a remix of a remix of a remix of a remix of

Copyright is a word that many people know, few people pay attention to, have heard stories about and use on a daily basis in their public lives… But can have severe consequences. It has evolved, over time, to influence almost everything we do. How we learn, what we create, even how we think is somehow touched by this concept of ‘copyright’. It almost seems preposterous that something as artificial as the idea of ‘ownership’ could direct something so innately human as the idea of ‘creation’… But copyright was not always meant to incite images of court battles and million dollar lawsuits over simple images and sounds. In its original form, copyright’s purpose was to inspire creativity, Now, rather than protecting an artist’s work and making sure they are compensated, it does nearly the opposite- it protects companies rights to maintaining brand integrity while inhibiting the common person’s freedom. Copyright, as it functions in the corporate world, is a beehive of jargon, exceptions, complicated rules and dollar signs. Such a designation has nearly been rendered useless as people now explore the furthest extent of the public eye, fair use, and remixing. In the sphere of public domain, copyright functions differently in its overarching values- which seem to favor personal creativity over than personal accountability.

Remixing, like that of copyright, is not a new term. Even if the composer is unaware of their remixing, it does not deny the composition’s existence. I, as a remixer in an academic and artistic sense, am acutely aware of how people can look at a common object, recognize its flaws, and redesign it with a completely renewed sense of being. I like to think of this almost as a tangible stasis shift- extending the use of an object to a new audience, to fulfill a new purpose. This happens to furniture, architecture, to the ever-changing style of clothes, to technology, to everything. These stasis shifts are the source of all things new, and these new things (provided they are vastly different from the original) are protected under copyright laws. However, when these new things are ideas, the subject of ownership become nuanced- How do you own an idea? 

Idea come in all shapes and sizes, but when concerning blogs, ideas are most commonly portrayed using words. However, these words Blog cannot be touched. For the most part they are free, with a couple few maintaining a profit from the selling of advertising spaces. A majority of blogs are for personal use, but a few fill an informative or educational niche. These few blogs reside in a gray, unexplored area of copyright. These bloggers are very rarely scientists and do not often publish their scientific findings on their online blogs. Rather, bloggers are a middle man, whose sole purpose lies in their ability to convey information to an online public. Inherent in these conversions are uses of intertext and recontextualization, which is blatant use of other’s materials. As long as it is properly cited, the writer should not find themselves in any legal trouble. But does this type of work necessitate citation? In theory, shouldn’t every sentence require a citation within a citation within a citation? It’s cite-ception!

Before I project my next statements, I would like to eclipse them with an assumption that most bloggers are not participating in their craft for the monetary value. Sure, some bloggers write as a constituent for their journalist job or to create a name within the business, but I find that many blog for some person exigence that it extended to others. By judging the nature of the blogging material as free, social (inviting response), remixable, and ultimately lawless, it is easy to categorize blog posts under fair use. The internet makes this duty incredibly easy to fulfill, as well as almost harkens this type of remixing into existence. With the existence of the internet, the possibility of a world where remixing can happen instantaneously, side-by-side, and can even skip stases is all too real. Copyright, in the public sphere, may be antiquated. 

These assertions are not necessarily legal, but I think they hold true when you consider work done in such a public sphere as an investment for the future. Don’t get me wrong- it is important to give credit where credit is due, as I have with Bazerman’s intertextuality, Fahnestock’s concept of Stases, and Danielle Devoss’s presentation on Copyright, but this seems to me to be a matter or respect rather than a matter of monetary value.

WORKS CITED

  Bazerman, Charles. “Intertextuality.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: And Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practice, Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004. 83-96. 

Devoss, Danielle. "Composition and Copyright." Florida State University,  11 Febuary  2013.

Fahnestock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written Communication 5.4 (Oct 1988): 427-443.