Remix Culture as a Critique of Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Laws - Essay Example

Remix Culture as a critique of Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Laws Name Institution Course Tutor Date Remix Culture as a critique of Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Laws Introduction One of the amazing mysteries of the 21st century is the increasing of order, in which conventional mode of operation have been replaced by digital technologies. The society is adopting the remix culture, which seems to override the ideals of intellectual property and copyright laws. In other words, the remix culture asserts that remixing, editing and rearranging original works is instrumental in unearthing new dimensions. Remix culture refers to the practice of using derivative works by rearranging and editing original works in order to produce new creations; this is a practice that has taken root in the world today. The world is indeed shifting to the technological age whereby knowledge and information are shared in a universal platform. For a long time, copyright and intellectual property laws have dominated the circles of inventions. Intellectual property rights and copyright laws imply that a person’s works are protected against reproduction. The laws give the author of a piece of art the sole ownership and right to the work, hence maintaining its authenticity. In this respect, it is illegal for anyone to duplicate or use a copyrighted work without the owner’s consent. The remix culture has continued to raise criticisms on the validity of intellectual property and copyright laws, citing that they block the expansion of knowledge and invention. According to the proponents of the remix culture, the world is increasingly interconnected, thus, sharing ideas in a global sphere is significant in exploring diverse array of works. In light of this, it is explicitly clear that remix culture is a critique of intellectual property rights and copyright laws. This essay seeks to explore the ways in which the remix culture is a critique of intellectual property rights and copyright laws. Cultural Shifts It is precise that cultural trends are dominating the world; there is dire need for new things that will accommodate the dynamics present in today’s world. It is worth noting that there are different audiences who are consuming diverse contents differently. In this respect, it is imperative to employ diversity in the delivery platforms of these contents. The need to embrace fundamental cultural shifts is one of the reasons why the remix culture criticizes intellectual property and copyright laws. Intellectual property and copyright laws advocate that original works of an author should remain embedded in him or her. On the contrary, the remix culture criticizes this move by arguing that it blocks the ability of invention. According to proponents of the remix culture, reaching out to different audiences, calls for reinvention and remixing of earlier works. Reaching out to different audiences in diverse contexts drives the remix culture to edit earlier works in order to meet the needs of different people. For example, folk tales and folk poetry have undergone reproductions in order to reflect the existing cultural shifts in the world today. The revisions are instrumental in improving the existing works and ensuring the satisfaction of diverse audiences. It is apparent that culture is an extremely dynamic discipline that changes depending on the values that people choose to adopt. In light of this, cultural shifts have indeed influenced the impact of copyright laws. The remix culture fills the void by arguing that the laws do not accommodate the needs and demands of digital technologies. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear that in a cultural shift, it is fundamental to note that great things stem from merging and converting ideas into new things. This fact implies that the world is an amalgamation of remixes that improve existing works (Harley, 2009 p 9). Freedom of Knowledge The freedom of knowledge is a wide spread concept today; societies are increasingly realizing the need to share knowledge in solidarity for the sake of human progress. In other words, groups that advocate for the remix culture assert that copyright laws are detrimental to human progress. Rigid structures of intellectual property and copyright laws only lead to a slow human progress process. The remix culture criticizes copyright laws by arguing that it hinders the ability to spread information to serve the needs of the audience. In this regard, intellectual property and copyright laws do not allow people to expand information in the spirit of universal knowledge transfer. As opposed to the laws, the remix culture advocates that a person’s original knowledge can act as a dominant tool in expanding its contents. For example, the Wikipedia website is an example of a remix in which it gives an opportunity for anyone to share his or her knowledge. This enables the users to edit the information present in the website. Undoubtedly, knowledge is a universal language that connects people from diverse social and cultural orientations (Dezuanni, 2008 p 13). Groups that support the remix culture disapprove the ideals advanced by copyright laws; they argue that they deny the capacity of knowledge to bridge the gap between invention and reinvention. We live in a knowledge-driven world that acknowledges the fundamental right to information, and sharing it for the progress of human advancement. Concisely, it is worth remembering that according to copyright laws, it is illegal to use another person’s works. This is the tragedy, which the remix culture seeks to tackle by disapproving the laws. Indeed, the freedom of knowledge is a fundamental right that should play a critical role in advancing human societies. This implies that copyright laws infringe the right, by instilling structures that make it impossible for knowledge to spread freely. In this respect, it is notable to highlight that the remix culture is a custodian of the freedom of knowledge, as opposed to intellectual property and copyright laws that clog information to the source. Information Technology The age of information technology has taken centre stage and it appears that it is gradually advancing the concept of the remix culture. Certainly, the internet is a fundamental tool in the world today; it is a component of culture and an integral feature in the spread of information. Recently, there have been attacks on various internet search engines because they give links to copyrighted information. For instance, Google books present pages of copyrighted material to a wide range of internet users. Copyright laws view this as an infringement of individual rights of ownership, but the remix culture views this as a platform to connect people with knowledge around the globe. Proponents of the remix culture assert that if an invention does not advance public good, then it is not worth investing in it. This implies that intellectual property rights and copyright laws should consider primarily, the interest of the public, in relation to the laws. Caging the services and ability of a piece of work, at the altar of copyright laws is what the remix culture criticizes boldly (Flew, 2007 p 257). In reference to the Google case, it has recently been discovered that the search