This topic contains 24 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
How might a “remix ethics,” the opposite of what Rheingold calls “enclosure,” be good for the public sphere, the shared space in which we argue, collaborate, and make meaning? Can you think of any examples of this kind of improvement (or of the opposite: where Rheingold’s remix ethics have been bad for the public sphere)?
-
I think that a set of “remix ethics” would benefit the public sphere by opening the lines of collaboration within our society. Not just in terms of academic collaboration but also free, creative collaboration among the common populace. By introducing “remix ethics” we would be able to eliminate some of the fear associated with acquiring information. Anytime we get information there is a nagging feeling that we may be using it wrong or illegally with the proposed “remix ethics” we would be alleviating that stress. A specific example would be in the teaching community collaboration could be more easily completed. As it stands now anytime a teacher uses a piece of material not made by themselves they have to fear they have committed an act of piracy. However, with “remix ethics” they would be able to use public pieces of work in order to teach without such worry.
-
The teaching community is a good example! Piracy is always a fear in academics. It’s something that we as students even need to fear. Remix ethics would greatly enhance the teaching community and the materials and products the community uses. In terms of legality I think a remix ethics could broaden some horizons and create less controversy.
-
@jsears3 you make a great point regarding teachers’ use of copyrighted material. My husband has taught for years and has complained several times about the rules regarding reproduction of materials for classroom use. So another positive of remix ethics could be an offset of costs incurred by educational institutions since they wouldn’t have to come up with nearly as much funding to purchase copies of those materials!
-
@Tiffany I’ve never spent much time thinking about how teachers get their materials for their classes but now that I think about it, even back to middle school, back in school we had a ton of work sheets and photocopied material. It makes sense now that there are rules for usage, but it just seems weird. Unlike college, where we have to buy all of our books and work books, you don’t have to do that in grade school. So why is it that our professors can only allowed to photocopy one chapter of a book for us, but grade school teachers “can” make copies of books every year for their kids?
-
-
-
A remix ethics would be beneficial to the public sphere. The shared space in which we argue, collaborate and make meaning would open up tremendously. I can’t think of any examples right now besides networks in general. A network of people would benefit greatly from a remix ethics. Products and ideas could be shared freely without concern. I think any addition to collaboration would be great. We as individuals need to collaborate to be successful, at least in my opinion. A remix ethics could redefine the meaning of our population and overall purpose.
-
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Collaboration is almost natural to us as human beings, we actively seek out others to communicate with. Often we seek validation or just want to share with others what we’ve done with our thoughts but we are beings that seek communication which I feel has led to a lot of the great collaborations we have seen through history.
-
-
The concept of remix ethics would be beneficial to the public sphere/shared argument space/collaboration/etc. for a few reasons. First, it would further deepen the realm of collaborative possibility across many different subjects by shifting the collaborators’ focus from “are we using this correctly?” to “how can we better use this information?” and thus eliminating the frequent distraction caused by fear of plagiarism and piracy accusations. A good example of this is where the chapter mentions the privatization of scientific publishing; how much more advanced would we possibly be in, say, finding a treatment for autism if we weren’t crippled by the lack of remix ethics surrounding scientific knowledge? Additionally, remix ethics would allow for expanded learning opportunities across the board as presenters found new and innovative ways to present material to their audiences. My husband is a teacher, and one of his chief complaints is that while everyone learns differently, they are forced to teach in a manner that may only be effective for certain types of learners. Remix ethics would allow for information to be presented in many different forms, leading to greater understanding by a larger portion of the populace, and hence a smarter society as a whole.
-
You mention that remix ethics would allow for different types of learners to learn together, rather than just one type. I think this is really important. I mentioned in the affordances post that with video you can do both visual and verbal communication. By showing multiple types of learning styles in a classroom, I believe it also teaches students how to both learn and teach as well.
-
-
I think “remix ethics” could be positively influential to the public sphere in a number of ways. For instance, it could help scientists and others collaborate and come up with answers to many questions about both medical and other issues. “A researcher can no longer be assured of free access to relevant work by others.” (Rheingold, 244). Remix ethics could correct this problem. Another example is that it would allow for education, all the way from elementary to university. It is especially hard and expensive for libraries and schools now to get what they need to help educate, partially due to copyright issues. I mentioned this before, but ebooks often come with a check out limit, a time limit, or just a crazy price.
-
It can be positively influential to the public sphere, yes. I mentioned in my post about music with Thicke and Pharrell. Everything comes from the starting point. I think it would be best to access relevant work by others because it will help you gain something out of it as expanding on it, or thinking of something new. The old can help the new become better.
-
I agree with you, especially as far as science goes. It is imperative that we build upon what others have done or taught us in the past, but take it once step further. After all, isn’t everything based upon the basic principles taught about the original scientists?
