One of the large debates in the world of remixed media is similar to the debate that raged amongst the music industry during the Napster debacle. Legality is a touchy subject in a world of bendable rules and ever-changing cultural memes. Does an independent remix artist have “the right” to take “someone else’s” creative media and use it as base product for a new creation?
The central issue, of course, comes down to money. If 100,000 fans download the Metallica album for free, the band and record label lose out on 100,000 sales. Naturally this poses a capitalist dilemma for the courts to wrestle out. But what about remixes? If an artist buys the material, is it not then his own to mix and match as he chooses to create something entirely new? Perhaps if not for profit, according to the authorities that regulate and sustain the capitalist ideal.
According to copyright law, you cannot copyright an IDEA. Only a specific EXECUTION of said idea. For example, the Bush Family Corporation would have loved to slap a TM on the buzz-word “Freedom” as it sustained their entire administration’s practical joke on the American people. However you can’t copyright something as universally accessible as the abstract idea of freedom. However, if there is a particular poem or article of business created from or around the idea of freedom, this piece of material can be copyrighted. Certainly Bush will be associated with his own “execution” of the concept for quite some decades.
But what about a remix?
If the basis for copyright exists solely on the execution of an idea, then the original concepts from which the remix has been created must surely not determine its legality as an infringement of copyright. The idea is executed differently, and set to different soundtrack. An entirely new execution has been born and subject to its own new copyright.
Then again, the physical recording medium can be considered an execution in itself. So the actual video clips or sound files used in a techno remix maintain their original copyright and thus the problem is expressed.
But so long as the original media is purchased by the remix artist, should he/she not have the right to remix for their own or shared enjoyment so long as profit is not generated?
Perhaps then, we should look to an agreement the courts can so boldly uphold that allows for remix artists to make a living or profit from their particular art form.
