Comment Re:Short Review of the Film (Score 1) 142
I didn't see much bias slipping through the cracks in this documentary, perhaps you applied your own to what you were seeing? I just went back and watched the portion with the guys from The Pirate Bay again, and it seems to be only their opinions that are coming out. If you disagree with those opinions, then you are certainly entitled to that. The documentary was trying to explore the different stances and points of view pertaining to various recording medias and for that you need to see both sides.
Notice how they had both the MPAA director and the Pirate Bay admins?
In essence, it doesn't matter what Paul McCartney feels. His original work still exists, and is unchanged. If anyone wants to go back and listen to that, they can get it almost anywhere. The creation that DJ Danger Mouse came up with used a remixed version to tell a different story. You can be as offended as you want, I don't care for the music he created either, but that doesn't mean he had no right to use his own impression to create art.
If he had created this media, and distributed it with no license, then I'd say he deserves whatever came to him from it. But, nobody profited from his distribution, and nobody lost anything either. Something new and innovative was created, however, which is the whole point of this issue.
Also, if licenses for samples were 99.9% cheaper, then people might actually purchase them and use the tools at hand, much like the guy from Creative Commons suggested. Our system is flawed, and we don't control the world - we are going to fall by the wayside quickly if we don't adapt.
Notice how they had both the MPAA director and the Pirate Bay admins?
In essence, it doesn't matter what Paul McCartney feels. His original work still exists, and is unchanged. If anyone wants to go back and listen to that, they can get it almost anywhere. The creation that DJ Danger Mouse came up with used a remixed version to tell a different story. You can be as offended as you want, I don't care for the music he created either, but that doesn't mean he had no right to use his own impression to create art.
If he had created this media, and distributed it with no license, then I'd say he deserves whatever came to him from it. But, nobody profited from his distribution, and nobody lost anything either. Something new and innovative was created, however, which is the whole point of this issue.
Also, if licenses for samples were 99.9% cheaper, then people might actually purchase them and use the tools at hand, much like the guy from Creative Commons suggested. Our system is flawed, and we don't control the world - we are going to fall by the wayside quickly if we don't adapt.
