Plagerism vs. Remix
March 5, 2014
In the Ted Talk “Laws that Choke Creativity”, Lawrence Lessig discusses three technologies (talking machine, planes, and broadcasting) that forced a new understanding of culture. He defines this change as a “…culture where people participate in the creation and recreation of their culture”. He goes on to argue that recreation or “remixing” of previously created content is a form of creativity. This is especially true for the younger generation. I believe that the millennial generation has redefined a looser guideline as to what constitutes plagiarism and piracy. In your opinion, where is the line between a cultural recreation and the theft of intellectual property?
3 Responses to “Plagerism vs. Remix”
March 7th, 2014 at 11:41 am
It’s a difficult line to draw. I’ve been considering this topic after reading the assignment and have started to better understand Lessig’s argument. RO and RW are very different, but should both be allowed to thrive without negatively affecting one another. Lessig discusses how, in an economic sense, by allowing more free media, it will create more competition in the media industries – which is good for business.
In terms of your question, “where is the line between a cultural recreation and the theft of intellectual property?” I’m inclined to say the line is in terms of money. If an artist/musician/whatever creates a piece of work and sells it for profit, or doesn’t even sell it – just exhibits it – it is their livelihood and personal method of expression. If an amateur remixes it, with still recognizable content and tries to make gain off of it, I would say that is the line. If it negatively affects the artist, and also rips off part of the original artists individuality that it is trespassing/pirating. But it is so important for our generation to talk about politics and culture in ways we understand – which is often through a mixed media outlet. A tricky subject that will only become louder in the next decade.
March 9th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
I am impressed with your remark about money. I had never really thought of it in that way. You express the idea that, if someone is fiscally benefitting from the work of others it is considered plagiarism. The most interesting part of this argument is that you state “if it negatively affects the artist, and also rips off part of the original artist’s individuality that is trespassing/pirating”. I agree with this Lessig based concept which uses economic reasoning as the basis for an argument on media and “remixing” or sharing of intellectual material and property. However, one question I have is: what if the remixer doesn’t benefit financially, but benefits in other ways? For example, during a campus training for the University Hearings Board we reviewed a plagiarism case in which the accused student had failed to use in-text citations on a fist draft his/her paper. The student cited the source in his works cited section, but failed to credit the author in the body of the text. The work was a rough draft to be submitted to a GTF for review. the student was found guilty of plagiarism and was given a failing grade in the class. While I think this is an extreme punishment, the justification used by the people who found the student responsible was that the student was using their work to get college credit. While it wasn’t a financial gain it was a personal and academic gain. I believe this adds another level of complexity to the argument.
March 7th, 2014 at 11:03 pm
Dear, CjB
In my discussion, I define that the line between a cultural recreation and the theft of intellectual property depends on how people use them. If the recreation or remix is using on any commercials, then the creators should pay to owners of the intellectual property. However, if the recreation is only use for entertainments, there is no need to charge the fee for using other people’s intellectual property. Also at this time, I think we should add some limits for the use of others’ property, such as it cannot use as the insult of someone for fun. Kids nowadays are so smart that they can quickly learn things that will bring fun for them. For example, when my aunt still did not how to play her smart phone, my cousins already knew how to download apps and play games. Since the primary goal of kids’ life is happiness and fun, they will find any resources mostly using computers and online resources, near them and make fun stuff. Thus, I believe that if we did not teach our children well about the intellectual properties, and they will become thefts of intellectual property unintentionally and intentionally by entering holes of laws.