Original Creations Through Popular Music

ByRyan Moore

Sec.6

Music has been and always will be an art

form solely based on personal creativity and

the freedom to express oneself in a

non-verbal fashion. As technology grows, computer users

continue to discover various ways of

stealing music. Users that take artists’ work without

paying deserve to be penalized. Other individuals may have purchased the music; however, posting any remix or

variation online is typically seen as copyright infringement. All in all, manipulating music in order to form something interesting and unique

should not be considered a crime.

Why Music Should Be Manipulated

Front man Don Henley from “The Eagles” opposes the belief that individuals should have the right to manipulate songs.

He states, “ ‘When someone has stolen and misused your intellectual property, you have to do something about it.... I could have let this go, but I had to stand up and do something about it.’ Henley blasted all unauthorized uses of his music, whether by politicians or just amateurs making remixes, mash-ups, and similar unlicensed uses on sites like YouTube. ‘I don’t condone it,’ he said of such practices. ‘I’m vehemently opposed to it. Not because I don’t like parodies or satires of my work. But it’s simply a violation of U.S. copyright law.’ He added, ‘People in my age group generally don’t like it. Songs are difficult to write; some of them take years to write. To have them used as toys or playthings is frustrating.’ Henley noted that he does not license his songs for commercials and only rarely does so for uses in films and television.”

What the Artist Thinks

Don Henley of “The Eagles”

In defense of Henley and other artists’ statements, I believe it is not right to limit the creativity of music by punishing and controlling these individuals’ actions.

Variations and combinations of songs are not seen as original works in the eyes of these professional musicians.

The artists get upset when they find amateurs using their work for their own benefit; even though most unknown amateurs do not seek any benefit at all.

If anything, original artists of these songs benefit from unique mixes. Many of them involve the crossing of genres which in turn offers them more exposure to a wider range of audiences.

Since creators of mash-ups typically do not receive credit or payment for promoting an artists’ work, what then is the problem with making the songs in the first place?

Freedom of Expression

Mash-up Example This is a mash-up I recently created and

posted to Youtube myself. It is a blending of two completely different

genres. The two songs used are Queen’s rock anthem “Who Wants to Live Forever” and Skrillex’s techno/dubstep song “Cinema”. However, if you click on the video, it will not

play within the confines of this presentation. How then are viewers supposed to enjoy this

work when it is held back by legal boundaries? In the description for the video I even stated,

“I do not own any rights to these songs. I am just a fan who likes to make mash-ups”.

I was not looking to receive fame or

money when posting this song to the web.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeMsECUmqIw

Youtube is a haven for posting and sharing remixed songs and other types of media online.

Here users have the freedom to upload, download, share, comment, and view countless videos from others who share similar interests.

Even if a video violates a copyright on this site, it is still playable.

Although the owners clearly display their terms of agreement, Youtube users still believe that the reward for sharing their music with the rest of the world is greater than the risk of getting caught.

Clearly there must be some positive qualities in the posting of these songs due to this trend.

The Role Plays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCpBhU16TzI&feature=player_embedded

“What is copyright? Copyright is a form of protection provided for original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, graphic and audiovisual creations. ‘Copyright’ literally means the right to copy, but has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by law to copyright owners for protection of their work.”

“What is copyright infringement? Copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.”

“Posting copyright-infringing content can lead to the termination of your account, and possibly monetary damages if a copyright owner decides to take legal action (this is serious—you can get sued!).”

Youtube and other similar sites and services are meant for allowing users the freedom to share ideas with others.

The truth is that every new idea comes from the one before it and even the one before that.

It is understandable that taking music for free may be a punishable act because it is detrimental to the copyright owner; however, those who use their music in order to expand and broaden the owner’s work should have freedom to do so.

Youtube Copyright Tips

There are various types of application software found all

over the internet that allow users to mix songs together. Some of them include FL Studios, Mixxx, Ultramixer, OTS

Turntables, and Karamixer. I use a program called “Virtual DJ” to create my songs. It’s interesting how all of these programs have one thing in

common other than similar functionality. They all share the capability of recording music and exporting

it into playable and distributable formats such

as mp3 and wav. Most of all, they are great tools for anybody

who has an interest in making music and

having fun.

Tools that Create the Madness

There are those who actually believe in the uprising phenomena of combining others’ music into original works and agree that it should continue.

Emily Harper comes to the realization that, “the Internet has triggered a shift towards a participation-oriented culture in which people build off of others’ works. This copy- and- paste practice is on the rise in the music industry where mash-up artists create new songs merely by combining preexisting songs (Harper, Pg. 444)”.

“Congress should enact legislation that protects the exclusive rights of copyright holders, but also accounts for the widespread practice of borrowing from others to create something new (Harper, Pg. 444)”.

It seems that Harper provides a thoughtful and realistic goal that would be beneficial to both original artists and amateur artists alike if any action in this case is taken.

Expert’s Beliefs

Suppose one decides to take a popular song, transpose their own composition from it with a live instrument, record themselves playing it and post it online.

Is this the same thing as posting a digitally remixed song online?

If so, should this action be punishable? Again, this seems to be another form of taking one’s

preexisting work and building from it. Musicians should be allowed to borrow music and

display their own variations of it. If somebody takes the time to learn a song that has

already been written and give credit to the artist by displaying their name and the song’s name, they should be allowed to do so without fear of getting in trouble.

Alternate Methods

During my senior year in high school, I listened to a lot of music from the rap artist "Kid Cudi". Over this time period, I thought it would be interesting to play one of his songs on the piano. However, the only problem was that there was no sheet music for any of his work. Therefore, I made it my goal to figure out my favorite song of his called "Soundtrack 2 My Life" by ear. Not only did I take his song and transcribe it into a piano piece. I added a lot to the song itself and essentially made it a creation of my own. I used improvisation, key changes, and fusion of another one of his famous songs called "Pursuit of Happiness“ added in towards the end. Once the piece was complete, I was shocked to realize how well it turned out and wanted to show everyone. In order to do this, I signed up for my high school talent show where I performed "Soundtrack 2 my Life" as seen in the video on this slide. After the show, I saw how the audience reacted and decided that I should post the video to “Youtube”.

Soundtrack 2 My Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uvug1tWhjA

There is nothing wrong with borrowing as long as it is not stealing.

Creativity in music runs so much deeper than mainstream bands and MTV videos.

Technology only continues to expand and progress.

This widespread culture is not all about greed and betrayal.

Conclusion

Sheffner, Ben. "Henley, DeVore settle lawsuit; Henley rails against remixes and mash-ups, YouTube, 'dark side' of Internet; songs are not 'toys or playthings' ." Copyrights and Campaigns. N.p., 05 Aug 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. <http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/08/henley-devore-settle-lawsuit-henley.html >.

Standard Youtube License, , writ. Remix Culture: Fair Use is Your Friend . FairUseProject, 2009. Web. 17 Nov 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCpBhU16TzI&feature=player_embedded>. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCpBhU16TzI&feature=player_embedded>.

. "Copyright Tips." Youtube. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright >.

Harper, Emily. "MUSIC MASHUPS: TESTING THE LIMITS OF COPYRIGHT LAW AS REMIX CULTURE TAKES SOCIETY BY STORM." Hoftra. N.p., 2010. Web. 17 Nov 2011. <law.hofstra.edu/pdf/.../lrv_issues_v39n02_CC-2-Harper-final.pdf>.

-Must open Emily Harper Web Document through Google. Type ‘Note Music Mashups’ into the search bar and click on the first link.”

References