Andrew Kilgour and Don Hogarth Class Visit Blog

Class visits by Andrew Kilgour and Don Hogarth definitely altered my perception on: music, art, piracy and copyright. Although Mr. Hogarth’s perspective was quite informative and knowledgeable, I strongly favored Mr. Kilgour’s perspective on art and copyright. Andrew Kilgour offered a very honest and comprehendible perspective on today’s copyright laws. Furthermore, he was able to portray his perspective very powerfully, without entirely criticizing the opposite side of the argument. Instead, he somewhat offers an alternative to many arguments made by those in favor of copyrighting.

Andrew Kilgour was able to convince me that the music he’s creating is a thoroughly creative process. “I believe what I’m doing is a creative process… I believe I should be compensated.” Kilgour offered a perspective I hadn’t previously thought about, but was able further convince me of the creativity put into a mixer’s music. The perspective was analyzing the affects of copyrighting and illegally downloading music on a society. This was demonstrated when he says, “I like the idea that if it doesn’t hurt anybody, then it’s okay.” The music he’s creating alongside the process in which music is being illegally downloaded doesn’t dramatically affect a society. I’m sure people in a society would prefer to have music being downloaded freely as opposed to any physical crimes that could possibly be committed.

Andrew Kilgour provided many useful examples that supported many of his ideas. One significant example Mr. Kilgour used was a piece he created from a song originally made by Dutch jazz artist, Bo Hansson. After playing the piece for the class, he continued on to say, “I don’t think Bo Hansson would think that these two songs sound the same now would he?” This statement was quite thought provoking because it offered an immediate counter-argument to what some people would argue is “stealing,” Bo Hansson’s music. “I’m not sure where my creativity begins and Bo Hansson’s creativity ends.”

Although I initially agreed with the idea of freely downloading music and producing music by mixing songs that have already been created, I was unaware of the financial aspects that created the basis of copyrighting. Mr. Kilgour quoted that, “unless it’s making a lot of money, then nobody cares.” Which extended my original understanding of how copyrighting functions. Furthermore, Andrew Kilgour successfully portrayed the passion and creativity that comes with the creation of such “illegal,” music. An example of this portrayal would be when he said, “I’m sampling Motown Records because I love Motown Records. I love the way they sound!”

Andrew Kilgour’s perspective was very fair to both sides; however, he constantly reiterated his argument. All the previously listed aspects allowed me as a listener to comprehend all of Andrew Kilgour’s points. Although Don Hogarth’s points regarding competition aspects and the long tail theory were extremely informative, they did not entirely alter my perspective on the subject. Overall, Andrew Kilgour’s perspective allowed me to alter mine so that I had the same basis of understanding that he himself did.

TED.com Questions.

TED.COM QUESTIONS:

1) What does Deborah Scranton mean by the “disconnect” she hopes to “bridge” with her documentary?

When Deborah Scranton refers to the “disconnect,” she’s referring to the poor understanding the general public has of what exactly the American forces do in Iraq.

2) How does media (television, news, documentaries, film) contribute to creating this disconnect?

Media helps create this disconnection by only mentioning the “bad,” situations (death counts) rather than what the American troops were making an attempt to accomplish in that specific situation. From there, people start assuming there is only bad situations being experienced by the American troops when really they are working hard to save lives, not waste them.

3) How can a documentary like "War Tapes" help remedy or bridge this disconnect?

War tapes give people better understanding of what exactly is going on during war scenarios. They give viewers an in-depth description of reactions and situations rather than people making their own assumptions of what is happening in Iraq.

"The Yes Men Fix the World" Blog

Basic Documentary Aspects:

The Yes Men Fix The World is a comedic documentary depicting the lives of two mischievous men: Andy Bilchbaum and Mike Bonnano. The film was directed by these two men in order to enhance the message they’re trying to portray. The significant underlying theme found in the film is that people somewhat overlook the true flaws of big-name organizations! The film explores such levels of responsibility the organizations hold. For example, the film gives an in-depth explanation of Dow’s influence on the Bhopal disaster. The film is structured in a chronological manner from earliest events (pranks) to most recent. However, the events are somewhat random only linked by the fact that they are pranks on large corporations. The structure is beneficial to the portrayal of the messages in the film because it keeps the viewer guessing the extent of the next prank.

