Is Everything a Remix?

In experiencing the varying accounts and perspectives on remixing and copyrighting in Good Copy Bad Copy I was able to identify a lot of overlapping themes that had been addressed in Ridolfo and Rife’s piece. Evidently, in this case, it was the remixers vs. the copyright enforcers.

Throughout the documentary it became clear to me that the remixers, for example “Girl Talk”, “DJ Danger Mouse” and “Belem” of Northern Brazil were all relatively young artists, while the enforcers of copyright and ownership seemed to be the rather aged, traditional work people. Coming from the tongue of a music enthusiast myself, I undoubtedly respect music from all ages, including a lot of the remediated songs that are produced today. According to the documentary, it seems that it is mostly younger people that are more accepting of the new “remix culture”. Just as Ridolfo and Rife acknowledge in their case study that “rhetorical practices in a digital age are different than traditionally conceived” (229), so do DJs and remixers. With cultural growth comes change. It’s inevitable and cannot be ignored. On minute 2:46, Girl Talk expresses, “the current laws are inhibiting the flow of culture and music.” To him, the mixing of old and new music is merely a representation of cultural growth, not theft. Later on minute 32:50, a remix-supporter explains his sentiments saying, “there are lots of laws created for specific interests over the years in order to prevent society from becoming the producer of culture in itself and for itself.” Again, they are asserting that members of copyright organizations and lawmakers are so resistant to change that they are in turn inhibiting cultural growth.

Here again we see the effect of time on a discourse. Music as a discourse is ever changing with time and remixers believe that with such strict laws against the sharing of music, creativity is stunted. In support, according to a representative of “Creative Commons”, also addressed in Ridolfo and Rife’s work, “copyright is so expansive that it is inhibiting creativity” (22:28). On the other hand, large music distributors express their distress in music’s overall loss in value due to file sharing.  While young DJs and producers believe the copyright laws are inhibiting creativity, enforcers believe them instead to be an incentive for creativity. If anyone has the power to use and “copy” another’s music, what is original anymore? Again, who is the agent?

What can be considered an authentic “text”? I tend to think that hardly anything can be considered truly original anymore. The chance that someone has already come up with an idea that you believe to be original is highly likely. The head of the “Global Legal Policy” quotes, “digital downloading killed the music business” (32:24). Though music consumers may acknowledge who originally created a song in a remix, is it fair to be freely used?

In a modern example, artist Taylor Swift recently expressed her discontent with internet users’ greedy theft of her music. While her albums appeared on free music sharer “Spotify”, she began to feel that her music was losing value because of how easily accessible it had become. She worked so hard to make new music and all her fans were getting it for free. She didn’t see a reward in that. Because now the Internet is such an incredible tool for the sharing of information, it seems almost impossible to control what is shared.

-Samantha Stamps