So here’s the discussion:

Is Girl Talk a:
Band: NO.
Visionary? Yes.
Artist? Hell Yes.
Dirty Dirty Copyright Infringer: Yes.
Criminal? Semantically, Probably. Should he be sent to prison, No.

You left out of your screed here, Old Man Raster, a couple of points to ponder.

1. You said at Open Everything, what gets me is that there are plenty of artists out there who would love it if Gregg Michael Gillis would sample their work and do something cool with it.
There are tons of artists who _Want_ Girl Talk to remix their work. But he doesn’t because, lets face it, most copyleft work isn’t part of the cultural landscape that makes Girl Talks work resonate.
Frankly, without the Emotional Baggage that listeners have attached to the source materials Girl Talk works with, his stuff just isn’t that good. Hearing a song you know and love presented in a new or interesting way is Girl Talk’s magic.

2, Just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it wrong. And just because something is awesome, doesn’t mean we’re wrong for making it illegal. Girl Talk’s work infringes on the rights holders rights to tell him to knock it off. And We’re talking about Substantial infringement here, if not minimally on the original right’s holder right to determine what cultural context his or her work is used.

There is lots of room for discussion here about the necessity for copyright reform in the United States– but that doesn’t change the fact that by using substantial portions of copy-written work in his remixes, Mr. Gregg Michael Gillis is committing a copyright crime, and I don’t have a problem with that. Mr. Talk’s right to infringe on that copyright as a method of creating discourse is what comes with enjoying the right of Free Speech.

But the trick with Free Speech is this: Although you have the right to say what you want, you also have the burden of being responsible for exercising that right.

The better question, then, is what is the extent of the burden that Mr. Talk should bear?

3. So, if we agree that Gregg Michael Gillis should not be selling his entirely derivative works without compensating the rights holders, the more interesting discussion to me is this: Are his public performances of his works equally as infringing? Or are they simply illegal public performances?