 | This articleis written like apersonal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Pleasehelp improve it by rewriting it in anencyclopedic style.(April 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Remix culture, also known asread-write culture, is a term describing aculture that allows and encourages the creation ofderivative works by combining or editing existing materials.[2][3] Remix cultures are permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwiseremix the work of other creators. While combining elements has always been a common practice of artists of all domains throughout human history,[4] the growth of exclusive copyright restrictions in the last several decades limits this practice more and more by the legalchilling effect.[5] In reaction,Harvard law professorLawrence Lessig, who considers remixing a desirable concept for human creativity, has worked since the early 2000s[6] on a transfer of the remixing concept into thedigital age. Lessig founded theCreative Commons in 2001, which released a variety oflicenses as tools to promote remix culture, as remixing is legally hindered by the defaultexclusivecopyright regime applied onintellectual property. The remix culture for cultural works is related to and inspired by the earlierFree and open-source software for software movement, which encourages the reuse and remixing of software works.
Lawrence Lessig described the Remix culture in his 2008 bookRemix. Lawrence characterized the default media culture of the 20th century usingcomputer technology terminology asRead Only culture (RO), and called for a shift toRead/Write culture (RW).[5]
In the usualRead Only media culture, the culture is consumed more or less passively.[5] The information or product is provided by a 'professional' source, the content industry, that possesses an authority on that particular product/information. There is a one-way flow only of creative content and ideas due to a clear role separation between content producer and content consumer. The emergence ofAnalog mass production and duplication technologies (pre-Digital revolution andinternet like radio broad-casting) enabled the RO culture's business model of production and distribution and limited the role of the consumer to consumption of media.
Digital technology does not have the 'natural' constraints of the analog that preceded it. RO culture had to be recoded in order to compete with the "free" distribution made possible by the Internet. This is primarily done in the form ofdigital rights management (DRM), which imposes largely arbitrary restrictions on usage. Regardless, DRM has proven largely ineffective in enforcing the constraints of analog media onto digital media.[9][10]
Read/Write culture has a reciprocal relationship between the producer and the consumer. Taking works, such as songs, and appropriating them in private circles is exemplary of RW culture, which was considered to be the 'popular' culture before the advent of reproduction technologies.[5] The technologies and copyright laws that soon followed, however, changed the dynamics of popular culture. As it became professionalized, people were taught to defer production to the professionals.
Digital technologies provide the tools for reviving RW culture and democratizing production, sometimes referred to asWeb 2.0. Blogs explain the three layers of this democratization. Blogs have redefined our relationship to the content industry as they allowed access to non-professional,user-generated content. The 'comments' feature that soon followed provided a space for readers to have a dialogue with the amateur contributors. 'Tagging' of the blogs by users based on the content provided the necessary layer for users to filter the sea of content according to their interest. The third layer added bots that analyzed the relationship between various websites by counting the clicks between them and, thus, organizing a database of preferences. The three layers working together established an ecosystem of reputation that served to guide users through theblogosphere. While there is no doubt many amateur online publications cannot compete with the validity of professional sources, the democratization of digital RW culture and the ecosystem of reputation provides a space for many talented voices to be heard that was not available in the pre-digital RO model.
Remixing was always a part of the human culture.[4] US media scholar ProfessorHenry Jenkins argued that "the story of American arts in the 19th century might be told in terms of the mixing, matching and merging of folk traditions taken from various indigenous and immigrant populations." Another historical example of remixing isCento, a literary genre popular inMedieval Europe consisting mainly of verses or extracts directly borrowed from the works of other authors and arranged in a new form or order.[4]
The balance between creation and consumption shifted with the technological progress on media recording and reproduction. Notable events are the invention of bookprinting press and the analogSound recording and reproduction leading to severe cultural and legal changes.
