IDES 322: Intellectual Property
February 12th, 2009 by Alex 24 CommentsLast week, everyone was assigned the task of shooting some photography, uploading it, and tagging it on Flickr. We’ve been keeping our eyes on the results of this assignment. We have also collected (almost) everybody’s services for aggregation in our class tumbelog.
With all of this content being generated and aggregated in all sorts of different ways, how is our concept of intellectual property holding up? Even as we become numb to the idea of “stealing” digital media, we are also generating our own digital content to which these laws supposedly apply. Larry Lessig is a lawyer and a champion of this very issue and his work is helping us sort out these new definitions.
In our Shirky reading for this week, we will be delving further into Flickr as a case study on how these self organization tools are creating other opportunities that we never would have dreamed of.
Week 3
READ:
- Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, Chapter 2 (Amazon, Google Books)
WATCH:
CREATE:
- Your network. Through services like Flickr, Twitter, Delicious, Vimeo and Viddler you can all connect your accounts with your classmates and with others around the world. At the end of this week, you should all have friended or followed each other in as many services as you have signed up for.
- In addition to connecting with your friends and classmates, you should also be looking for other artists and professionals that you can connect with through these tools. Examples: Clay Shirky is on Twitter, Adam Greenfield is on Flickr and Delicious, Brian Crabtree uses Vimeo. Who are the people that interest you?
COMMENT:
- You can continue to write your thoughts on the assignments as comments on this post or you could consider the option of writing your responses in your own blog. If you do the latter, you will need to link to this post from within your response to create a trackback. Think about how this can be an asset to you as you begin to collect these thoughts and essays on your own blogs.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
If any of you can make it up to NYC, this will be an amazing event. The Shepard Fairey situation w/ the Associated Press right now is fascinating stuff.
LIVE from the NYPL & WIRED present
LAWRENCE LESSIG
SHEPARD FAIREY
STEVEN JOHNSON
Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy
February 12th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Convergence alert! Here is a link to the event’s official website.
Thanks for the heads up, Nate. It’s almost creepy how perfectly this talk relates to the topics that have been swirling around the first weeks of this course.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I found the sociology part about the group interactions too be very interesting to me because I have thought about this a lot in the past. Small groups are much more productive but don’t have as much of an impact as a larger group may have. Depending on what the group’s action is being used for really plays a role. Power in numbers works with things where the group has one common goal or view. a large group with not one common goal can run into problems that the smaller group may not have had. Two years ago my friends and I were planning a big camping trip to the Poconos. It started with four people going then evolved into a pretty big event. It was great that there was a real big show up but having that larger group brought problems. We all talked over the phone and in person on what supplies we would need. Anyway when we got up there, there were a lot of miscommunications about what people were bringing. We ended up with not having enough tents and food. If we had had that smaller group there wouldn’t of been those problems. This is because there are much less people relying on each other than a group member relying on eight other people. Protesting for instance has a huge part in this because its one side that is marching for a common goal. The more people that are joined, the larger the presence is known. A smaller group may have a direct point but they lack in presence. I got a déjà vu while reading the chapter about what we were talking about for the last two weeks. The smaller a group and the more simpler business motive will have a lot less reliability than a large company that you have to go by there deadlines and not risk loosing your job over corporate BS.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Check out my blog post on this topic.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
When thinking of group organization and activity, I never really broke down the logic enough to understand it. It was always basic knowledge to me that growth in companies is good. Growth means more supply to feed a demand. However, Shirky sort of opened me up to looking at growth of companies or organizations in a new perspective. The more members, the more complex communication becomes, and the more money/time that goes into organization of workers. As a group grows, direct interaction amongst members becomes quite difficult.
The hierarchy of the traditional organization is also interesting to me. We’re so desensitized to this system in which workers answer to managers, managers answer to higher up managers, and on and on until you reach the CEO. This type of organization can produce work efficiently and cost-effectively. However, the less understood activities that represent a potential to take on can sometimes be ignored because the cost of pursuing them is not practical with the money being put out to maintain the organization.
With digital networking technologies such as Flickr, users can upload their content to this ‘platform’ and generate their own tags, or system of organization, without the Flickr organization having to spend money on managing all of the uploaded content. This creates not only a practical method for organizing cheaply, but it also becomes a way for users with similar interests to connect and share ideas, perhaps starting branching organizations of more specified interest.