Documentary Aspects:

This film is a great example of an expository documentary. The Yes Men incorporates a narrator to help interpret what we’re watching. The documentary is structured similar to an essay, which is a key factor in expository documentaries. Furthermore, the film presents vast amounts of information on subjects that have previously occurred, wh3ich is a commonly used aspect in several expository documentaries. The perspective being transmitted in the film is that of “The Yes Men.” (Andy Bilchbaum and Mike Bonnano) However, many other perspectives are referred to such as: corporation officials, journalists and people who have come in direct contact with the Yes Men. The documentary incorporates a lot of archival footage throughout the filming process. Footage of prank scenes are often presented along side other videos regarding subjects found in the movie. For example, the film uses direct footage from the BBC interview, where one of the Yes Men pretends he is a representative of the Dow Corporation. Another convention commonly found in the film is the use of humorous re-enactments that help maintain the viewer’s attention! A good demonstration of this would be when the two are being filmed swimming in a lake to represent their levels of confusion. I do not feel the portrayed perspective was biased. I feel that the perspective used fairly represented the public suffering from such ignorance by big-name corporations.

Strengths of the documentary:

I feel that the humorous aspects of the film made it very enjoyable to watch. Also, I felt that the documentary was very consistent in terms of their use of important archival footage. The best scene to support that statement would be the scene where the two prank-artists create the candles made of wax. The scene leading up to the main event where it shows them preparing the candles was an important piece of archival footage. It demonstrates the extreme prep-work put in before one of their unique pranks and how the hard work finalizes by being significantly humorous and beneficial to the viewer.

I feel the film incorporated a lot of strong interview scenes. For example, A very thought-provoking interview was demonstrated when Andy and Mike interview the journalist in Bhopal. This interview helped the audience get further comprehend the severity of Dow’s ignorance and how the population there isn’t supported with proper necessities that could be supplied by Dow.

How it affects our culture:

A film such as “The Yes Men Fix the World,” has significant value in today’s culture. Such a film allows the viewers to get a better understanding of corporation flaws. Furthermore, the film demonstrates how one small event can become widespread so rapidly. One positive outcome that could come from this film is people becoming significantly more aware of the situation their society is in and how it may be possible to help the societies of others. However, there are negative aspects that could form as a result of this film. Corporations could become more secure in terms of what they release to the public, meaning better securities for themselves in order to keep their businesses intact.

We Live in Public Review

“We Live in Public Blog”

General Film Information

We Live in Public is a wonderful documentary film released in 2009. Documentary filmmaker Ondi Timoner created the idea of the film. Although the presence of Timoner isn’t obvious throughout the film, one can assume that he’s very passionate about the film topic. The Initial point the film exhibits the life of Justin Harris: “the greatest internet pioneer you’ve never heard of.” However, the underlining theme the film explores relates to the evolutionary history of the public Internet world. The way in which Justin Harris connects to this theme is through the fact that he was a true pioneer in the field. Although throughout the film Justin Harris was constantly criticized, it was obvious that Harris was able to predict the future in the technology’s influence on public exposure. The documentary portrays several of Harris’ digital experiments that tested such exposure methods. The film is structured in a very chronological order, following Harris’ career from the successful beginning to his isolated end. Film altogether was brilliantly formatted. The film maker successfully portrayed great organizational skills during the production of the documentary.

Documentary Aspects

We Live in Public is an interesting example of an observational documentary. Throughout the entirety of the film, the camera acts as a bystander. The presence of the filmmaker is portrayed as a “fly on the wall,” similar to most other observational documentaries. The perspective of Justin Harris presents itself as being the most commonly referred to throughout the film. However, other perspectives such as Harris’ family and people that had come in contact with Justin Harris while he was creating his specific media and technology based idea. One major convention used during the film is the use of interviews. Many interviewees include those of Harris’ associates and family. Furthermore, the film incorporates a lot of “real people,” in order to present certain ideas with a variety of different perspectives.

