RiP: A Remix Manifesto‘s three-dimensional message gives it a punch not many documentaries can claim. A piece of media itself, the documentary stands as an example of its argument. Being open source and readily available for both consumption and distribution, its very existence is a statement on intellectual property, copyright, and the future of media. But when viewers are allowed, and even encouraged to download and stream a film, what happens to the budget? This is where things get sticky. Talking about the sentimental ownership of ideas is one thing, but for people who live largely off ideas, like artists, protecting their art is a matter of making rent. For example: RiP‘s revenue has not been made available—did they break even? Can artists subsist on pay-what-you-want models? Why were copyrights created in the first place, and what has changed to make them unnecessary? These were the questions on my mind when I began watching RiP, and although the documentary gave me more material to think about, the question of how free information should be remains without a satisfying answer.

RiP does not pretend this is a black-and-white issue. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the law must adjust the line to suit a modern-day common sense that clamors for Creative Commons. It is oversimplification to put pirating songs and re-imagining a fairy tale in the same box. Building on the past is not the same thing as simply stealing from the past; taking inspiration is not the same thing as taking work. Gaylor, RiP‘s director, does not explicitly conflate the two, but they live uncomfortably close within his argument for copyleft. Nevertheless, for an exploratory documentary covering such a vast subject in media, his inclusion of the layers of possible copyright infringement, some more grey than others, adds to the depth of the issue—and to the controversy. And that, after all, is the idea: get people thinking, get people talking, get people doing. RiP is built for audience engagement. Visual and audio remixes are interspersed throughout the interviews and research, and the documentary is very self-aware that it may itself be illegal. Again with the three-dimensionality: RiP is a film that is about itself.

Spring-boarding from the information in RiP and my experiences in the art community, relaxing copyrights does work. Reverting to the old patron system through systems like Kickstarter, Patreon, and simply asking for donations keeps many independent artists afloat and provides enough funding to encourage new creative projects. Breaking out of corporate media and bringing art closer to the consumer both in sharing and in funding may very well be the future, and that future may not need copyright lawsuits. But in the process, let us not forget the artist. Artists need creative license, but they also need to be able to license their individual creativity. Balance is key.