RiP!: A Remix Manifesto

2008 "Use your illusion..."
7.5| 1h26m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 20 November 2008 Released
Producted By: Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit (CPTC)
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: http://ripremix.com/
Info

RiP!: A Remix Manifesto is a 2008 open source documentary film about the "the changing concept of copyright" directed by Brett Gaylor.

Genre

Documentary

Watch Online

RiP!: A Remix Manifesto (2008) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

Brett Gaylor

Production Companies

Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit (CPTC)

RiP!: A Remix Manifesto Videos and Images

RiP!: A Remix Manifesto Audience Reviews

SunnyHello Nice effects though.
Steineded How sad is this?
PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
morrison-dylan-fan The day that this film arrived at my door in the post,I had been looking online at the days news,and I noticed that there had been a big "anoucment" in the entertainment industry about the entire music catalogue of The Beatles being "finally" made available for legal downloads online.When watching this excellent film about the history of copyrighting evolving ideas and peoples creation.I was a little bit surprised that the battle between the music industry and the rebel DJ DangerMouse mash-up defining album-The Grey Album,which entwined The Beatles White Album and Jay Zs The Black Album into something completely new and exciting,that was sadly not mentioned in the film.Thankfully,the film is that packed with truly shocking revelations of how drug and media companies are trying to put peoples evolving ideas into a permanent headlock.With this film,director Brett Gaylor shows that this is a subject that everyone should be asking some very big questions about...The outline of the documentary:Film maker Brett Gaylor looks at the history of copyrighting material.The film starts by showing how the Public Domain was created in 1710 with the stature of Anne copyright law,which was made so that the creators would own their material for fourteen years, before it went into the Public Domain,so that other people could build upon the ideas that had been created.Brett shows how the desperation of huge corporations to completely stop anything entering the Public Domain.In 1998,the copyright law was re-written in the US,so that the Walt Disney Corporation could hold the rights to Mickey Mouse for the next 0ne hundred years.When the law got put into place,all of the major companies took a huge sigh of relief knowing that they will now Always be in control of ownership.But,with a new creation of something called the internet, and a "movie villain" called Napster and other file-sharing websites,which gave people the chance to create the biggest music library in history,and also gave people the chance to download and discover an unlimited amount of music, without being forced to pay highly-inflated prices for one three minute song, Showed that maybe, the ownership and creation of peoples ideas might be getting won back by the consumers.
rgcustomer I saw a version of this film that was 86 minutes in length. As the film itself asks the audience to remix it, I can't really know which version I actually saw.That, in fact, is one of the problems with the remix culture that was completely ignored by this documentary. How does identity or trademark get protected in the remix world? While it is of course impossible to prevent infringements from happening, there should be a reasonable response to violations, along the lines of libel and slander and fraud. I'm sure the people who use IMDb to read comments such as this one want some assurance that we're all talking about the same thing, or else what is the point? This is a much larger issue than just that of course.The other problem I had with this film is that it failed completely to address the elephant in the room, which is software, whether it's cracked, hacked, or open source. It kind of boggles the mind how you can actually use software in the production of a film about cut-and-paste culture, and miss it. I guess it doesn't have a Girl Talk beat, eh? (Jeez, isn't there anyone out there better than Girl Talk?)As some other comments have noted, the above two flaws, combined with the lack of any real proposal or at least a survey of ideas on how to proceed forward, mean this film can't really be a 9 or a 10, at least on my scale. There is such as thing as intellectual property, and the film itself notes that this has been recognized since the printing press, in the form of copyright. It's not going away, and saying "oh well, whatever" isn't enough.But I do give the film an 8, because it does a great job of showing the cancerous growth of the copyright and patent industry, which isolate us from our own public cultural experience, and stifle creativity and innovation by extending well beyond what was originally intended, to the point of making criminals of the world's youth, bankrupting everyday people, and putting sick people's lives at risk. I particularly found the revelation near the end, about the direction of US policy at the end of last century interesting and shocking. A country like Canada must do all we can to ensure that bad US decisions don't become our problem to be solved by giving away a chunk of our sovereignty. F that, my friends.I look forward to a followup that addresses the flaws of this film.
morkulv_athferion This documentary in general focuses around copyright, and the right to remix old music from other artists and it makes some very good points. You only have to look at YouTube to see for yourself; how many video's per day do you think get pulled because it contained some footage, music or sound (even when it concerns fan-art!) that is owned by some company? What started as a battle against copyright-thieves now evolved into a battle of control and money.Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica makes an appearance, in the form of an old interview concerning the whole Napster-debate which is hypocrite to say the least; tape-trading back in the day is what made Metallica so well known to begin with, so this is nothing more then a moneygrabbing issue from him.If you want to know more whats going on behind all the anti-piracy campaigns, then watch this. Its well worth the watch.
psylockem It's a nice... I've always thought there was no difference to people buying LP's and recording songs onto private mixtape cassettes. Like musicians don't rip off things from other musicians anyway... We need to get back to enjoyment of things, and away from the total corporate world. The use of Walt Disney for instance is a good example of where it's been done before.@ Henk Storm... where do you buy CD's that cost €50,- for 12 songs? Even in times of the Guilder they weren't much above FL40,-I still buy plenty of CD's and just as many and if I'm honest even more than I did in the past before the internet downloading times. If a CD is over a certain price, I just wait till it hits a cheaper price... try iTunes.