The sheer usability displayed in Flickr’s platform-like system of organization can be expressed in the scenario provided by Shirky. During the 2005 London Transit bombings, Flickr images were uploaded from mobile phones during the event, with content and information coming directly from the source of the event. Traditional media outlets have to dispatch photojournalists to the scene, and this process takes time. In today’s age with camera phones and blogging as popular as they are, content from events can be shared globally almost instantly as it is happening.
Coasean logic was one of the more interesting topics to me in this chapter, as well. The Coasean ceiling represents the maximum allowance for growth within an organization. If it grows too much, management and networking costs are too extraordinary to maintain a profit. The Coasean floor, on the other hand, represents the barrier that prevents companies from pursuing potentially valuable activities, limiting possible advancement in various fields of thought. I’d like to emphasize the importance of these online, social tools’ abilities to break through the Coasean floor, allowing them to accomplish what higher costing organizations cannot.
Lawrence Lessig brings up a huge issue while he points out the interference of copyright law and the current usage of digital technology. This conflict of out-dated copyright laws imposed by the government with technologies used today on a daily basis by millions causes a strange realization – using and contributing to today’s culture is often illegal. This relationship creates tension between citizens using these technologies in their daily lives and the laws that govern them.
My question becomes if people know what they’re doing online is illegal, will it change how they interact with the law in other aspects of their life? I feel as if this type of relationship (either induced by out of date copyright laws, a boom in online culture, or both) can lead to society becoming accustomed to ignoring the law, which is a scary thought indeed.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:27 am
It’s hard for us students to imagine how large organizations are productive because we have never worked for one. I understand to become large such as a organization you have to start small. For example Burton snowboards, Jake Burton and three of his friends fabricated snowboards and sold them out of his garage. As the snowboards evolved so did the company. Now, Burton is huge international corporation that produces snowboards. The article explained as more members of a group becomes involved communication becomes harder, the exchange of thought is lowered, money is lost, and the quality of the product decreases.
Clay Shirkey explains how Flikr plays a major role in interaction. That one person can take photos upload them onto a computer and becomes interconnected with people of the same photo Tag. Later people can see other photos and interact and share ideas with people. This idea of a “no strings attached” relationship interests me because when working in a group on a topic there is a certain level of commitment. That the amount of photos you upload benefits everyone equally while working in a group you have to keep up with the level of work, such as (showing up to meetings, working on the project, etc). Also this exchange of photos, or videos from YouTube doesn’t cost anything.
In the Clay Shirkey article he says, “ Collaborative production is a more involved form of cooperation, as it increases the tension between individual and group goals. The litmus test for collaborative production is simple: no one person can take credit for what gets created, and the project could not come into being without the participation of many. “ With my experiences with “Collaborations” that people should take credit for what they created. There have been collaborations were one person will oversee a project while there are two people doing all the work. Is that fair for everyone to take equal credit of the work? Also there have been collaborations were people come together and discuss doing a project but nothing ever happens just talk and discuss and no action. Small groups are great for discussing ideas and building upon them but they have never been good at taking the next step. Of acting on what they have discussed.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Lawrence Lessig’s idea for licensing that would translate into free content is quite interesting. I think embracing this concept would fully enable the read-write culture because it would decrease the strictness of anti-piracy which happens to be killing the RW culture as well.
Since copyright laws seem to favor the read-only culture, it’s up to us to support the creation and use of open source; to push it toward a proprietary platform so it can develop even further.
I think I would identify myself as part of this RW culture after watching Lessig’s presentation. I can appreciate technology now because I’ve come to realize just how accessible information, that would otherwise have been out of reach, is to me. On a greater scale, Lessig brings to light the effects technology has on groups of people that like to create.
Similarly, Clay Shirky is also on the same page in the second chapter of his book. Shirky mentions the Birthday Paradox and points out that a group will see difficulty in coming into an agreement. He also further supports that theory with transaction costs that organizations will have to calculate before making decisions. With that kind of preface to the Flickr story, I am even more impressed with the web. Somehow, with the tagging capability on Flickr, organization among a group of people, strangers even, came through with relative ease.
