Figured it out

This is what I'm doing for my final project.

Copyright law is extremely intrinsic, complicated, and situational. Due to technological advancements, not just songs, but sections - mere seconds or single notes at times - can be sampled and taken from other songs in order to embellish a song or to create a new one entirely. Being able to really determine as to wether a song was stolen from someone else, a part was borrowed, or someone simply created a song that sounded similar to another is nearly impossible. In other words, it is all grey area. Thats what this documentary will explore. The grey area that is overtaking that black and white in terms of song and idea ownership.

In order to do this, a five people will be interviewed. Three musicians, a lawyer, and a studio producer/engineer. All five have years of experience in the music industry or the court house and have dealt with the law in terms of music. The questions will be derived from past court cases, but it will not be entirely Q & A format. There will be a set of pre-determined questions to initially ask the interviewees, but as the interviews progress, most question will most likely be off-the-cuff.

The Questions will have to be from both sides of the spectrum - from those who are pro-copyright and those who are anti-copyright. If both spectrums are explored, hopefully, an argument can be made for both. If an argument is made for both, then it will challenge the viewer to make a choice or to realize that the extent to which a song is borrowed or copied is situational.

Machinimals

I started watching a few of the machinima shorts on You Tube and a few thoughts hit me all at once.

I thought "this is interesting." In the New York Times article "The XBox Auteurs," tries to make machinima look like a budding art-form. Taking characters that are fixed in a certain way, and making them do what isn't natural to their designed purpose (In this case, making violent characters non-violent and giving them a personality), is definitely a different approach to to the medium of video games. However, considering it to be "art" is a bit of a stretch. There is humor, yes, but humor needs wit and constantly changing dynamics in order to have artistic merit.

For example, the creators of Family Guy has been nominated for and has won countless Emmy and Annie awards. The one aspect of the show, however, is that they also won Emmies (sp?) for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I don't mean to strap myself over a barrel for this show, but my point is that it has depth beyond just trying to be funny. The show, much like the Simpsons and South Park (Both of which have also won many awards for more than comical aspects) tackles issues of society out-right and with colorful, smart banter. Machinima just seems to be banter. "Red vs. Blue" came out in 2003, and to be honest, it seems to have dropped off the map. It may have pioneered a wave of Machinima, but I would be hard pressed to find anyone who a) knows that that word even means, and b) who would find it as intriguing as on of the previously mentioned cartoons.

Ok, you know when you're writing about something and then you realize that you're half wrong or completely wrong? I'm the former of the two. I can't completely discredit Machinima. It is good for a laugh, and it has inspired many to create their own short films. Hell, there's even a film festival for them now. I guess the problem I have with it is calling it "art." I see it more as just a funny take on a video game once a group of kids become bored with doing the same thing over and over again.

This begs the question as to what art actually is. Especially now, when there are so many mediums and ways to create, haw can we sift out the mundane and monotonous from the vivid and original? Can time tell? The Simpsons have been on the air for 20 years and it is still going strong. But will Red v. Blue? What about all the short sketches on College Humor?Its too early to tell, but if I my kids want the DVD box set of Rooster Teeth Productions, then I'll bite my tongue.