Rip Burn Remix

We always think of the future of our children. But, what is the future that we are preparing for them?  Is it the same future that they want or what we want them to have?  Professor Lessig talked about the future which he wants his kids to have in as much as all the kids in the world must have.  He recognized that nowadays most children are obsessed with mind craft and you tube.  We don’t deny such fact, that it is not only mind craft and you tube that occupies most of the time of our younger generation but rather so many social websites and internet games. 

The project Creative Commons is dear to the heart of Professor Lessig. He mentions that most

members around the world possess common set of values and ideas, culture and knowledge.  But, what he wants is that these values and ideas are intertwined with culture and knowledge that must be widely accessible to all.

He emphasizes on sharing these ideas to the world and that people share them as much as they can.  He said that what we share are too little from our culture. That there is a need to share more and to share legally. What do we really share? Is it what is legal or illegal?  Are we sharing that which is deemed legal to us or what other people deemed as illegal or that which is against the law.

There is a need to share more as many people as much as many cultures around the world.

There is a need to establish one movement, which may sound as a very long way to go.  To share more and to focus more. 

In the Philippines, the younger generation is not only obsessed with mind craft and you tube.  More young people are deeply involved with developing their talents and sharing these talents using the internet posting not only in YouTube but in so many websites.

Professor Lessig proposes this thing called Remix which has become as something that needs to be expressed and involved in our culture.  We seemed to be concerned of too much control in terms of

policy that people had a hard time in personal expression.

            Anywhere around the world, there is this problem of copyright. This thing called Remix is not entirely new, but it needs an enabling action, a law that protects the rights of the people in creative remix.

There is this way which is a time honored call and response.  This is what is asked in a culture to respond to the changing times and to the changing directions of people’s lives.

Problems of piracy and registry are central to the copyright and that which must be improved.  We focus on the connectivity of culture in the changing times.   Do we really need to deeply regulate culture? Or is culture free to evolve as man revolutionize his way of life?

Is culture not heavily intertwined with the regulation and policies of every government?

Does culture and government policy do well or harm to the people?

Professor Lessig sees copyright law that connects to the way culture is changing and that

laws on copyright must change.

He emphasized on call and response. What is this?   He refers to this new movement. The remix.

It is a kind of culture which will make people feel empowered. The people must be entitled to this right. 

There is this obligation to participate in the creation and recreation of culture which is produced by a technology called the digital technology.  It creates efficiency for which the consumption facilitates the art of listening and speaking as well as reading and writing.

This new culture which read and write our culture as well as rewrite our culture.

We need laws that will entitle our people to recreate our culture.  But certainly for good.

All of us should support a new movement, a new world which allows a certain culture to redefine and recreate a new culture. This is what this new movement is all about.

This Remix movement sees lawyers as people who need to recognize that this change is good.  It is how to express oneself for greater diversity and to further our culture.

Do we have the right to discourage this thing called cultural creativity when the changing times call for it?

Suppose that this new cultural creativity present as not good in the senses of a person or group of people by what right can anybody discourage it?

Professor Lessig stresses this cultural policy that encourage creators.  Does the doctrine of fair use puts copyright on a defensive? 

Does Philippine copyright law encourage creators? Or does it give every Filipino the right to control the particular use of his own creation?

Professor Lessig promotes sharing.  The form of sharing creativity as a culture of expression.

A technology that will function universally is imbibed in this opportunity of humans sharing creativity.

The Intellectual Property Law is not sharing. It is putting that word “sharing” in an encapsulated controlled protective mode.

The right to fair use is a constitutionally protective right in the US.

What Professor Lessig emphasized is the context of remix.  There have been protests in Berlin against ACTA. But, this remix is an advocacy of righttoremix.org

The world now lives in age of remix which means that everything is remixed.

There is a need to recognize this idea of remix.  Laws must be passed to encourage and protect remix creativity. 

Professor Lessig does not perceive Creative Commons as a solution to the problem. His profound idea of licenses is that it does not provide freedom to culture.  In other words, there should be the capacity to remix. This capacity to remix is a general human right.

This new movement of Rip, mix burn must be shared legally.  Hence, we need to support enabling laws that will recognize this general human right.

We need to share more by actively participating in this movement because we are sharing creativity.

Sharing creativity is a basic human right. This is democracy in its new perspective.

By giving new light in this creativity sharing. this will be demonstrated in this generation and for all generations to come.

We are empowering our artists the right to create and recreate by writing and rewriting which will deeply value every man’s right of expression.

The only way that we can create change is to participate in the advocacy for the creation of laws that will foster the freedom of expression as a means of enhancing creativity sharing.

However, Professor Lessig sees Creative Commons as a preparation in solving the problem of creativity sharing.

Simply put, do we allow creators to choose their means of exploiting their talents or the lawyers to define the limits of this freedom?

To demonstrate this fight for freedom is taking its limelight and to encourage the right to fight for this freedom is inevitable.

The very essence of Creative Commons is the act of attribution.

License requires the licensee to use attribution.  This is the concept of respect

As it is said respect does not come from law but the people who recognize the law pays respect thereby.

Our government recognizes that intellectual property is necessary for  progress.

 All domestic and creative activity is facilitated by transfer of technology which promotes foreign investments.

To guarantee and protect the rights of creators, their intellectual property and creations are recognized for their being beneficial to the people.

All told, to encourage and empower our people generates a culture that creates solution to creators.  A culture for this new remix civilization is not entirely new.

To attribute to a person of his creation is a norm in every society.