For some reason I think the power of the web as a tool was always an understood and overlooked factor for me. My generation grew up using computers, but it wasn’t until now, after reading Shirky’s book, that I am able to reassess the value the lies within the internet. It’s a link between me and everything else out there, and I find it unfortunate that copyrights are getting in the way.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:15 am
In the reading Here Comes Everybody Ch#2, Clay Shirky brings up the issues of large groups and communication. Its interesting but expected that the effect of large organized groups of people is hindered by the amount of people and their differences. A perfect example of this is the US government, and is especially topical now.)
In the section on Pg. 28 that quotes Philip Anderson as saying, “more is different.” really got me thinking about what everything will be like in the future with the population growing like it is. When we double our 6 billion and the generations of people who were born before the internet are gone. What will happen when there are to many people and opinions in the world, or when minorities become the majority? Will everyone become overly opinionated and impossible to work with, could certain organized collaboration and systems fail, will things just stay the same, or could the easy access to information and self collaboration change the world for the better? We do have systems in place to cope with this problem. We try to have people categorized into specialty groups that can handle specified jobs, it’s human nature to do so. The problem in these large systems of people seems to stem from communication. Every problem mentioned in Clay Shirky’s book is in some part from communication issues.
The section of the reading titled, “How did all these picture get here?” shows how a simple photo site (Flickr) can solve these problems of communication through the internet. Sometimes these things happen on purpose like people posting about the missing victims in the Indian Ocean Tsunami, and other times it’s about chance as in the “Mermaid Parade”. I really love the idea of “public journalism”. It’s very interesting to me that the media can never document any event as accurately as the public can. It turns the internet into this socialist creation where even government regulation can’t hinder it, only ban it. I think that Flickr really holds the truth lens up to the world, for the most part you have to believe your eyes, within reason of course!
It has been proven through history that revolutions and major change are never brought on by the mass majority, they come about from the upper-class minority of wealthy people. It is true that they are still a group but a much smaller group. They are people who can afford to risk their lively hood for change. Could we as a generation break this habit and begin grass-roots movements that are so powerful they provoke intense change? We’ve already seen it somewhat with the recent election of Obama, but what if all that work equals up to people just wanting the farthest opposite from G. Bush? What about self organized groups that try to change industry by holding things like massive petroleum product boycotting or a country wide plastic strike? Thinking about the possibilities is awesome.
Oh! I feel you Mary when you said, “My generation grew up using computers, but it wasn’t until now, after reading Shirky’s book, that I am able to reassess the value the lies within the internet. It’s a link between me and everything else out there, and I find it unfortunate that copyrights are getting in the way.” This book was a great read into anthropology of our generation!
February 19th, 2009 at 11:37 am
[...] last week’s video got some of you thinking about what happens to all of this content that you are creating and [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I have mixed feelings about intellectual property. It’s frightening and reassuring, good and very bad. Having grown up with the internet, I feel like my ability to find “things” online is endless. Thanks to YouTube anyone can see an important documentary they may not have been able to find elsewhere, to a father taking his son, high from surgery, home from the dentist. If you like the dentist video, then you can watch the remix, Christian Bale yelling at the high boy while he rides home from the dentist.
Whether the dentist videos are funny or not, I would consider the original video a home video and the mash up art. It’s a creative juxtaposition, just as the mash ups in Lessig’s video are. I think it’s good and reassuring because art programs are usually the first thing cut from the curriculum in schools and isn’t highly regarded by our government. People are letting out their creative minds in other forums. The frightening part is as an artist, publishing your work to the internet, your work becomes public domain to be used as others see fit.
I’m not sure if it was ever passed, but the government tried to pass a law a year back, the Orphaned Art project. Once a piece is published it can be used by anyone for any reason without crediting the artist. I feel like that idea is what Lessig was alluding to at the end of his talk. The repercussions of releasing art, design, music, etc without copyright is so scary to me. I, like many, want credit when credit is due. No one wants someone else cashing in on their personal idea.
