practiced but are in danger of disappearing if advocates do not create and support work that pushes boundaries and challenges existing policies. Opponents of remixing and sampling argue that the outcomes of this modus operandi are insipid acts of piracy. On the other hand, proponents are working diligently to illustrate the differences between piracy and the creative acts that legitimately build upon or transform copyrighted work. The perseverance of artists to continue their work is essential to the longevity of remixing, sampling, and the outcomes that ensue from these practices. The traveling Illegal Art show is one space that has showcased boundary pushing visual, audio, video, and other multi-media art, with respect to copyright. Another means by which creators can take a stand is by learning about alternative ways in which to register and copyright their work. One alternative to the all-encompassing copyright system discussed thus far is Creative Commons. A non-profit organization, Creative Commons "provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry." (www.creativecommons.org). In other words, a Creative Commons license allows artists to give away some of their (copy)rights to the public. When registering work with Creative Commons artists are given a list from which they can choose the rights and conditions under which they want others to be able to use their work. For instance, the Noncommercial license allows others to copy, distribute, display, and perform an artist's work and derivative works based up on it for noncommercial purposes only, and the Share Alike license sanctions the distribution of derivative works but only under a license identical to the one governing the original work (creativecommons.org/about/licenses). Until recently, it was much easier to legally sample and engage in the practice of remix culture in music, visual arts, and even film. It is only in the past few decades that there has been such a drastic erosion of available goods in the public domain from which individuals could build upon. As current and new laws take hold it is important for us to educate ourselves on the consequences they pose so that we are aware of how changes to the law affect not only the evolution of art making, but also how we can use the digital tools at our disposal to continue participating in the production of culture. |
|||