Class Visit - Report

After having the privilege of listening to Don Hogarth, who discussed with us about the controversy over piracy and copyright of primarily music and movies. I gave it some deep thought on if he had changed my deception of what is right and wrong about piracy and copyright. He gave me the inside view of what the music and movie business is all about, most of which was new to me. Some of his new points, were so convincing that I had to decide whether my view of piracy before was wrong. I believed that piracy was fine to an extent. Mostly because I am only one person in a big world, where for me to steal a song isn't a big deal. I did believe however that it is wrong to take somebody else's work and sell it for a profit. I used to also believe that the big recording companies behind the artists were evil people, who were greedy for money and had no appreciation for the music. I was however completely wrong about that. As I was told by Mr. Hogarth, that the people behind the big label companies are people who love music, and in most cases, are people who didn't make it with their musical talent so they took another route through music; business. It was a strong argument, which made the labels look like good people. It made me feel a bit guilty for stealing music, because it gave me less of a reason to steal music when I thought I was rebelling against the big bad record labels. Obviously now though, I couldn't use "rebelling against the big bad record labels" as an excuse. I now didn't really have any excuses for myself to use for why piracy is okay. My last only reason for why I believe it's okay for me is that my music taste is for older music. Music like Rock 'n' Roll that isn't being produced anymore by my favourite bands because they have retired or died. So for me to steal would be a bit more okay because I don't think I need to provide them with any money because they are no longer producing music. The money should be an encouragement to make more music, but if there is nothing new what's there to encourage?

So in the end, even though Mr. Don Hogarth gave me new eyes into the entertainment world, and showed me why piracy is bad. He has not convinced me that stealing music is bad because no matter what, I will still continue doing it. Mostly because I am only one person out of millions doing it, and it's much easier way to acquire the music that I like.

We Live in Public - Report

Ondi Timoner's documentary: "We Live In Public" gives a new inside view of the Internet, which controls our lives everyday (Including right now!). The film was focused on Josh Harris's predictions of the Internet and how the public will react to it. It explores what life will become because of the Internet and how focused peoples' lives will become around it. The way the film was played out was in a chronological fashion starting from the beginning of his Internet theories to escaping from everything he predicted. The first scene however came from the near end of the movie, which portrayed his life as pitiful and depressing. This type of format for the documentary was probably the best choice because the film was tracking the progression of Josh's life and the evolution of his theories. To have structured the film in any other way would have been a mistake, making it a lot more confusing.

Timoner's film was definitely an expository documentary because of some obvious key factors, which gave it away. There was a narrator directed at the viewer throughout the movie, taking us scene-to-scene, and explaining what was happening. Josh Harris's theories of the Internet in the near future were made, but they weren't there to convince us upon them. He said that they are going to happen, if we believe him or not. He didn't care if people bought his predictions or not because he was, and still is sure that they are going to happen. It is known that his predictions have been correct with the present day Internet. The film wasn't biased but it however didn't give us any other option for us interacting with the Internet.

The scene that stood out the most to me was the " Quiet We Live in Public" experiment. It wasn't my favourite scene, but it stood out the most for what it contained. It was extreme in what was going on in their cult. I couldn't believe that something of that proportion and reason actually happened. The activities that occurred in their establishment were radical. People using drugs, getting drunk, shooting guns, having open sex, showering together, and dancing all caught on tape creeped me out even though it was an experiment. It looked like some of the subjects seemed scared to be there, not enjoying it. By the end of the "experiment" I felt it was more of a wild fantasy of Josh's, then to see what the Internet could do to us.

A film like this is a good example of how our lives are starting to revolve around our computers and the Internet. It was proven in the film, on an exaggerated note, what could and might occur to us in the future. This is good for people to know what could happen because it could stop people from abuse their usage of the Internet by so much. The documentary gave me a sad thought that people are becoming more social on the Internet, while less social in real life, face-to-face.