This is why I’m so torn. Clay Shirky writes about why Flickr is so successful. It’s simply a platform where people can upload or not, tag or not, let others see or take your images or not. What I like about Flickr is that they help people publish and organize themselves with all these options. It doesn’t stop others from banking on a particular individual’s intellectual property but it does help establish boundaries. As an uploader I can make the image available to be used in many sizes for the taking or I can lock the settings. If someone wants a photo they can’t sav it sends the message of “I don’t want you to steal this image” even though there are still ways to steal it easily. It makes using the photo a moral issue. This directly corresponds to the comment about shepherds sharing a field. “…the decision not to overgraze is provisional on everyone else making the same decision…this is the Tragedy of the Commons: while each person can agree that all would – benefit from common restraint, the incentives of the individuals are arrayed against that outcome.” (pg 52)
February 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The pace of communication is happening faster than any of us can imagine. When watching the Larry Lessig lecture I was thinking a lot about the pace of communicating through technology. It’s so great to see a little community become a GIANT community without actually being part of a structured organization. It is wild that tons of separate lives can become compiled together so fast, like in Clay Shirky’s, Here Comes Everybody and the topic of the mermaid parade on Flickr. A large group of people did not know one another at all but had separate stories and separate pictures that they posted on Flickr. However, they were all able to become one group and post in such a short amount of time. The fact that this type of communicating exists opens up doors everywhere. Myspace is a way for tons and tons of people to become part of a certain type of community. Same with Facebook. People link from person to person and meet more people. Blogs are allowing people to reach a lot of people and build a community based on interests. It happens fast too because almost everyone is on the internet these days.
A lot of the time I feel like I can’t keep up. I have never had a Facebook, a Myspace, or even a blog but I have definitely looked or peered at these communities. It seems that these programs, as helpful as they can be, can also be promoting a more technology reliant society. What’s going to happen if all of a sudden the whole Facebook network were to be destroyed. Young people will have to work harder to socialize. But then when considering the fact that most of these people who use Facebook have pictures uploaded on other networks makes it almost impossible to lose other communities. People adapt to whatever they are forced to adapt with. It is hard to see people reliant on technology because the more and more that people throw out into cyber-land, the faster pace we all will read, comprehend and adapt to new ideas. I like it and I hate it. There should be a balance between internet networking and real life networking.
Right now I am devoting a part of my Wordpress blog to people’s favorite cups. I want to make a new community that gathers together the under appreciated design of the desired drinking device. In this community I want to gather people’s cups personally with their stories attached, but I also want to connect the community to people to submit their own cups. I am curious to know how the balance between real-life networking and cyber networking are going to develop.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
To me this whole topic is umbrellaed under the term User Generated Content, and to me that means that regular people (non-professionals at whatever it is they are creating) can have a presence and make an impact without an official organization. According to Larry Lessig anyone with access to a $1,500 dollar computer can create this content, real content, content that has a meaning, reason and purpose.
I think we need to look at what the intent is of the person sharing their work. The story line goes like this, someone creates something, the person then has the decision to share it with whom ever they feeling like also the how they share it, if it is uploaded to the web, it suddenly has the capability to be seen by anyone in the world, without a copyright. Shirky describes the intent that some people had of uploading photos to Flick, such as victims of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I have photos uploaded to Flickr of my student work and it now makes me question what my intent was. I know it was very different then the terrorist attack victims, but I believe my intent would be to broadcast myself and in all reality sell myself, to show other what I can do. I question is that good? and Should I have done it? Will someone take my work as their own. I have no copyright on anything I’ve done. Is that good? What does it mean for me to have put myself, my work on the web?
February 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Larry Lessing in his Ted Talk said, “Extremism begets extremism.” Relating this to current questions about intellectual property, one extreme is the old view that content should not be distributed except by the owner, and the other is content should be free for everyone to use as they see fit. Digital rights management is a newer issue that media before the Internet previously didn’t have to contend with.
Examples of these extremes are Blueray and Flickr. Blueray spends a considerable amount of effort in completely shutting down attempts to share the information contained on the disks. On the other hand, instances of flouting copyright laws on sights like Flickr and Youtube are so widespread that they couldn’t possibly be regulated.