In the beginning of the 20th century, on the dawn of the analogSound recording and reproduction revolution,John Philip Sousa, an American composer and conductor of the lateRomantic era, warned in 1906 in acongressional hearing on a negative change of the musical culture by the now available "canned music".[11][12]
"Thesetalking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy...in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or old songs. Today you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have avocal cord left. The vocal cord will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."
Specialized, expensive creation devices ("read-write") and specialized cheap consumption ("read-only") devices allowed a centralized production by few and decentralized consumption by many. Analog devices for consumers for low prices, lacking the capability of writing and creating, spread out fast:Newspapers,Jukebox,radio,television. This new business model, anIndustrial information economy, demanded and resulted in the strengthening of theexclusivecopyright and a weakening of the remix culture and thePublic domain in throughout the 19th and 20th century.
Analog creation devices were expensive and also limited in their editing and rearranging capability. An analog copy of a work (e.g. anaudio tape) cannot be edited, copied and worked on infinitely often as the quality continuously worsens. Despite that, a creative remixing culture survived to some limited degree. For instance composerJohn Oswaldcoined in 1985 thePlunderphonics term in hisessayPlunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional Prerogative forsound collages based on existingaudio recordings and altering them in some way to make a newcomposition.[citation needed] Likewise, the phenomenon ofscratch videos emergered at the onset of remix culture.[13]
Technology changed fundamentally with thedigital revolution.[14] Digital information could be reproduced and edited infinitely, often without quality loss. Still, in the 1960s the first digital general computing devices with such capabilities were meant only for specialists and professionals and were extremely expensive; the first consumer-oriented devices likevideo game consoles inherently lacked RW capability. But in the 1980s, the arrival of thehome computer and especially theIBM personal computer brought a digitalprosumer device, a device usable for production and consumption at the same time, to the masses for an affordable price.[15][16] Similarly for software, in the 1990s thefree and open-source software movement implemented a software ecosystem based on the idea of edit-ability by anyone.
The broad diffusion of the Internet and of the Web in the late 1990s and early 2000s created a highly effective way to re-implement a "remix culture" in all domains of art, technology and society. Unlike TV and radio, with aunidirectional information transport (producer to consumer), the Internet is inherentlybidirectional, enabling apeer-to-peer dynamic. This accelerated withWeb 2.0 and moreuser-generated content due toCommons-based peer production possibilities. Remixes of songs, videos, and photos are easily distributed and created. There is a constant revision to what is being created, which is done on both a professional and amateur scale. The availability of various end-user oriented software such asGarageBand andAdobe Photoshop makes it easy to remix. The Internet allows distribution of remixes to the masses.Internet memes are Internet-specific creative content which are created, filtered and transformed by the viral spreading process made possible by the web and its users.
As a response to a more restrictive copyright system (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension,DMCA), which started to limit the blooming sharing and remixing activities of the web,Lawrence Lessig founded theCreative Commons in 2001. In 2002 the Creative Commons released a set oflicenses as tools to enable remix culture, by allowing a balanced,fair enabling release of creative works, "some rights reserved" instead of the usual "all rights reserved". Several companies and governmental organizations adapted this approach and licenses in the following years, for instanceflickr,DeviantART[17] andEuropeana using or offering CC license options which allow remixing. There are several webpages addressing this remix culture, for instanceccMixter founded 2004.
