RiP: A Remix Manifesto

 I watched this movie. I reviewed it. The review is below.

RiP: A Remix Manifesto is a documentary about copyright laws in the digital age. Its primary focus is on remix-based laws: taking samples from other artist's songs, chopping them up and mixing them together to create something new. It also covers the origins of copyright laws, and a fair amount of the history of how they have evolved. Girl Talk, a remix artist, is featured throughout the film as an example of someone who uses copyrighted material to create his own songs.

One of the film's strongest points is put forth quite early on, when it shows Girl Talk actually working with samples and showing how they're used to create new, original songs. This may be an illuminating experience for many people who think that those who use samples to make music are unskilled thieves who simply take other artists' work, throw it together quickly, and then pass it off as their own.

While there are some other good points raised in RiP regarding the flaws of the copyright laws, it goes downhill shortly after the Girl Talk sampling demo. There's really one main reason for this: RiP doesn't quite feel like a documentary, so much as it feels like a propaganda film. It is absolutely relentless in its attacks on the big corporations who benefit from the copyright laws, and never once pauses to discuss the other side of the coin.

The one time in the entire film in which the other side is represented is in a short interview with Lars Ulrich, one of the founding members of Metallica. He makes his argument, and then... nothing. There is no counter argument raised. Instead, part two of A Remixer's Manifesto is cited: "The past always tries to control the future." The words are displayed on the screen alongside the ominous sound of a thunderstorm, as if to clearly indicate the fact that yes, they're trying to control the past, and yes, this is a bad thing. Never mind why; it's just bad.

Other than Lars, the only other artists discussed in this film are those who are either against the copyright laws, or are willing to allow others to creatively use their music free of charge. The underlying message here: the artists are on our side. They want us to be able to use their music as they please, and it's just those darn corporations stopping them from doing so.

Of the artists mentioned who support RiP’s cause is Negativland, a band that uses samples in their own music. Negativland’s legal battle with U2’s label, Island Records, is briefly discussed. In short, Negativland sample U2 for one of their songs, and then are quickly handed a lawsuit. There’s a short speech asking why can’t we use their stuff, and then it’s on to how big and evil corporations are. But, is this what actually happened? No; not at all. Island Record’s main problem was with the fact that Negativland released a single on which “U2” was prominently displayed along with their Lockheed plane. “Negativland” was placed on the single in much smaller and less noticeable type. In RiP, however, this isn’t even mentioned.

So, for a movie which music corporations are clearly not going to like, how is Brett Gaylor, director of RiP, allowed to use copyrighted songs throughout the film? As explained in the movie, it's because of something called "fair use," which allows the usage of copyrighted materials without permission for commentary, criticism and news reporting, amongst other things. Which is great, right? Up until the part in which it's declared that because the point has been made, he's no longer allowed for him to use the copyrighted music any longer. He laments the fact that he's unable to play what is clearly some great music for people to enjoy, but it's those corporations again! They just won't let him do it. Of course, later on in the movie, copyrighted music is played once again, so it seems to be yet another case of misleading information.

Ultimately, while RiP has its moments, it's difficult to take seriously due to its incredible one-sidedness, and its complete lack of offering any sort of viable solution to the problems. It totally ignores the enormous amount of problems involved with doing away with copyright laws completely and the benefits they provide to artists. I give this movie a 4.0/10.