The idea of remix or amateur culture (producing for love of the art, not money), creates a happy medium between these two extremes. As an example of appropriate use is the aggregation of personal photos from flickr into a new functional work of art as seen in the Microsoft Photosynth Ted Talk http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_demos_photosynth.html The unaltered image is a part of a whole, creating something new and unique, while still linking back to the original owner. That kind of use represents the idea that fair use of someone’s work is possible.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
To me the idea of information sharing and stealing is very relevant. I admit that I am a monster pirate of software, movies, music, and pretty much any type of media I can find on the internet. I even pride myself in my abilities to find and acquire new resources off the web. I am constantly trying to find new music and expand my already ample music library because I am a music collector. If I had the money to pay for most of this I probably would, but being a poor college student I find myself lacking the money. But for most of the media I download, it would take a lot more time searching for it in a store somewhere. Many of the things I download I could even find in stores because it is too obscure. So to me I am using the online community for my own needs, but I am offering very little in return. The only online community I am actively a part of is Facebook, and that is because i can actually use it as a social networking device. To me anything else is a waste of time. If I wanted to become part of a community, I would actively seek people out irl, not just in the nameless expanse of the web. I understand that Facebook owns any picture of me or my friends that are uploaded to my account, but that doesn’t really worry me. That is also why I avoid putting any of my intellectual property on the web. I would never put any of my own work on my facebook or any other site because anyone could take my work, claim they couldn’t find me, and use it for their own purposes. My intellectual property is my own, and to upload it on the web is instantly going to lessen its worth. I feel that blogging has its uses as a social networking tool, but to hold it up as better alternative to actual face-to-face contact with real people is absurd.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
It is always hard to think about big organizations as a student. We will work with them eventually but for now it is hard for us to understand how large organizations are productive. I agree that we as artists should put our work out there to sparked other people’s creative juices and for entertainment but if a company or organization uses this for profit than I would like credit where it is due.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
@carson, have you thought about blogging platforms as publishing tools?
Also, I don’t think anyone is defending stealing media. The issue with rethinking intellectual property law is to allow for creative expression and innovation, not for direct stealing.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I do understand that blogging can be a platform for publishing ones work for a fraction of what it would cost to go through more traditional channels. I know I have definitely been exposed to far more design and sources of inspiration because I troll sites like notcot. I even go to those kinds of sites when I’m looking for gift ideas. But in today’s world of constant connectivity there is still a part of me that says hey, maybe I shouldn’t cary a cellphone everywhere or check my facebook many times a day. In your class you are constantly stressing this connectivity and intricate web of trackbacks and links that are pushing us into widening circles of web awareness, but I feel like these resources can only go so far. While it’s kinda scary to think that a potential employer could just look me up on Facebook and see all sorts of things that I wouldn’t want someone to see in a professional setting, but there’s almost no way around that at this point. Sorry for the rant I’m not quite sure where I was going with that.
On the topic of intellectual property, one point I want to talk about is about music remixing and mashups. I am a big fan of remixes and mashups(splicing 2 or more tracks over each other to create something completely new), and I find most of it on the internet on various blogs and music streaming sites. The vast majority of these are done without the original artists’ permission, so is this illegal? Or immoral? I think of it as a wonderful form of expression that is made possible by internet sources. These days anyone can get some cheap software and start making their own remixes or mashups. There is such a scene for this that there is no way it could be regulated at all, so how should the original musicians react? I personally think that they should take it as a compliment that some appreciated their work enough to use it in their own artistic expression, but I can see how they could feel like their work has been stolen and used without their permission. It’s wonderful that some major artists are catching onto this undercurrent and putting their work on the collective commons so that others can use it without fear of lawsuit or retribution.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
So Carson, you say that “it’s wonderful that some major artists are catching onto this undercurrent and putting their work on the collective commons so that others can use it without fear of lawsuit or retribution.”
But then you also say that “my intellectual property is my own, and to upload it on the web is instantly going to lessen its worth.”
Is this a change of heart or what?
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I guess it would really depend on the type of work. That original statement was more geared to visual arts, whereas the second was more specific to music. With visual arts, once you upload an image onto a database somewhere, people will look at it and perhaps apprieciate it. But then there are the people and companies that are going to take your work, claim it as their own and use it for their own purposes. In this case your intellectual property is being exploited probably without you even knowing.
I feel like this is definitely different than the music aspect because there is more of a code within the music world to give credit where credit is due. Remix and mashup artists will almost always include the original artist and/or song title in what they do. You will normaly see mashups as versus each other(Fire It Up, Firemouse – Lil Wayne vs Modest Mouse by The Hood Internet).