engine blocks huge pieces of the books, which encourages people to purchase the books. Additionally, it is evidently clear that it supports the lawful interests of the owners. This demonstrates that the remix culture does not seek to destroy the integrity of individual works, but it seeks to expand the jurisdiction of invention. In other words, it edits, remixes and rearranges original work to invent new perspectives. Undeniably, technology is a dominant tool that advances the ideals of the remix culture. Restrictive copyright laws The media industry is extremely influential in controlling the attitudes and interests of the public. This means that the media industry has the capacity to use copyright laws to discourage the public from getting value from creative works. The core purpose of intellectual property and copyright laws is to inspire creativity for the public good, but in most cases, this does not happen. Restrictive laws have made it hard for hard for the public to appreciate artistic creations. The inability for the public to reproduce creative works and get value from the works is contrary to the intended purpose of copyright laws. This implies that the media industry controls the rigid laws, and in turn destroys the sole purpose of copyright laws. The remix culture is a sustained critique of the copyright laws since they block the advancement of artistic work. Those in support of the culture believe that the world is made of remixes. Modifications and reproduction of creative works has made it possible for the world to appreciate re-invention and artistic growth. For instance, music sampling is one of the ways in which creative works are reproduced to produce a new taste. Music sampling involves sampling sounds from original music pieces and creating a diverse taste. This practice is deemed illegal by copyright laws, but in essence, it does not infringe the owner’s right as the original owner (Brian and Damien, 2005 p3). Anti-copyright law groups assert that the inability for the public to improve on creative works damages cultural and artistic progress. This tragedy has led to a sustained critique of intellectual property and copyright laws by the remix culture. Indeed, the restrictions imposed on the public concerning copyright laws make it hard to make a breakthrough in cultural ad scientific advancement. Experts highlight that flexible copyright laws are instrumental to technological and cultural growth. Some assert that the speedy growth of German’s technological exploits in the turn of the 19th century is attributed to its flexible intellectual property and copyright laws. This is a clear demonstration that imposing restrictive laws on the public is detrimental in advancing the purposes of artistic creativity. Based on this reasoning, it is worth noting that copyright laws should be less rigid in order to protect the public from its excesses. This will enhance the integrity of the copyright process, as well as giving an opportunity for improvement on original works. This will be a feasible platform to appreciate dynamism and inventive works. The remix culture advances the ideals of sharing innovation for human progress. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the remix culture criticizes mainstream copyright laws because lawmakers make rigid laws to advance the financial pursuits of their corporations. They do not mind the public as they come up with the laws. It is widely acknowledged that companies change terms of copyright laws without considering the interest of the public. The fact that the public is not endowed with adequate knowledge about copyright laws makes them susceptible to the restrictive intellectual property and copyright laws. In this respect, it is evidently clear that rigid copyright laws are a recipe for the demise of creativity. The remix culture supports creativity, which can only thrive without stringent copyright laws. In reference to the information presented above, it is explicitly clear that the remix culture is does advocates for a viable way of sharing and advancing artistic works, literary works and any form of creativity. The main battle that the remix culture has had with copyright laws is the stringent structures instituted to “protect” originality. According to those in support of the remix culture, originality is useful if it helps in producing more works from the existing. In other words, copyright laws should not hinder the production of improved products to serve the needs of the public. The remix culture does not entirely block the essence of intellectual property and copyright laws, but it advocates for flexible laws. The culture acknowledges the contributions of owners of different works, but criticizes the hindrances brought by copyright laws in progressing knowledge. Certainly, the culture has credible grounds of the sustained critique of intellectual property and copyright laws (Christen, 2005 p 330). Conclusion In conclusion, it is notable to highlight that copyright laws are increasingly dominating different circles in the world today. The music industry, film industry and corporate world have copyright laws that define their operations. It is critical to comprehend that intellectual property and copyright laws are instrumental in protecting original works. However, it is evident that copyright laws have brought some controversies triggering extreme criticism. Firstly, the remix culture asserts that cultural shifts define the world that we live in today. In this sense, the remix culture believes that it is unethical for copyright laws to hold reproduction of existing works hostage, because of stringent laws. The dynamism in the society should have flexible laws that acknowledge the needs of the members who make the society. This is contrary to the ideals of copyright laws, hence, the reason behind the remix culture’s criticism. Secondly, the freedom of knowledge is another fact that triggers criticism from the remix culture. The freedom of knowledge is vital in expanding information and enhancing creativity; an element that the copyright laws do not consider. Thirdly, the internet is a tool that the remix culture uses to advance its ideals and discourage the excesses of intellectual property and copyright laws. Restrictive copyright laws make it hard for the public to benefit from copyrighted work, thus clogging the improvement of existing works. In light of this, it is essential to highlight that copyright laws should be flexible to allow the progress of creative works. Furthermore, copyright laws add value if they protect the rights of the owner, as well as advancing the public’s interest as part of the development agenda. References: Brian, F and Damien, O (2005) Digital Sampling and Culture Jamming in a Remix World: What Does the Law Allow? Journal of Media and Arts Law Review 8(4): 279-298 Christen, K (2005) Gone Digital: Aboriginal Remix and the Cultural Commons, Inter national Journal of Cultural Property, Vol 12, 315-345 Dezuanni, M (2008) Remixing Media Literacy Education, The Journal of Media Literacy, Vol 3(10-14). Flew, T (2007) CREATIVE COMMONS AND THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES, Journal of Australian Media & Arts Law Review, Vol 10(257) Harley, R (2009) Cultural Modulation and The Zero Originality Clause of Remix Culture in Australian Contemporary Art, The Fibre Culture Journal, 15 (8-12) Read More

