RiP: A Remix Manifesto… Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?

from the remix-this dept

A few years ago, we wrote about the ridiculous hoops filmmaker Brett Gaylor had to jump through in making his film, RiP: A remix manifesto. If you haven’t seen it, you should. As you might imagine, it’s a movie all about culture and remixing, focusing quite a bit on the artist Girl Talk, but also featuring a number of other folks you probably know, including Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig. Here’s the trailer:

It’s absolutely worth watching. Hell, if you’ve got an hour and a half to kill, you can watch it right here (via Vimeo):

The full video is also available on Hulu and a number of other places — including off of Brett Gaylor’s own website, where you can pay what you want for it.

However, as I just discovered, if you head over to YouTube, you can find the movie in pieces… but apparently part I has been disappeared down the copyright hole thanks to a copyright claim by eOne, an “independent music company.”

Perhaps this isn’t a surprise. Hell, in the very section that is not viewable, the voiceover by Gaylor says, quite clearly:

Whether or not you think this music is original isn’t the point. Because the rules of this game don’t depend on who made the songs. They depend on who owns the copyright. And according to the people who do, sampling even a single note is grounds for a lawsuit. That means these kids should not be dancing. And you shouldn’t be watching, because using these songs in my movie is against the rules too. And the fact that there are people out there calling my favorite artist a criminal, is exactly why I need to make this film.

To be honest, I have no clue how long that clip has been down, but it does strike me as quite ironic. As far as I know neither Gaylor nor Gregg Gillis (who is Girl Talk) has been sued for infringement. And even though the movie (and Girl Talk’s music) are widely available all over the place…apparently eOne decided that it couldn’t have that on YouTube.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “RiP: A Remix Manifesto… Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
droozilla (profile) says:

Youtube can go.

Seriously, at what point do we just stop using Youtube, and find another video hosting service that will tell these companies filing these bullshit claims to go stick it?

There’s plenty of alternatives out there now. I’m sure there will be more in the future. Vote with your content, take away those ad revenues. Show the system who’s running this show. That’s the only way progress will be made.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:


I wonder if any of the lawyers defending Jamie Thomas or the judges in the case are aware that Spotify exists NOW.

Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. There was no service to legally meet her needs at the time of her lawsuit, but there is now. Her basic human nature has not changed, wanting to listen to what she wants when she wants, but the technology caught up. So exactly why is she guilty now?

This seems simple. Jamie should have to pay whatever Spotify would pay for the use of those 24 songs. Let’s assume she listened to each song 20 times.

I really want to say, let the RIAA figure out the math on that, but they would arbitrarily assume she listened to each track 10 million times.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Calling all trolls

I’m really not sure how any of us can watch this video and not comment excessively.

I really want to hear from the trolls on this one. Jamie Thomas is being held accountable for listening to music for personal use while Girl Talk is PROFITING from “samples” (cue the Darth Vader music).

Why? The copyright laws were clearly meant to prevent Girl Talk not attack the consumer base. Tens of thousands of lawsuits were initiated against consumers but NONE against Girl Talk. Why?

What about RiP? Besides being a documentary, it is clearly for PROFIT and should have to pay millions in license fees, according to the law. So rally the troll troops and give us a response that makes sense.

Ophelia Millais says:



For those who don’t want to go look, on Hulu, the film is one of the titles filed under eOne.

Issuing a false takedown “in good faith” is allowed under the DMCA, but this casts serious doubt upon eOne’s intentions. On Hulu, they’re claiming ownership of the film, and presumably they’re the ones getting paid when people watch it there. If they are hijacking the film’s profits, then actual financial harm is being done and Gaylor may have grounds for a 512(f) case.

Oh, but I’m sure it’s all just an honest mistake, a computer glitch or something. Gosh darn those automated processes.

