Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

morrison-dylan-fan The day that this film arrived at my door in the post,I had been looking online at the days news,and I noticed that there had been a big "anoucment" in the entertainment industry about the entire music catalogue of The Beatles being "finally" made available for legal downloads online.When watching this excellent film about the history of copyrighting evolving ideas and peoples creation.I was a little bit surprised that the battle between the music industry and the rebel DJ DangerMouse mash-up defining album-The Grey Album,which entwined The Beatles White Album and Jay Zs The Black Album into something completely new and exciting,that was sadly not mentioned in the film.Thankfully,the film is that packed with truly shocking revelations of how drug and media companies are trying to put peoples evolving ideas into a permanent headlock.With this film,director Brett Gaylor shows that this is a subject that everyone should be asking some very big questions about...The outline of the documentary:Film maker Brett Gaylor looks at the history of copyrighting material.The film starts by showing how the Public Domain was created in 1710 with the stature of Anne copyright law,which was made so that the creators would own their material for fourteen years, before it went into the Public Domain,so that other people could build upon the ideas that had been created.Brett shows how the desperation of huge corporations to completely stop anything entering the Public Domain.In 1998,the copyright law was re-written in the US,so that the Walt Disney Corporation could hold the rights to Mickey Mouse for the next 0ne hundred years.When the law got put into place,all of the major companies took a huge sigh of relief knowing that they will now Always be in control of ownership.But,with a new creation of something called the internet, and a "movie villain" called Napster and other file-sharing websites,which gave people the chance to create the biggest music library in history,and also gave people the chance to download and discover an unlimited amount of music, without being forced to pay highly-inflated prices for one three minute song, Showed that maybe, the ownership and creation of peoples ideas might be getting won back by the consumers.

morkulv_athferion This documentary in general focuses around copyright, and the right to remix old music from other artists and it makes some very good points. You only have to look at YouTube to see for yourself; how many video's per day do you think get pulled because it contained some footage, music or sound (even when it concerns fan-art!) that is owned by some company? What started as a battle against copyright-thieves now evolved into a battle of control and money.Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica makes an appearance, in the form of an old interview concerning the whole Napster-debate which is hypocrite to say the least; tape-trading back in the day is what made Metallica so well known to begin with, so this is nothing more then a moneygrabbing issue from him.If you want to know more whats going on behind all the anti-piracy campaigns, then watch this. Its well worth the watch.

psylockem It's a nice... I've always thought there was no difference to people buying LP's and recording songs onto private mixtape cassettes. Like musicians don't rip off things from other musicians anyway... We need to get back to enjoyment of things, and away from the total corporate world. The use of Walt Disney for instance is a good example of where it's been done before.@ Henk Storm... where do you buy CD's that cost €50,- for 12 songs? Even in times of the Guilder they weren't much above FL40,-I still buy plenty of CD's and just as many and if I'm honest even more than I did in the past before the internet downloading times. If a CD is over a certain price, I just wait till it hits a cheaper price... try iTunes.

randomanon This documentary (indeed, manifesto is correct) misses its intended point. On the one hand its arguing for the rights of remixers, on the other hand for the right to share and use, even when the point isn't to make something new out of it. If you really want to effectively argue the first, you shouldn't only try the "throw everything out" argument. If some artist wants to give their work away for free, more power to them (it's their choice). But that is a far cry from arguing that everybody should do that, and that the only allowable business model is charging for live performances.The makers of the documentary should then have asked how the model could be changed so that you keep the good parts of it, while stopping the more egregious overreaches. (Even if it would eventually argue that it is not possible.) Even while Walt Disney used other's ideas, he didn't take their drawings, stories, dialogue etc. as is. So is there a fruitful way to draw a line? But the documentary makes no effort in that direction, and there is little reason to believe anyone on the other side is listening or even starts to think.The makers should have tried to present their arguments to someone (intelligent) who doesn't share their viewpoint, and asked for their rebuttal (with sufficient time to prepare their argument). That's like sharing ideas, man. Like totally not what the movie is about.The point of this documentary isn't helped the fact (IMO) that all the remixes and mash ups in it are pretty awful. And what is good in them could have been achieved without recycling beats and samples. And it is very clear from the documentary that the artists understand that they shouldn't be doing what they are doing under current laws, but no tough questions are asked from them, like why they still think its necessary or better to break them. (The argument is presented as "because I want to, I should be able to.") IMO, The artists involved should stop whining and make a creative commons collection of samples from which to build mash ups, remixes and whatever. Allowing others to make remixes of this documentary is a starting point. (But, again, kinda not the point presented in the movie, which is an argument against the ownership rights of artists and copyright holders.)