-
-
I agree with many who have posted so far. Remix ethics would be highly beneficial to the public sphere, not just in an educational environment, but in many other environments as well. As we know, we learn by exposure to knew things. To thrive and expand, we need to collaborate and research other thoughts and ideas that may spark something new. I know as a court reporter, I am always searching for ways to do my job better, and without the collaboration and input from others in my field, that would be impossible. While I agree completely with giving the original inventor/author credit and recognition, I believe being able to access information is vital for those wishing to learn, explore, and develop new ideas.
-
The idea of remix ethics focuses on collaboration and expanding on existing ideas and discoveries. This is most evident in science today. Each day we take an older concept and make it new. Cancer study is a great example…. No one piece of research or discovery can be called unique since it started with a key concept from another.
Our society puts great emphasis on originality and receiving credit where credit is due. Remix ethics allows for sharing of thoughts and making them better. It’s not about taking one’s idea and calling it your own. -
I think “remix ethics” are good for the public sphere because I believe most everything we create as humans has to be inspired by something. Taking away that option for inspiration depletes humans the opportunity to improve upon and make things better.
It may be a somewhat weird reference, but I think of Andy Warhol in this situation. Andy Warhol did not invent the Campbell’s Soup can, but he used it as a focal point for an art installation and in turn, completely changed his career AND Campbell’s Soup. He took a something from our “shared space” and then made it into something completely unique and interesting, forever transcending the way the world views pop art. Without “remix ethics’ this wouldn’t have been possible, among other great improvisations to better the quality of our lives.
-
I agree with your comment that humans take away something from ideas proposed by others. Your example with Andy Warhol is a great example of inspiration from something that turned into something new. Remix ethics and public sharing/collaboration is the way to keep growing and expanding new thoughts and ideas.
-
-
“Remix ethics” would be good for the public sphere. Everything has always started from one thing. TV shows, books, music, etc. I mean even the whole incident with Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke and a blurry copyright law. The jury awarded about $7.3 million to Marvin Gaye’s family. With having this idea of a remix ethic, it will help when it comes to something like this. There has been millions, billions of songs out there, just like books, but not everything we come up with is original. It always comes from somewhere. We can be inspired though from this and need to take this to get something new and maybe, better. There could be a new redefining out there.
-
I think remix ethics could also be somewhat of a double-edged sword, especially for the music industry. I think back to Vanilla Ice’s rip off of David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” and in that instance, I feel that although Vanilla Ice was clearly inspired by Bowie’s song, I’m not sure that I would be okay with that if I were David Bowie. You pour your blood sweat and tears into something for someone to come along and make it “better” which can be subjective, especially in terms of artistic rendering. Great example!
-
-
Remix ethics are as old as humankind. Although we consider it technology based, the concept has existed for thousands of years. Through the spoken word that was memorized and then expanded to the first written words and they way that they’ve been expanded upon in thought, collaboration, inspiration, and the execution of that initial process.
When considering the public sphere versus copyrights the entire process can become muddy. A good example is the recent lawsuit from Marvin Gaye’s family over the Blurred Lines song. I personally still don’t hear the copyright infringement, but a jury decided that it was worth $7 million.
Anyone that creates an original item should deserve to have that entity protected by law and not allow someone to just borrow or steal it for their own personal gain. Yet it can be argued that as in music, you have a finite amount of chords and notes and literally every song can and usually does resemble a certain portion of another song that was created before. I hear similarities all the time between new songs and ones that have been around for years. -
Remix Ethics would be beneficial to the pubic sphere. I think the medical field would benefit the most from remix ethics, because there are so many things that have not been discovered. With the collaboration of doctors and scientists when doing research, a lot of things can be created. The expansion of cures and medicines would grow at a quick pace with remix ethics in play.
-
I also agree that the medical field would benefit a lot from remix ethics. Collaboration of not only doctors, scientists but also research facilities that have more advanced testing capabilities would help benefit finding a cure for some medical diseases that have struggled over years to find a final cure.
-
-
I can see why a “remix ethics” might be bad. In certain fields, people really don’t want to share their work and want all the credit for it. And it’s not like I don’t think they have a right to feel that way because I’m sure we have all felt that way about something we have created, but perhaps that mindset in general is just wrong. Creativity and collaboration produce so much more than knowledge hoarding. This is a very simple example, but think about food. Chefs used to be secretive about recipes, but now the trend in the industry is to share—share everything. Share the ingredients, share the techniques, share the process. Share, because what you come up with might be awesome, but it might inspire someone else to think of something you hadn’t thought of and THAT could be amazing. The gratification is that your work inspires other artists like yourself.
-
Erhyer,
I totally agree with you. Although people may look at remix ethics as taking other peoples idea, if you look at the bigger picture you can see that with a collaborative effort many things can be created and ideas can be shared. I think that remix ethics is ultimately a great idea.
-
That is an excellent point about knowledge hoarding. As in any field, when certain people refuse to share their knowledge, which is common in corporate america, it hampers the flow of intellectual stimulus and expansion and development of the product, service or field.
-
-
Like Mike said if people refuse to keep their knowledge to themselves a remix of ethics would not work. In order to have a successful remix of ethics everyone needs to be open about their knowledge and be willing to share it when needed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.