If "Freedom" is the name of a song, who do I pay to make it the name of my blog post?

TOPIC 1

The documentary "RIP: A Remix Manifesto" is not really about freedom of expression, or even the entire First Amendment. Yes, it has a lot of undertones and elements of this, but downloading music for personal use has nothing to do with freedom of expression, nor would exactly copying and profiting from a new invention be self-expression (beyond expressing your desire to make money). RIP is really about an entirely free society in which ideas are, once released, merely a part of the "collective conscious." Anyone can tap in and make it their own.

There is bound to be backlash against this assertion. Our society doesn't exactly have a "mi casa, tu casa" mentality. We have an, "I do what I have to to get mine" mentality. Some people have gotten theirs (even if they want more). When the rules are changed halfway through and people are informed that nothing is really theirs, they are less likely to see the universal truth in that statement and more likely to get a little butthurt. Butthurt people with lots of money are a force to contend with.

The most concerning things I saw in the documentary had to do with this concept. Begrudging a woman 24 songs and charging tens of thousands of dollars in lawsuits is overboard. Telling kids they can go to jail for 5 years for downloading songs is not a great use of our energy (or already ridiculously overcrowded jail cells). I don't think even those involved in the prison-industrial complex can bullshit their way into that being logical. I remember being a 12 year old girl downloading *N Sync on Napster and making dance routines with my friends. Possibly, I could have continued these activities with the kids in juvy, had push come to shove.

Also, copyrighting Ayahuasca (or any other plant or living thing) is disgusting. To Amazonian indigenous peoples, that is sacred spirit medicine. Whether or not you agree with that philosophy, that's something capitalism shouldn't touch. Also, when patents on scientific ideas stop scientific progress, obviously our economic system has overgrown its utility. Our corporate brand of capitalism is crippling us.

Of course, this trickles down into freedom of expression, as guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. Parody, satire, and reimagingings of cultural icons is an integral part of the critical thinking process of the artist (which, by the way, is a term I believe encompasses every human being in one way or another). An engaged mind assimilates information and says, "Wait a minute. This is what you think you all see, but this is what it really looks like to me." This can range from bold political statement to funny YouTube video. On a trajectory closer to the latter, Girl Talk is a nauseatingly unoriginal and boring "musician," but still, this glorified DJ isn't claiming that he wrote these songs; he's claiming that he smashed them together into something he hopes is unexpected and ironic. On the more political tip, Dan O'Neil isn't pretending that he invented Mickey Mouse; that would totally defeat the purpose of using the character. Pop culture and advertisements surround us - of COURSE they will be subject matter for our art. The game is whether people accept it (as they usually do, as you can see from the myriad of mash-ups, sampling, silly youtube videos, etc) or if they come after you, claiming you have somehow wronged them.

Girl Talk is a very blatant example because his music is hardly changed from the originals, but sampling has been going on for a LONG time. Before even digital technology existed, people covered other people's songs, they paid homage to other musicians by using some of the lyrics or instrumentation as a small part of their own song, and they reworked other musician's songs to make something different. Once recording technology became available, the playground gates burst open. I personally LOVE a lot of music that uses sampling, which is basically the entire basis for music genres like hip-hop, drum n base, jungle, dubstep, neosoul, and pop. Where is the line when it becomes your own? In great, original works of art, the original samples give way to something completely different than the original.

Consider these examples:

 

It's a nice little romantic song, but do you recognize that little riff at the beginning? Of course you do! It's been in a ton of songs, none of which are even considered the same genre as this song. Like these below:

(Note: can't condone the stuff they say about women in that last one, it's just an example of the sample. Luckily, I think rap is starting to move a bit away from this mentality)

Here is another example of ways a song has been sampled to create something fairly different:

This is the original. A really nice instrumental. Some hip hop artists have used this to make some pretty nice beats:

Even more considerations are the extensive use of funk and soul samples like the "Think break" and the "Amen break" in DnB and other electronic and pop songs.

