Journal #9

I found some interesting thoughts in this article, as well as from some fellow classmates that I would like to elaborate on. I agree with the notion that Tayina suggests, saying that modern writing is similar to writing of past centuries, the meaning is in the context of the time period. I feel that this is a very astute observation that explains why we can analyze texts from previous generations. One topic in particular that the article mentions, and that I feel is highly controversial, concerns the opinions surrounding intellectual property and the use of items in the non-commercial sphere. The author goes on to make the argument that creativity can also stem from ideas that feature other, accomplished ones, and thus in the form of a 'remix' has a right to exist alongside other original ideas in the commercial world. Simply put, the author argues that remixing an established movie clip, symbol, etc., its own right to be considered an original work

I do not agree. I believe that anything used for the purpose of furthering one's own ambition that was stolen (or in the author's words 'remixed) from an original work, must include recognition of the previous work in whatever way the property holder sees fit. G-Eazy, one of my favorite rappers, samples a variety of old songs and includes sick beats and his own lyrical musings to produce something that I contend has musical value. However, although I would argue a majority of people are listening to the track because of his name, the fact that he features another, original work and passes it off as a remixed version demands credit to be given to the other party. Whether giving a specified sum to the artist or their estate, or mentioning them in the credits, anything given the cute, but misleading, 'remixed' title deserves to give credit to the other party.