The 2008open-source film byBrett GaylorRiP!: A Remix Manifesto documents "the changing concept ofcopyright".[18][19]
In 2012,Canada'sCopyright Modernization Act explicitly added a new exemption which allows non-commercial remixing.[20] In 2013 the US court rulingLenz v. Universal Music Corp. acknowledged that amateur remixing might fall under fair use and copyright holders are requested to check and respectfair use before doingDMCA take down notices.[21]
Undercopyright laws of many countries, anyone with the intent to remix an existing work without permission is liable for lawsuit because the laws protect theintellectual property of the work. However, current copyright laws are proving to be ineffective at preventing sampling of content.[22][23] On the other hand,fair-use does not address a wide enough range of use-cases and its borders are not well established and defined, making usage under "fair use" legally risky. Lessig argues that there needs to be a change in the current state of copyright laws to legalize remix culture, especially for fair-use cases. He states that "outdated copyright laws have turned our children into criminals."[24] One proposition is to adopt the system ofcitation used with book references. The artist would cite the intellectual property she sampled which would give the original creator the credit, as is common with literature references. As tools for doing so Lawrence Lessig proposed theCreative Commons licenses which demand for instanceAttribution without restricting the general use of a creative work. One step further is theFree content movement, which proposes that creative content should be released underfree licenses. TheCopyright reform movement tries to tackle the problem by cutting for instance the excessively longcopyright terms, as it was debated by scholarRufus Pollock.[25][26]
Other copyright scholars, such asYochai Benkler and Erez Reuveni,[27] promulgate ideas that are closely related to remix culture. Some scholars argue that the academic and legal institutions must change with the culture towards one that is remix-based.[28]
In June 2015, aWIPO article named "Remix Culture and Amateur Creativity: A Copyright Dilemma" acknowledged the "age of remixing" and the need for acopyright reform.[21]
Software asdigital good is well suited for adaption and remixing.
Infilm, remixing is often done and happens in many forms.
GIFs are another example of remix culture. They are illustrations and small clips from films used for personal expressions in online conversations.[62] GIFs are commonly taken from an online video form such as film, TV, orYouTube videos.[63] Each clip usually lasts for about 3 seconds[63] and is "looped, extended and repeated."[64] GIFs take a mass media sample and reimagines, or remixes, its meaning from the original context to use it as a form of personal expression in a different context.[65] They are used throughout various media platforms but are most popular inTumblr where they are used to articulate a punch line.[63]
Fan fiction is an example of remix culture in action, in relation to various forms of fictional and non-fictional media, including books, TV shows, movies, musicians, actors, and more. Fan fiction is a written, remixed fiction that draws on the characters of the writer's fandom, in order to tell the fan fiction writer's own story, or their version of the original story.[66] Remix Culture relies on creators taking one work and repurposing it for another use[67] just as fan fiction takes an existing work and repurposes it for a new story, or series of events. Steven Hetcher writes that fan fiction, and remix culture at a broader level, can provide social benefit to the societies who participate in writing and reading fan fiction by providing a creative outlet.[68] Fan fiction remixes sometimes change aspects of the characters or setting, often called an alternative universe, with some writers putting pre-existing characters in a new setting, and others taking an established setting and placing in new characters. In the social norms of fan fiction, it is rare for writers to publish or profit off of their works, and so copyright owners and authors rarely enforce copyright law, as these works help form communities and promote the original work.[69]
The appTikTok has become a relevant media platform that utilizes remix culture as a marketing and engagement technique, using it to market products to viewers while also entertaining them.[70] Content creators and brands can now collaborate in an environment where remixing content is accepted and encouraged to gain followers through creative videos following trending actions, audios, and memes.[71] Older songs and celebrities are making comebacks by being attached to remix trends, their music or content is now being viewed again by being attached to a trend. Garnering attention for the artist and these bits is a marketing technique that makes viewers want to investigate the artist more.[72] Musicians likeDoja Cat and Lil Nas X are two current musicians that have culminated their music in the TikTok remix culture. For example, "Remember (Walking In The Sand)" the 1960s song bythe Shangri-Las has recently been remixed to an EDM track that brought more attention to the song and a following into it due to a popular TikTok trend circulating largely in 2020.[73] These trending songs allow for music on TikTok to become spreadable and testable. Companies and artists can test out music bits and loops to see how successful they may become before fully releasing them.