There are many reasons to sample. They include:

1) To pay homage to to original artist. In the case of hip hop, "crate digging" is a big thing. It's understood that these are samples, so digging in the crates (of records) and using cheap drum machines (like an 808 for example) was how hip hop was made possible in its beginnings.
2) To overcome social stratification. Like I said, a lot of these drum machines, turntables, etc, were pretty cheap. Way cheaper than buying traditional instruments and drumsets, and of course more convenient and portable. Sampling evened the playing field and allowed black artists to reclaim "ownership" (WITHOUT resorting to copyright laws) of music that was originally made by black artists but was being covered (for profit) by white musicians. This is an example of the system self-regulating due to creativity, rather than being regulated from overhead (of course, it's really complicated, and I like Led Zeppelin and the Beatles as much as the next person, but I'm just highlighting this little piece of that puzzle).
3) To create satire or parody of the original work or the culture which produced it...from exposing perceived evils to simply "putting them in a headlock and pouring a beer over their head"

All of these reasons seem well within the range of being reasonable, but when does it go too far? It goes to far when the origin is not transparent. Maybe not everyone knows that their favorite Dr. Dre song is extensively sampled from Parliament, but it's not something that Dr. Dre would hide or deny. Whether or not you think it is different and creative enough is something for the listener to explore. However, when Vanilla Ice was originally sued for using a David Bowie song, one could say, "Hey Bowie, don't you already have quite a bit of cash? Is it necessary to make a stink about this?" But apparently it was because Vanilla Ice denied having sampled the song...what? Anyone who tries to claim that other people's work took not part in their creative process, though it is actually the primary feature, has taken their sampling too far.

TOPIC 2

I don't have a strong opinion on Wikileaks itself because I have not spent a lot of time on the actual site. However, the concept of making available classified information, as long as it truly does go through the rigorous process he said in the video (ie. verify authenticity AND make sure it does not put anyone in harm's way), then I think it is a very good and necessary service. It is especially needed right now when our news is so skewed, our major media is so tightly controlled by a handful or corporations, and our news is often geared toward entertaining, sensational stories, rather than important ones. Julian Assage's mission to "nurture victims" (in his own combative way) is much more noble than the motives which caused the information to be classified in the first place.

For example, I believe that Wikileaks (not singlehandedly, but as a large part) was part of the reason that people became so thoroughly informed about Guananamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. We also learned of various chemical warfare means which we were using in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When those wars started, it was in the wake of 9/11. Approval for the war was high and Middle Easterners were considered a derelict and backwards race (I would know - I am one). However, as more and more videos and documents were leaked which reminded people of the humanity of Arabs and the inhumanity of torture, approval began to wane. Now, I think the majority of people would have preferred we not begin the war in, at least, Iraq, as it had nothing to do with anything at the time.

Currently, I believe free speech and expression are at an all time high AND an all low, simultaneously. I say it is high because I find that the courts usually rule in favor of free speech and have not often upheld vague concepts like "obscenity" and "sedition" for a long time. This is regardless of if the speech is reprehensible or not (such as openly white supremacist symbols or even the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church). Also, the internet allows people a place to say whatever they want. However, the internet is a black hole. It doesn't accomplish much unless you apply it to the real world. I think the people's right to peaceful assembly has been called into question frequently, particularly when the Occupy Wall Street protests and the black Lives Matter protests were happening. Some of those protests got out of hand, but most were peaceful. Still, people were asked to go home and punished if they did not. Also, of course Julian Assage himself (and Chelsea Manning, still referred to as Bradley in the video) have faced consequences for their actions. I also think that media is tightly controlled, so while it is possible to independently say what you want, if you want to be a journalist or anchor for a more major news source, there are strict rules one must play by.

Overall, rabble rousers like Julian Assage are an extremely important part of society. One of my favorite quotes ever is from the author Edward Abbey. He says, "Society is like a stew. If you don't stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top" (and my own personal addition: and the bottom gets burned)

Society is like a stew. If you don't stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edwardabbe387411.html