Another convention used in We Live in Public is archival footage. A lot of the shots used are from scenarios shot during Harris’ former media experiments.

Strengths of the Film

I felt that the film incorporated a lot of successful thought-provoking archival footage. This strength helped the viewer better understand certain scenarios and how they connect to the underlying plot. For example, the film showed a lot of interesting shots from Justin Harris’ futuristic hotel. The film also presented a lot of good factual information. This strong factuality aspect helped portray specific ideas in the film quite well. I felt that the film had an outstanding introductory montage. This positive introduction allowed the further to get an overview of the evolutionary history of Internet exposure, which is the film’s basis. A final yet important strength found in the film is the quality of the interviews that were used. The interviews with Justin Harris were extremely interesting. They definitely helped ensure the viewer’s comprehension of specific scenarios that directly related to Justin Harris’ career progression.

Cultural Values in the Film

This film portrays our current Internet culture in a way that most people surely overlook. One positive outcome that could generate from this film is that it could help educate many viewers on a topic many people in today’s society are naïve about. However, one negative repercussion that could form as a result of this film being released is social networking sites could get the wrong idea. For example, sites like: Facebook, Twitter and MySpace could feel that this film damages their image. This film makes a significant statement about the world we currently live in and the world we are moving towards. This film implies that majority of the population today chooses to live in public as a result of social networks. Furthermore, the documentary implies that the further the population progresses into the future, the more publicized our lives will become.

All in all, I felt this film was an extremely well created documentary. I feel that Timoner’s theme successfully progresses and develops further throughout the film. I would surely recommend this film to anyone interested in seeing a very thought-provoking documentary! The thought-provoking and factual aspects of the film make it surely one of the top observational documentaries that anyone should watch!

Media Studies Blog – Rip! A remix manifesto review

Basic film aspects:

Rip! A Remix Manifesto is an outstanding film that was created roughly around 2002, but was officially released in 2008. The initial controversy that the film explores was a result of people calling the creation of mash-ups an illegal act. The film was written, directed and narrated by Brett Gaylor who is a strong believer in the idea that the world’s copyright laws are somewhat holding the progressing artists back from several strains of creativity; including the growing art of creating “mash-ups.” Brett Gaylor’s film orbits around the idea that creativity builds off of earlier works, which leads to the film going in depth on how progressing one’s creativity though former songs goes back many generations. The film is structured in a somewhat chronological order which helps better organize Gaylor’s thoughts in terms of copyright laws. Overall, all aspects of the film are expressed with great strength and one can easily note that Brett Gaylor is extremely passionate about people creating their own remixes.

Documentary aspects:

Rip! A Remix Manifesto is a brilliant example of an expository documentary. Through the use of a narrator to help guide the audience through the information being presented, persuasion methods and essay-like format; one can easily determine the category of documentary this film falls under. Throughout the entirety of the film the perspective of Brett Gaylor presents itself as being the main perspective. However, many other important perspectives are examined such as the perspective of Gregg Gillis (also widely known as Girl Talk.) The conventions that led me to the previous conclusion includes: Gaylor’s narrative explanations and perspective being expressed, several interviews with Gillis and the way in which both perspectives are solidified throughout the film. During the film, many facts are stated that help give an in-depth point of view on Gaylor and Gillis’ perspectives. For example, Gaylor introduces the obscure fact that Warner Chappell owns the copyright laws to “Happy Birthday,” which means that even the most commonly used songs still aren’t in the public domain, meaning we still have an “unhealthy,” public domain.

