Rhetorical Velocity on the crossroads of Copyright

Ridolfo and Rife’s article is of great interest to me because of this new term, "rhetorical velocity." The questions revolving around this term is a lot for me to grasp and unpack, but I will attempt to belay my thoughts in an organized manner.

So on page 7 of the article it says that, "rhetorical velocity is a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how s/he anticipates how the text might be later used." My first thought was "WHAT?" How is this possible? How can a rhetor possibly keep in mind all the ways their text could be reworked and then on top of that, have their text be positioned exactly the way that would advantageous to their objectives in the first place? I feel my Public Relations course kicking in with the idea that "crises will always happen, what a Public Relations professional must do it always be prepared for the worst..." (not really an exact quote anywhere; just my general knowledge on crises in the field from what i can remember...) So basically I'm trying to say that I've been taught they predicting the future with people, or especially media, is near to impossible. You never know what agenda they may have next! However, in every debate you must try to be a devil's advocate and if I'm looking at the opposing side I can see how this is somewhat possible. A rhetor may be able to take a guess of how their work is reappropiated from the subject of their text. Like, let's say, if they are producing something on the importance of legalizing marijuana. They could predict their work to be mixed into a persuasive speech, media or any medium that will basically use the information from their text using the same goals. But to think of a way someone will use it against their purpose? It is hard for me to think of an example for this. So, basically I'm trying to demonstrate how "rhetorical velocity" is a difficult concept for me to grasp to be grasped by anyone. Don't get me wrong, though, aside from what it may sound like, I really like this term. Let me explain further:

Rhetorical Velocity allows us to step into the world of legality and the ever complex dimension of copyright laws! Which I like. Now copyright is an issue that I have semi-strong feelings about. On one hand, I see the pros to being able to have your creative and intellectual property protected. I mean hey, you come up with something brilliant, you better darn be recognized for it. On the other hand (let's call this my let's-all-be-friends-and-work-together hippie side) how are we ever supposed to grow as collective beings if we cannot take someone's ideas and build upon them? It's like every genius invention, thought and idea is copyrighted so fast that the inventors forget that maybe the rest of the world may need that invention, thought and idea to progress with. But noooo, the world now-a-days is all about capitalism and money, money, money. So those are my thoughts on copyright issues in a nut shell. I will not distress you all further on a topic I could talk about forever.

Lastly, I would like to end with a quote from Lawrence Lessig from the article we read: "Free cultures are cultures that leave a great deal open for others to build upon; unfree, or permission, cultures leave much less. Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so..." (pg.15)