Throughout history remix culture has been truthful not only in exchange of oral stories but also through theBible.[74]Eugene H. Peterson reinterpreted Bible stories in his 2002 book "The Message// Remix" which makes the Bible easier for readers to interpret.[75] An idea of remixing dated back to theQuakers who would interpret the scripture and create a biblical narrative by using their own voices, which went against the "read-only" practice that was more common.[76]
For remix culture to survive, it must be shared and created by others. This is whereparticipatory culture comes into play, because consumers start participating by becoming contributors, especially the many teens growing up with these media cultures. A book was published in 2013 byHenry Jenkins called "Reading in a Participatory Culture" which focuses on his technique of remixing the original storyMoby-Dick to make it a new and fresh experience for students. This form of teaching enforces the correlation between participatory and remix culture while highlighting its importance in evolving literature. Remix culture can be an integral part of education. Arguably, scholars are constantly remixing when they are analyzing and reporting on the work of others. One study examined the use of remixing among students when presenting learned information. For example, students will pull images, text, and other information from various original sources and place those elements in a presentable format, such as a slide presentation, in order to demonstrate understanding of material reviewed. Media culture consumers start to look at art and content as something that can be repurposed or recreated, therefore they can become the producer. According to an article from Popular Music and Society, the idea of remix culture has become a defining characteristic of modern day technology which has incorporated all forms of digital media where the consumers are also the producers.
Artists participating in remix culture can potentially suffer consequences for violating copyright or intellectual property law. English rock bandThe Verve were sued over their song "Bittersweet Symphony" sampling an arrangement ofThe Rolling Stones' "The Last Time."[77] The Verve were court-ordered to pay 100% of the song's royalties to The Rolling Stones' publishers and to give writing credit toJagger and Richards.[77] This was resolved in 2019 asRichard Ashcroft of The Verve announced that Jagger and Richards signed over the publishing rights to the song, admitting it was their manager's decision to claim the songs' royalties.[78]
Remix culture has created an environment that is nearly impossible for artists to create or own "original work". Media and the internet have made art so public that it leaves the work up for other interpretation and, in return, remixing. A major example of this in the 21st century is the idea ofmemes. Once a meme is put intocyberspace it is automatically assumed that someone else can come along and remix the picture. For example, the 1964 self-portrait created by artistRené Magritte,"Le Fils De L'Homme", was remixed and recreated by street artistRon English in his piece "Stereo Magritte". (See Memes in "Reception and Impact")
Meanwhile, despite the legal complexities of copyright protections, remixed works continue to be popular in the mainstream. Rapper Lil Nas X's "Old Town Road," released in 2018, includes a sample by the industrial metal band Nine Inch Nails, while also blending the genres of hip-hop and country music. "Old Town Road" was a smash hit, setting a record of 19 weeks at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart.[79] Four official remixes of "Old Town Road" were released, the first of which featured country singer Billy Ray Cyrus. This formula for genre-hybridization inspired countless unofficial remixes of the track, appropriated for various uses.[79]
An exemption exists for disability service technology to change copyrighted media to make it accessible to them.[80] The American Foundation of the Blind (AFB), American Council of the Blind (ACB) and Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic (TLPC) work with U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress to renew the exemptions that allow the visually impaired to convert visual texts in copyrighted work into e-readers and other forms of technology that make it possible for them to access.[81] So long as the copyrighted material is obtained in the legal way, the exemption allows for it to be remixed to help to be accessible to anyone disabled.[80] This exemption extends broadly, including transcribing public broadcasts such as television or radio to be transcribed to braille or visual text if need be.[82] With the proper license, obtained by anyone with a disability that can limit perception, copyrighted material that is obtained legally can be remixed for their understanding.[82][83] It has last been renewed in 2012 and continues to stand.[80]
In February 2010,Cato Institute'sJulian Sanchez praised the remix activities for its social value, "for performing social realities" and remarked that copyright should be evaluated regarding the "level of control permitted to be exercised over our social realities".[84][85] Memes have also become a form ofpolitical protest anddissent as well as tools used by everyday people as a form of asubversion of the power narrative.[86] Author Apryl Williams asserts that #LivingWhileBlack memes helped theBlack Lives Matter movement raise awareness of issues and shift the cultural narrative.[87]
According toKirby Ferguson in his popular video series andTED talk,[89] Everything is a Remix, and that all original material builds off of and remixes previously existing material.[90] He argues if all intellectual property is influenced by other pieces of work, copyright laws would be unnecessary. Ferguson described that, the three key elements of creativity — copy, transform, and combine — are the building blocks of all original ideas; building onPablo Picasso's famous quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal."[88]
Some approaches to remix culture have been described as simpleplagiarism.[91][92] In his 2006 bookCult of the Amateur,[93]Web 2.0 criticAndrew Keen criticizes the culture.[94] In 2011UC Davis professor Thomas W. Joo criticized remix culture for romanticizingfree culture[95] while Terry Hart had a similar line of criticism in 2012.[95]
Most cultures around the world have evolved through the mixing and merging of different cultural expressions.
