©

This week we were looking at copyright in our workshop. We were set a task last week to get in a group and put together a presentation about it.
Amanda and I were looking at the "technological fix" which involved research on bandwidth and DRM (Digital Rights Management). Unfortunately we couldn't actually remember what we did with our research and on the day of the presentation we had to meet a little bit earlier to research it in the library all over again, but nevermind; these things happen.
We were a group of seven this time round and we all arranged to meet in the Polar Bear a couple hours before the workshop just to get everything sorted. Rather than sit and discuss the topic at hand it was more about having a drink and eating food in the end. Still, I shan't complain as I had a rather pleasant afternoon.
Sadly two of the group had to leave before the workshop for personal reasons, which left us with five instead of the original seven.

Shockingly, I can't remember much about what I actually researched - though this has been due to a stressful week of assignment planning and lots of work. I think we're all familiar with DRM technology. If you put it in the simplest terms you can it is like a digital lock on a file, which can only be opened by those with a 'key'. So how do you get the key? Why, you buy it of course! How ingenious - this way people won't be able to share the file on P2P networks, what a brilliant idea, yes? No, not quite. While the fat cats, big wigs and boffins probably all patted themselves on the back for the invention of this technology they didn't actually look at the downside. No one wants to pay for a product they can't really use to their own leisure and desired extent, so this had the negative effect of actually encouraging people to illegally download files instead. With an illegal file you have unlimited use for free; much better than limited use for a fee, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I'm a poet and I didn't know it. Richard Stallman called DRM a "malicious feature" and I couldn't quite put it better myself.

Remember when iTunes limited all their downloads to about four or five iPods? That was ridiculous too. I mean, I purchased music from the iTunes store and put it on my fifth generation iPod. Last year I had to buy a new iPod Classic as my old one decided to die on me. I managed to transfer all the music from my old iPod to my new one but found that when I wanted to play my iTunes purchases through the iTunes program I had to enter my password and it would tell me I was now using two out of the five iPods I was allowed it on. But it was still only me listening to it; I hadn't sent the file to anyone else. So what would happen if eventually I got to iPod number six? I mean, they're great products but they don't last forever, and are subject to quite a bit of rough handling in their time. Eventually they do give out. My old one lasted a few years before breaking. But still, I'd get to iPod number six and find I have to pay for the product all over again! While this is barely a lot with one or two downloads, when you use the Apple Store for all your purchases this equates to hundreds, if not, thousands of pounds. Not a problem I'd experience with a freebie, I imagine.
It does seem like it's punishing the user for actually buying the product, while the illegal downloaders carry on with their illegal downloads with better, lasting results.

Another example is 'The Grey Album' by DJ Danger Mouse. This album used acapella versions of the songs from Jay-Z's 'The Black Album' and mashed them up with instrumentals from The Beatles' 'The White Album', thus creating The Grey Album. EMI went up in arms over it, trying to halt its distribution. Danger Mouse had not asked permission to use The Beatles' material, whereas Jay-Z's album was intended for remixing and mash-ups. The album went on to be named best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly.

I've listened to this album and it's not at all a Beatles album. Yes, it uses some of their material, but it's not something you can imagine your grandad listening to. Surely if people wanted to listen to The Beatles they'd just purchase (or possibly illegally download) a Beatles album anyway? But this is the thing, clearly EMI wanted a cut of the profits - but there weren't any - the album was never for sale, it was free. Now, isn't this putting a barrier in the way of people's creativity? It really is a great album and it would have been a shame if it had never seen the light of day.
So where does this leave the state of copyright? What comes next? I guess we'll have to wait and see what the future holds.
March 2010 also saw the release of the Cut Up Boys latest release, Mash Up Mix 90s and in celebration they have given people the chance to make their own mash-ups on the Ministry of Sound website. Inspired by this, and by the study of remix and mash-up culture, I decided to throw together something myself using Sony Acid Pro 7. Here is the result.