We must recognize the value of creation as well as recreation.

There is this Global anti-corruption movement. Anywhere else in the world, people are clamoring for change. Most people are adamant to change.

Anti-corruption is most often depicted in artistic expression.

This culture of internet freedom is a new free culture movement which needs an enabling law to protect creators.

We need to emphasize that sharing is not stealing but rather a new wave of artistic inclination.

This internet freedom is a new mode of cultural expression.

The sharing of creators of their artistic creations must be protected by policy.

Professor Lessig sees that Creative Commons does not support this creation and recreation of our artist.

In the Philippines, we need enabling laws to recognize this culture of creation and recreation.

This is what we should focus on what our children should develop.

This remix culture is now going global.

The Philippines does not only need policy by laws that protect a new generation of creators but rather laws that will sustain an economy of players in the creative art.

The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines embody the protective rights of the copyright owners.

The Remix art is something new

Remixes are derived from a piece of music (most of the times are composed of more than one), the problem is that about the violation of intellectual property law.

The issue is whether a person who created the remix is allowed to recreate another person’s work, or whether or not the recreated art is classified as one of a derivative work . 

In the Philippines there are so many issues whether such visual work is legal or not, for example, the collage art form.  The collage art form had been questioned whether this is legal or not.

Derivative works is one of those protected under Philippine copyright law. Derivative works such as dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgments, arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works; and collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilations of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents are protected by Philippine Copyright Law or Republic Act 8293.

 These derivative works are protected as new works provided that such new work shall not affect the force of any subsisting copyright upon the original works employed or any part of the original work or such recreated work may result to violation of any right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works.

In addition to the right to publish granted by the author, his heirs, or assigns, the publisher of such recreated work has a copyright consisting merely of the right of reproduction of the typographical arrangement of the published edition of the work.

If the recreated art is not really similar in its form such that it may show only a motif of it, therefore such recreated work is simply a modified one. Then, such recreated work is a completely new recreation. Therefore, it is not a derivative work even if there are changes in the melody and chord progressions in the newly created art work.

 The one who created the remix is simply changing such original work which is not so significant, it may be by the use of an instrument and/or tempo. This type of art is not really a derivative work and such recreated art work may be protected by copyright law.

 The Creative Commons is a non-for-profit organization that was organized in order that the sharing and using of creativity and knowledge may be exploited by way of free legal tools. They are promoted through a website in order that artists can share their recreated art work with other artists by enabling these artists the possibility of   sharing, using, and/or creating a new work with the permission of the Creative Commons license. The creator of a new work can limit the copyright to particular users for whatever purpose which is specifically allowed, and further protect other   artist or other people who may exploit such work.

The exclusive rights of the copyright owner with regards to reproducing/copying, communicating, adaptation and performing such art work may be done but only with license. 

The very possibility of reducing the infringement of a copyrighted art work is thus manifested.

 Remixes usually create several legal issues especially when the whole or a substantive portion of an original art work is reproduced, copied, communicated, adapted or performed without authority.

The permit to exploit another person’s creation must be solicited first before this can be released to the public.

 Creative Commons license gives the grantee a fair use.  The license is required by law in order that a person may be allowed by the copyright owner of a work.

 The law always takes into account the substantive portion by considering the quality of the art work in contrast to quantity and the relation of that portion taken into effect as related to the work taken into account as whole.

The copyright law takes cognizance of this remix type of work

The copyright law permits the  recreation  of  a copyrighted art work without the authority of the licensee  but only to those  derivative work of art that  do not have much impact on the work in its original form and without much economic effect to the public in the highlight of the original owner of the work of art.

Derivative work of art which has no substantive commercial impact does not necessarily compete in the public view as regards to  the original work of art and should be protected by copyright law.

The sharing of creativity must be regulated by law because works of art are part of culture and that these art works are digital in nature and can be recreated.

The Philippine copyright law provides that there must be permission of the original owner of the work of art. There is suggested of the authority of owner of the copyrightable creation in the production of mashups or remixing.

 Lessig suggests that the key to mashups and remix is by educating and not legislating.  In other words it is on what can be done with technology, and then the copyright law  is there to regulate.

Professor Lessig  believes that establishments  such as mashup guilds  which are making the practice of survey and  publishing  the reports in order to formulate the norm or to reasonable behaviors  in the public mind’s acceptance as to what could be beneficial in the promotion of the limits of fair use.

 Professor Lessig suggests that Creative Commons and other licenses, such as the General Public License have been suggestive of mashup and remix in which the recreators may minimize the illegalities of such acts.

The Philippine law on fair use protects the public by giving ample protection on the creation and recreation of copyrighted work of art and eliminating the express authority of the original author provided that the copyrighted work of art is used and regulated by our government.

The work of art necessarily falls under fair use which may differ on how the  original material is exploited and by the very nature of its creation, and for whatever purpose of that portion of the copyright work of art has a public effect

There is no basic difference between copyright  and the promotion of fair use as long as this is regulated.  This applies also to creations such as remix.         

 The work of art of the one making the remix must be necessarily new.  It transforms the original work of art. The purpose of which is not to gain profit.  Philippine copyright laws protect the created work and the recreated work in as much as it does not violate the moral and economic rights of the original owner.

What distinguishes the recreated work of art is that it transforms the original work of art as a remix and that it does not breach substantially the original art work and that it is promoted for fair use within the ambit of the Philippine copyright law.

There is no clear violation of the Philippine copyright law as long as its use is within legal fair use.