(Attn: Gaylor?talk to a lawyer about this.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Rap Hip Hop Pop Girl Talk Mashup

So GT makes a mix. Oh yeah so did most of the urban music artist known across the US. GT gets invited to music Festivals. RapHIPHOP dead to the people because they sampled and pissed the world of music off. GT famous and makes some cash, OR did they just exploit his ability to draw a crowd into one arena and they got PAID. When they can not pull a penny from the process they will stop it. When they figure out how to MONETIZE from the Thieves then every thing is A-OK. BTW Spotify is owned by a Major Label. Look it up. As stated above, “WHEN THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO MONETIZE FROM THE THIEVES” then it is OK. It is not about Copyright, its about maintaining the flow of cash into one centralized location. I am all for free speech, yet I am annoyed that several artist took from the poor folk and uneducated and profited. When the poor folk repeated the business model the heavy metal hammer came crashing down. If you read between my lines then you understand what I am saying. It’s all hear in black and white.

Anonymous Coward says:

A big problem with this is that once you get one of these strikes against you on YouTube, an account in “Good Standing” gets your account limited to 15 mins. per video again.

If you sign up for a YouTube account today, the max video length is 15 mins. If you go for a certain amount of time without a copyright/vulgarity/nudity claim against your account, (In my case it was about a year) They lift the time limit and you can upload videos that are any length.

If you upload a video that uses video or music, fair use or not, you can be flagged for a copyright copyright violation. If you don’t fight it, and really, who wants to, you’re now on YouTube’s shit list for some undetermined time. When YouTube decides you’ve been good for long enough, then they give you back your video length freedom.

I have a Non-Monetized YouTube account with subscribers in the hundreds, around 400 I think, and recently got a strike. It was for a video that had been on YouTube for 2-1/2 years, and had almost 80,000 views. Now my account is limited to 15 min. videos for the foreseeable future. They also warn you that if you violate again during your punishment, your account could be permanently banned.

Content owners claim copyright theft left and right, and I think they do it more often than they should because they know most people don’t have either the power or the will to get into a pissing match in court.


The other thing about YouTube that bugs me is that someone will claim copyright over one of my videos, and monetize it. That’s fine with me, I just want the video to stay up. But I’m also notified at the same time, that they (the content owner) could change their mind at any time and have the video removed and I will get a strike against my account. It’s all these mixed signals about what is right and what is wrong to upload that bugs me.

Hey, You uploaded copyrighted material, but it’s ok, we’re going to put ads on it and make some money. *2 years goes by* “Hey we don’t like that you uploaded this, have a strike!”

Uploaded one video that immediately got tagged as Blocked Worldwide, and it put my account status in the red. Immediately deleted it. Not 5 mins later I checked my email and it said that the video was ok, but there would be ads on it. WTF? I didn’t uploaded it again.

Anyone who has had these notices on YouTube knows how weird the wording on these things can be, and how unclear they make it as to what’s ok and what’s not.

dano (profile) says:

Youtube copyright violation

I received a violation on a video I uploaded. It was of a neighborhood bicycle parade held on the 4th of July. Unfortunately for me, included in the parade was a boombox playing Stars and Stripes Forever in the background, so guess what? Youtube copyright violation. There’s no way to remove just the music, so essentially I can’t post the video. I don’t think this is what our country’s founders had in mind.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Youtube copyright violation

Unfortunately for me, included in the parade was a boombox playing Stars and Stripes Forever in the background

Stars and Stripes Forever was written by John Phillip Sousa in 1896. It was officially recorded in 1897, and was made the national march for the US in that same year. It is in the public domain. Unless they were getting you for mechanical rights violation for the particular orchestra which recorded it after 1923, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Further more, the community band I was in that recorded stars and stripes forever with released the song as public domain, and I am sure many, if not most other bands have done the same. I’d suggest fighting that one.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Youtube copyright violation

Further more, the community band I was in that recorded stars and stripes forever with released the song as public domain, and I am sure many, if not most other bands have done the same. I’d suggest fighting that one.

And even further, the official one is performed by the U.S. Marine Corps band, and is public domain, whether anyone likes that status or not.

