Troublemaking duo Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno, posing as their industrious alter-egos, expose the people profiting from Hurricane Katrina, the faces behind the environmental disaster in Bhopal, and other shocking events.
A look behind the barricades of the besieged city of Homs, where for nineteen-year-old Basset and his ragtag group of comrades, the audacious hope of revolution is crumbling like the buildings around them.
The digital revolution of the last decade has unleashed creativity and talent of people in an unprecedented way, unleashing unlimited creative opportunities. But does democratized culture ... See full summary »
MARTIN ARMSTRONG, once a US based trillion dollar financial adviser, used the number pi to predict economic turning points with precision. When some big New York bankers asked him to join ... See full summary »
This documentary (indeed, manifesto is correct) misses its intended point. On the one hand its arguing for the rights of remixers, on the other hand for the right to share and use, even when the point isn't to make something new out of it. If you really want to effectively argue the first, you shouldn't only try the "throw everything out" argument. If some artist wants to give their work away for free, more power to them (it's their choice). But that is a far cry from arguing that everybody should do that, and that the only allowable business model is charging for live performances.
The makers of the documentary should then have asked how the model could be changed so that you keep the good parts of it, while stopping the more egregious overreaches. (Even if it would eventually argue that it is not possible.) Even while Walt Disney used other's ideas, he didn't take their drawings, stories, dialogue etc. as is. So is there a fruitful way to draw a line? But the documentary makes no effort in that direction, and there is little reason to believe anyone on the other side is listening or even starts to think.
The makers should have tried to present their arguments to someone (intelligent) who doesn't share their viewpoint, and asked for their rebuttal (with sufficient time to prepare their argument). That's like sharing ideas, man. Like totally not what the movie is about.
The point of this documentary isn't helped the fact (IMO) that all the remixes and mash ups in it are pretty awful. And what is good in them could have been achieved without recycling beats and samples. And it is very clear from the documentary that the artists understand that they shouldn't be doing what they are doing under current laws, but no tough questions are asked from them, like why they still think its necessary or better to break them. (The argument is presented as "because I want to, I should be able to.") IMO, The artists involved should stop whining and make a creative commons collection of samples from which to build mash ups, remixes and whatever. Allowing others to make remixes of this documentary is a starting point. (But, again, kinda not the point presented in the movie, which is an argument against the ownership rights of artists and copyright holders.)
10 of 32 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?