Rip: A Remix Manifesto review

The documentary Rip: A Remix Manifesto is designed to change the way we think about the remixing phenomenon. It is defending remixes, and claims that the copyright laws have gotten out of control, and if we do nothing about these laws then we will soon be living in a dystopian future where the government regulates everything we do. The documentary was created in mostly a chronological structure, as filmmaker Brett Gaylor occasionally references instances in the past to accentuate his point. The film follows Gaylor, as he attempts to find reasoning for the current copyrighting laws.

It is told from the perspective of Brett Gaylor, and it draws on some of his own experiences, and also references some major events in the history of mass media (examples include but are not limited to: the invention of the printing press, the creation of Napster, etc.). In the documentary, audiences watch Gaylor travel to Disneyland, Stanford University, and many other places to meet with media literate people to try to find a plausible solution to this media dilemma we have. The people he meets with, including author Lawrence Lessig; provide valuable insight into this conundrum. This factor, along with many others, classifies this documentary as a reflexive one.

Many of his arguments involve the fact that if you aren’t able to take samples from other artists, Brett Gaylor should be jailed for including some samples of artists in his documentary. He also uses some clips from other TV shows and movies, and argues that the same penalty inflicted on artists such as Girl Talk, should be used on him. It’s a risky argument, but he is not just referring to himself here. He’s saying that many prominent TV shows use samples of other shows or movies on a daily basis. Examples of this include The Daily Show, or The Colbert Report, or even, albeit rarely, shows on CNN, or Fox News. Gaylor has a valid argument here, and this leads back to the ultimate question: Where does the copyright law draw the line? Why can a show like CNN Newsroom use clips of past events, but Girl Talk get sued whenever he uses a loop from an old Elvis Presley song? It all seems very reasonable, and Brett Gaylor, along with many other fans, are anxiously waiting for a feasible, equitable answer to this problem that will keep everyone happy. But, until that answer is found, there will be many arguments over this issue.

One thing that I didn’t particularly enjoy about Brett Gaylor’s documentary was his official ‘remix manifesto’ list. It bugged me because it makes Gaylor sound a little bit conceded; in the sense that only he knows what is wrong with the copyright laws. Also, he seems to take this belief he has to some extremes (for example, the fines handed out to those who used Napster). I realize his intent is to shock the audience, but it bugs me because I don’t like that whole philosophy of shocking someone into agreeing with you. While I didn’t really like the genre of music being defended, I do have to tip my hat off to Brett Gaylor for making a compelling documentary that is sure to be a turning point of his budding career as a filmmaker.