Reaching out to different audiences in diverse contexts drives the remix culture to edit earlier works in order to meet the needs of different people. For example, folk tales and folk poetry have undergone reproductions in order to reflect the existing cultural shifts in the world today. The revisions are instrumental in improving the existing works and ensuring the satisfaction of diverse audiences. It is apparent that culture is an extremely dynamic discipline that changes depending on the values that people choose to adopt.

In light of this, cultural shifts have indeed influenced the impact of copyright laws. The remix culture fills the void by arguing that the laws do not accommodate the needs and demands of digital technologies. Therefore, it is undoubtedly clear that in a cultural shift, it is fundamental to note that great things stem from merging and converting ideas into new things. This fact implies that the world is an amalgamation of remixes that improve existing works (Harley, 2009 p 9). Freedom of Knowledge The freedom of knowledge is a wide spread concept today; societies are increasingly realizing the need to share knowledge in solidarity for the sake of human progress.

In other words, groups that advocate for the remix culture assert that copyright laws are detrimental to human progress. Rigid structures of intellectual property and copyright laws only lead to a slow human progress process. The remix culture criticizes copyright laws by arguing that it hinders the ability to spread information to serve the needs of the audience. In this regard, intellectual property and copyright laws do not allow people to expand information in the spirit of universal knowledge transfer.

As opposed to the laws, the remix culture advocates that a person’s original knowledge can act as a dominant tool in expanding its contents. For example, the Wikipedia website is an example of a remix in which it gives an opportunity for anyone to share his or her knowledge. This enables the users to edit the information present in the website. Undoubtedly, knowledge is a universal language that connects people from diverse social and cultural orientations (Dezuanni, 2008 p 13). Groups that support the remix culture disapprove the ideals advanced by copyright laws; they argue that they deny the capacity of knowledge to bridge the gap between invention and reinvention.

We live in a knowledge-driven world that acknowledges the fundamental right to information, and sharing it for the progress of human advancement. Concisely, it is worth remembering that according to copyright laws, it is illegal to use another person’s works. This is the tragedy, which the remix culture seeks to tackle by disapproving the laws. Indeed, the freedom of knowledge is a fundamental right that should play a critical role in advancing human societies. This implies that copyright laws infringe the right, by instilling structures that make it impossible for knowledge to spread freely.

In this respect, it is notable to highlight that the remix culture is a custodian of the freedom of knowledge, as opposed to intellectual property and copyright laws that clog information to the source. Information Technology The age of information technology has taken centre stage and it appears that it is gradually advancing the concept of the remix culture. Certainly, the internet is a fundamental tool in the world today; it is a component of culture and an integral feature in the spread of information.

Recently, there have been attacks on various internet search engines because they give links to copyrighted information. For instance, Google books present pages of copyrighted material to a wide range of internet users. Copyright laws view this as an infringement of individual rights of ownership, but the remix culture views this as a platform to connect people with knowledge around the globe. Proponents of the remix culture assert that if an invention does not advance public good, then it is not worth investing in it.

Read More