All new art is influenced by the past and the past's art is somewhat "off limits" by copyright laws. There definitely is bias in this film because of the various examples of allusion and anecdote. These persuasive devices definitely only back up one side of the argument; the morally correct and easy to relate side of the argument that is.
In the film we see many devices to make the audience have a one sided opinion. The most influencial form of bias in this film was the use of many famous artists who's work seemed to have a strong relation to artists work before them. Later in the film, Brett suggests that civilization and lots of art is all based on previous generations culture. This is an obvious and true fact because it is right in front of our eyes. The device of allusion strongly supports only one side of the argument in this film. The filmmaker also uses anecdote to support his argument by telling the story of a mother of two boys, the average family, and how she was fined over $100,000 for illegally downloading 24 songs.
The filmmaker is correct in regards to ridiculous copyright laws. Most musicians (what these copyright laws related to) would agree that music is more important than money and big corporations are not seeing that. Art is what holds our cultures together and is the loudest form of self expression. Does it make sense to put laws and restrictions on ones voice? There is only so much that can be created in this world; sooner or later we're going to have to start using a bit of the past to create much more future.
No comments:
Post a Comment