Strength’s of the film:

One major strength the film demonstrated is how accurate and factual it was. The amount of interesting and significant facts stated throughout the film on a regular basis made the ideas extremely easy for the audience to comprehend. A good example of strong factual statements made during the film is demonstrated in the scene that takes the audience back to the mere creation of copyright and how it encouraged an artist’s creativity, rather than demote it. I found a lot of the editing style quite creative and enjoyable. The use of collage-style images/animations really helped embellish the film’s creativity and passion. The opening scene of the film is a strong example of this collage style of animation. While he’s introducing Gregg Gillis and his drafted manifesto, the film shows several relevant pictures and short clips of Girl Talk. While doing so, Gayler is also able introduce the idea of copyright sampling to the audience. I also found the narrator’s style of speech truly helped portray the emotion and passion he put into this film.

Weaknesses of the film:

Although I found the interviewing styles used in the film quite effective, I would have enjoyed viewing the perspective of some of Gregg Gillis’ fans. As a result, I feel the film would have a greater appeal to the general public. Further more, I would have enjoyed seeing less of the reoccurring “game,” that involves the audience trying to identify specific songs. Though I found that aspect effective at the opening part of the film, I found it was somewhat repetitive when reused a few more times towards the end.

However, overall I found that this film was a well-structured documentary that I would surely encourage anyone to see if they have the time! The film helps promote its theme of encouraging the creation of remixes and the flaws of the copyright system extremely well. Through the strong factuality, creativity and thought-provoking aspects of the film, it is surely a great documentary for anyone to watch.

Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" vs. Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure" trial

Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby” vs. Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” trial

Shane Wilder

Case Summary:

After the release of Vanilla Ice’s chart-topping song known as “Ice Ice Baby,” in 1990, it came to the attention of many listeners that Ice had sampled the easily identifiable bass and piano riff from the Queen and David Bowie song entitled “Under Pressure,” originally released in 1981. Vanilla Ice credited and thanked several other artists on the release of his album. However, Vanilla Ice failed to credit the original artists of his highly popular song (Queen and David Bowie), as well as not licensing the sample used from “Under Pressure.’’ Such actions could have resulted in a serious lawsuit against Vanilla Ice, however, this case never went on trial. Although allegations were made saying that the copyright holders of Queen and Bowie’s “Under Pressure,” threatened to sue. The case was settled outside of the courtroom for an unknown sum of money; although, one can assume it was a significantly high amount. As a result, Queen was able to re-release their hit song on their album entitled “Queen’s greatest hits,” as well as being credited for the use of the distinctive riff and received royalties for the sample in Ice Ice Baby.

Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog8ou-ZepE&ob=av2e

Queen/Bowie’s “Under Pressure” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtrEN-YKLBM

Copyright laws affecting the case:

Had Vanilla Ice gone to court against the copyright holders of “Under Pressure,” he would have likely been sued for disobeying several fair use policies resulting in financial damages for infringing upon the original works made by Queen. Fair use laws allow an extremely limited amount of copyrighted material to be used, but several musicians in the past have fallen victim to such charges. A highly publicized example would be the copyright infringement case between 2 Live Crew and Roy Orbison’s conflicting versions of “Pretty Woman.”

For more information on fair use policies visit the following link!: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Although a great deal of consideration must be made before deciding the nature of the laws being broken, it was quite clear to the copyright holders that Vanilla Ice had in fact violated these laws. A settlement outside of court is an indication that Vanilla Ice conceded that he had infringed the copyright. Had the copyright holders had decided to sue, Vanilla Ice would have been charged and lost a significant amount of his earnings from the song “Ice Ice Baby.”

Personal opinion regarding the case:

Personally, I would have liked to have seen the case against Vanilla Ice decided in the courts. The distinctive riff sampled from Queen’s “Under Pressure” was a very controversial topic and the settlement does not provide a definitive answer. The extreme, yet conspicuous resolving of this suit makes it a very interesting topic to further research. However, I do find the copyright holder’s decision to have Vanilla Ice pay an undisclosed sum of money, rather than go to trial a somewhat ingenious idea. It saved a sufficient amount of money in legal expenses, generated a lot of publicity and controversy and as a result, Queen was able to re-release their hit song for even greater financial gain.