Anonymous Coward says:

He needs to learn the difference between “building on the past” versus “just replaying the past”. Honestly, sampling someone else’s work and calling it “new” is like polishing a 20 year old car and calling it “new”. It isn’t new. It’s old.

Building on culture doesn’t mean photocopying it. It means making your own version of it, improving it, learning from it and INTERPRETING IT yourself. Just putting someone else’s performance on and pushing a button isn’t a new performance, it’s just a lazy ass way for someone with less musical talent to claim to be a musician.

Robert (profile) says:

Speaking of eOne...

Given the 2006 release of an album came with a contest for fans to generate a video for the single, I wonder whether such things will be possible under eOne (given how they went after the remix manifesto video).

It makes me sad when artists you respect join forces with companies that issue copyright claims when that isn’t the focus of the video. Makes me wonder whether the fan contest video thing, which helped the album in terms of sales, will ever be possible.

googleypants says:

theives is gonna steal, haters gonna hate, law is gonna fight

yup. if hollywood worked like the internet no one would get paid for anything… ev-er…

thank god people in hollywood respect artists enough to negotiate contracts, pay people for their labor, and allow them to decline deals they find inequitable.

it’s called, “consent”. there can be no liberty, without consent.

googleypants says:

Youtube can go?

“Of course it does. The legal system is geared so that the richest party in a dispute wins.”

not really. the law sides with copyright holders. if the work is being used or exploited illegally it’s pretty cut and dry. remixes are not protected under fair use. that’s why there’s an entire cottage industry dedicated to sample clearances. it’s really not that hard if people make the effort to do so.

nearly three decades of hip-hop shows that it works.

googleypants says:


“Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. “

– really? – How So? Spotify is a legally licensed services paying royalties to performers and songwriters. How were the songs licensed that Jamie Thomas was distributing and how much was she and those illegally operating providers paying performers and songwriters? Uhm, that would be ZERO.

googlypants says:

funny hoops a hulu

“A few years ago, we wrote about the ridiculous hoops filmmaker Brett Gaylor had to jump through in making his film,”

– ah mike… really? “ridiculous hoops” like licenses clearances and permission? silly boy… you do understand that’s how the adult do it in Hollywood, right? They ask permission, negotiate fees, issue contracts, pay the artists and allow the artist to decline if they want too…

Mike – do you think Hollywood film producers should be able to use whatever music they want in their films without licenses or negotiating with artists? What if film and television worked like internet exploitation? You just keep making more and more arguments against artists being compensated for their work… why is that? Why are the only musicians you don’t hate the ones that agree to give up their rights and lay down for you?


here’s how the adults do it, with respect:

googleypants says:

it's refreshing

it’s refreshing to see youtube/google and hulu taking responsibility for infringing materials and doing the right thing by taking them offline. the filmmaker should get the appropriate licenses.

as a music documentary filmmaker myself, I know what a PITA this can be, but as a creator myself, I respect the work of others.

a little respect goes a long way.

Anonymous Coward says:

Youtube copyright violation

I’m so glad that Google is learning their lesson to respect artists, performers, songwriters and creators by enforcing copyright on YouTube, this is fantastic progress.

Perhaps one day, the internet may actually work FAIRLY for artists and creators as Hollywood does with respect, permission, contracts and payments.

Anonymous Coward says:

funny hoops a hulu

“googlypants”? Hurricane head not silly enough for you, and you had to spam the same websites multiple times in this thread alone?

Tell you what, hurricane head. You’ll only have the privilege to spam everyone with your nonsense when your sleeping giant artist friends come and vote every single one of your comments insightful.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: funny hoops a hulu

“Afraid”? The last time you were asked about this your response was “just wait”. If the opposition against Mike is of any magnitude at all, this site should be swarming with criticism.

The fact that you merely continue to paste the same hyperlinks over and over again is bringing your support (or lack thereof) into question. Come back when you’ve made some new blogposts.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...