In a further twist, widespread access to ever more sophisticated computers and other digital media over the past two decades has fostered the re-emergence of a "read-write" culture.
Canada is one of a few countries, if not the only one, to have introduced into its copyright law a new exception for non-commercial user-generated content. Article 29 of Canada's Copyright Modernization Act (2012) states that there is no infringement if: (i) the use is done solely for non-commercial purpose; (ii) the original source is mentioned; (iii) the individual has reasonable ground to believe that he or she is not infringing copyright; and (iv) the remix does not have a "substantial adverse effect" on the exploitation of the existing work.
in 2013 a district court ruled that copyright owners do not have the right to simply take down content before undertaking a legal analysis to determine whether the remixed work could fall under fair use, a concept in US copyright law which permits limited use of copyrighted material without the need to obtain the right holder's permission (US District Court, Stephanie Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing Inc., and Universal Music Publishing Group, Case No. 5:07-cv-03783-JF, January 24, 2013).[...] Given the emergence of today's "remix" culture, and the legal uncertainty surrounding remixes and mash-ups, the time would appear to be ripe for policy makers to take a new look at copyright law.
The optimal level for copyright has been a matter for extensive debate over the last decade. Using a parsimonious theoretical model this paper contributes several new results of relevance to this debate. In particular we demonstrate that (a) optimal copyright is likely to fall as the production costs of 'originals' decline (for example as a result of digitization) (b) technological change which reduces costs of production may imply a decrease or a decrease in optimal levels of protection (this contrasts with a large number of commentators, particularly in the copyright industries, who have argued that such change necessitates increases in protection) (c) the optimal level of copyright will, in general, fall over time as the stock of work increases.
The optimal term of copyright has been a matter for extensive debate over the last decade. Based on a novel approach we derive an explicit formula which characterises the optimal term as a function of a few key and, most importantly, empirically-estimable parameters. Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term with a 99% confidence interval extending up to 38 years. This is substantially shorter than any current copyright term and implies that existing terms are too long.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)Wireless Access to Wikipedia Kindle also includes free built-in access to the world's most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia, Wikipedia.org. With Kindle in hand, looking up people, places, events, and more has never been easier. It gives whole new meaning to the phrase walking encyclopedia.
This paper looks at the world of retrocomputing, a constellation of largely non-professional practices involving old computing technology. Retrocomputing includes many activities that can be seen as constituting "preservation." At the same time, it is often transformative, producing assemblages that "remix" fragments from the past with newer elements or joining together historic components that were never combined before. While such "remix" may seem to undermine preservation, it allows for fragments of computing history to be reintegrated into a living, ongoing practice, contributing to preservation in a broader sense. The seemingly unorganized nature of retrocomputing assemblages also provides space for alternative "situated knowledges" and histories of computing, which can sometimes be quite sophisticated. Recognizing such alternative epistemologies paves the way for alternative approaches to preservation.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)Time 9:30: "This man (Walt Disney) is a Remixer extraordinaire, he is the celebration and ideal of exactly this kind of creativity."
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)Time 7:14:"social remixes [...] for performing social realities"; 8:00"copyright policies about [...] level of control permitted to be exercised over our social realities"