February 25th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
The idea of intellectual property is a topic for which I have no definitive answer since it really depends on the situation, the intent and if there is money involved (or how much money is involved). I ’steal’ content in various forms just as much and probably more than most people. I am not proud of that and honestly do not have any real justification other than being poor. I’m not a big movie ‘buff’ and there are very few movies that I would buy and watch more than a couple times. But for those few I will still download and when I have money will still purchase. With software, I really have no allegiance. I do buy some applications from small developers but, when possible, will avoid paying for something from Microsoft, Apple or Adobe. That has nothing to do with not appreciating the creativity and time spent by the programmers and really has little to do with politics or opinions about these large companies. That’s strictly about money. If MS Office X was only $50 I would think twice before using a pirated copy but since it’s a lot more than that, my choices are to not use MS Office at all or to dish out money that I really cannot afford just to purchase something I know I can get for free. I know that’s a lame argument and like I said, I really have no definitive answer. And, I understand that prices at the counter also reflect sales lost to piracy so it’s really a conflict. Adding to the inner conflict is being friends with programmers, business owners and musicians. I think for most people it is because they just see big music companies, software providers and movie studios as insensitive faceless corporations that only seek to cater to their own greed with little regard for the end consumer. Now, while that could be partially true, people should understand that those are also the companies that allow for much of the art to reach us (art in the form of programs, movies, music). Most people rarely consider, or even know, the affects their decisions have on the artists employed by these large companies.
I don’t really know what to say about the movie industry. There doesn’t seem to be a good model for that industry to adopt a way to let people have the movie for free and the artists to still get paid. Music is something I am much better versed in..
I’m really on the fence when it comes to music. A lot of the music I download for free is simply not available for purchase and may not be on CD..I get a lot from blogs that post recordings of rare records and also some with remixes just not available in any other format other than the free download. There is also a growing trend of artists just giving away their music for free which opens up a whole different discussion which we briefly talked about last week.
For me, I am a huge supporter of artists and have spent a huge amount of money on music and always will when I can afford it. Unfortunately, I can’t afford much right now but when I have money I will go buy the vinyl, when available, for music I already ‘own’ in digital format. As a DJ, I am used to getting a lot of music for free but always promote the music I like and inform people where they can get it. Often I will be given music either directly from an artist or through a mutual friend. This is done as promotion and we are trusted to play their music in public when possible (if we like it) and to spread the word and only share amongst ourselves and people that will also spread the word. There are no real rules for this but it’s like an unspoken code of ethics, or honor system. This kind of sharing has been around long before the digital age but was never a problem mostly because of the format but also because of the culture. Promotional records has always been a big grey area in the music industry. Technically speaking, every DJ that’s ever played a public gig has broken the law since we’ve never had written consent to play any of the records. But without DJs tons of songs would not have been heard and sales would not have been made. Sometimes I just want to tell people to support something so I’ll post it on my site with no download link and only links to buy the music. I know that’s technically illegal but I doubt any artist or company will be mad at me for giving people links to buy the albums. I do wonder why some people go out of their way to give away music that isn’t theirs.
ahhhhhh…this could easily become a book! lol..that’s why there are books about these issues in the music industry.
Anyway, to bring this back to the video and the reading…it’s weird to me to see the concept of ‘remixing’ being such a big deal. it’s been done forever! in the music world, it’s encouraged. (well, at least in the hip-hop and dance music worlds) The reason for records having the instrumental and acapella versions on them is so we DJs will reuse the records in different ways. If remixes are just given out for free and give credit to the original artist, I think that’s fine. It’s promotion for the remixer and the original artist. Usually, the only people that really care are executives and lawyers who think that remixes are taking money out of their pocket. Maybe they should just buy these remixes or hire these remixers?! Actually, some companies have- After Jill Scott released her first album one of the remixes became a hit in around the world but was not easy to get unless you heard it in a live set or were one of us that owned the bootleg 12″. A little less than a year after that original 12″ came out, she put it out as one of the extra songs on her live album and gave out thousands of copies on 12″!! I thought it was pretty funny that she ’stole’ an unofficial remix and rereleased it.
I’m sure I’ve left a lot of questions. I’m always up for discussing music so just ask!
March 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
lil wayne was a G back then keepin\’ it real, now he is a fake ass nigga tryin\’ to be a rock star..fuck him
March 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
lil lyrics were corney back then he’s fire now
July 1st, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, I didn’t read all the comments, but your websites’ design is a litte tweaked in Flock working on Windows CE.
July 11th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Probably anyone will tell me in which the involving your post will be through? I’m inquisitive concerning studying plenty of that.