Rip: A Remix Manifesto - Report

The documentary film Rip: A Remix Manifesto by Brett Gaylor (Writer and Director) discussed and argued the very common and up to date media conflict: copyright infringement. The narrator talked about how huge companies were suing people for using samples of their songs, to make new ones. He made mention of file sharing as well, and how people were also being sued for that. It was said that we are loosing our freedom to these companies with our artistic ways. The documentary had stated four points at the beginning and kept on returning to them, to emphases them to the audience. That way, he was able to build up on his ideas and not loose viewers' attention if he threw too much information at them.

Rip: A Remix Manifesto would be called an expository documentary film right off the bat because of some very obvious characteristics that the narrator included. The real biggy was how the film was set up like an essay. He made his introduction and then stated his thesis of four points, and provided examples and evidence. He always came back to the thesis to remind the viewer on what he was talking about. The narrator felt like he was talking directly at you, trying to convince you on his ideas, which were very convincing. His ideas were very biased though, never giving the other side of the story, but why would you when you're trying to convince somebody something.

The film had some very interesting scenes that made an impression on me. There were however, two scenes that caught my attention; ones that stood out because what they contained was truly astonishing. The first one was when GirlTalk was at his office in his robes, ranting at the big corporations. He mentioned how because of copyrights scientists can't build on ideas that could results in cures for diseases. He connected this to the progression of music, which made so much sense because the exact same thing is happening. The other scene was located in Brazil and it was said that Brazil had got the recipe to cure AIDS. They were mass producing it and saving peoples lives, but then the US wanted to sue them for providing cheaper medicine for dyeing people. For some people it's all about the money, but it should initially be for the greater good of the people. Those two examples were both related back to the mash up of music, and it made a lot more sense to me through those examples.

Out of the whole movie I believe there was only one scene that was irrelevant to the main idea of the Brett Gaylor's film. It was the first interview of the movie, which had Brett questioning Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. I felt that we didn't learn anything new from her that wasn't obvious; like how it is illegal to use others' music to create your own. I felt there was no need for it to be used except for one exception. During the interview Brett showed her a video of GirlTalk making music. The video showed how song samples could be taken and transformed into another piece of music. Showing that was a good idea because that's what the documentary is based on, so it only made sense to teach the viewer what they were doing before they went into more depth.

Bruce Willis in Universal Studios' 12 Monkeys, which looks very similar to Woods'.
Lebbeus Wood's Neomechanical Tower (Upper) Chamber.

High Profile Copyright Infringement Case Study

In 1987, the artist Lebbeus Wood drew a piece of artwork that depicted a chair lifted above the ground, which faced a metal sphere. The chair was in a large chamber with an abandoned look to it. The drawing would be called Neomechanical Tower (Upper) Chamber. Now in 1995, Universal Studies showcased the movie 12 Monkeys starring Bruce Willis. And of course Lebbeus would attend this movie and notice something strangely similar with some of his own work. The elevated chair in the room! Woods would contact the studio to tell what they had done. The director, Terry Gilliam admitted to having discussed it with producer, Charles Roven and production designer, Jeffrey Beecroft. Once in court, the judge declared that Universal Studios had in fact copied Woods' drawing. The court claimed, "the movie had copied Woods' drawing in striking detail." The punishment, if it weren't for Wood's good humour, would have been for Universal Studios to recall every single 12 Monkeys reel and remove the scene of the chair. But because Wood was a sensible person, he instead took hefty pay cheque.

Under the Canadian Copyright Act, in Part 1 3. (1) (e) it is stated that "in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work" is an act against the copyright act. Universal Studio's 12 Monkeys did exactly that, against Lebbeus Wood's Neomechanical Tower (Upper) Chamber. With the judge's decision, it was without a doubt that Universal had infringed on this legislator.

After reading this legal dispute and giving it some thought, it was clearly obvious that Universal Studios had in fact copied Woods. I wonder why though, that huge companies like Universal Studios don't just ask for permission to use someone else's work? If those actions were made prior to the production, millions of dollars could have been saved on court dollars and payment to the original producer.