DMAC reflections

One of the best parts of DMAC is how pieces of what I have been doing in the classroom are coming together and colliding in fun ways during these two weeks.

Several years ago, when I went to Computers and Writing in Michigan, one of the sessions was about Remix culture; specifically, it featured a documentary called Rip!: A Remix Manifesto. Soon after, I incorporated this documentary into my music-themed ENG 101 class. A semester after that, I started assigning mashup-analysis papers. And I loved it! Students had to examine themes and transitions and balance and audience and purpose, etc etc by listening to remixed music.

Secretly, I wanted to make mash-ups of my own but never found the time. In the meantime, I have since experimented with multimodal assignments and ideas of remix in the classroom.

Thanks to DMAC, I now have the skills and tools to remix. Tomorrow's discussion will focus on copyright and Creative Commons and the public domain. Will we probably examine what should and could be remixed.

One of our readings is Lawrence Lessig's talk on NPR. He is introduced in Rip! As "the world's coolest lawyer." Lessig is admirable in many ways, but what I truly appreciate is that he is passionate about his cause (copyright reform), and when he is given the opportunity or need to speak passionately, he does so without raising his voice and speaks with great clarity and factual support, and, well, he rather puts the smack down.

Lessig is spot on about the lack of distinction between idea and expression in multimedia. Under the law, the idea may be built upon, while the expression is protected. Where do we draw the line between the two? The law told George Harrison that "My Sweet Lord" sounded too much like "He's So Fine." Obviously, Harrison had a different idea with his song, but in some way, the expression was too much the same. This was a case of accidental plagiarism. Who determines which expression is too closely related to an older expression?

In remix culture, it is not unusual to  have bits of expression remain the same and get spliced or mutated to create a new idea. In creating the new idea while building on an old expression, a new expression is made. Copyright law currently protects the rights of the old expression more than the right of the new expression to exist. This is truly backwards when you think of how many notions (and expressions of those notions) are scaffolded on top of old ideas and the expressions of those ideas. I am looking forward to the discussion about remix, rhetoric, and digital media and composition tomorrow.