Remixed media, specifically music, is an increasingly visible component of pop culture, as evidenced by Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, Yo-yo Ma’s Indaba competition, and MTV’s MashUps.  The spectrum of fresh takes on preexisting works is now an established “safe-but-edgy” genre with wide appeal; it’s innovative but provides appropriate selections for the scenesters on lastnightsparty.com and Talbot’s Kids-clad middle schoolers alike.  It’s a fun concept—the idea that making music is no longer an activity only for those who can tickle ivory or sing likes angels.

The technological capacity to remix music is so readily available and user-friendly that making mash-ups is like making collages; in fact, it might be easier.  To make a collage, I need to physically get some scissors, glue, paper and magazines.  To make a remix, I just have to turn on my laptop; with some FOSS software and my iTunes library, I can create “music.”  Fill-in-the-blank forms make it equally easy to get a Creative Commons license for my deadly one-two punch combo of The Muppets and Tupac.  While various legal authorities might not agree that this is Fair Use, I’ve got some form of intent covered, right?  I can then post it on a music sharing website, upload it to my blog, and make it available in a P2P network.  In ten minutes, I can create an (ostensibly) original work, license it, and make it available to literally millions of people around the world.

Remixing is easy, popular, entertaining and essentially free.  I understand that changes to fundamental structure of the internet could limit the online exchange of remixed works (meaning some technical filter, e.g. DRM, to catch/stop transmission of remixed works) and that aggressively pursued copyright litigation could limit the unauthorized large-scale distribution of these works as well.  That being said, it’s hard to apply old regulations to new formats.  Current copyright law is outdated, overwhelmed, and unpopular with much of the consumer base to which its supporters cater.  If, say, Warner Music Group were to sue Girl Talk, then their corporate high horse might very well have its legs cut out from under it. As unlikely as this seems, a precedent of sorts has recently been set.  Abkco Music, which owns the rights to a Rolling Stones song that Lil Wayne (arguably) used in his recent album, pressured Wayne’s Cash Money Records label so much that the track was “pulled” from Tha Carter III.

A recent Georgia Tech study about JumpStart (described as an “online video sharing, editing, and remixing community”) scrutinized the online environment, and concluded that, when the property is intellectual and the goods digital, possession no longer seems like 9/10 of the law.   Their findings observe that the concepts of authority and authorship have been transformed alongside digital media, and have become relative within online communities as opposed to general within the broader spectrum of public space (and cyberspace).  It’s almost like a microgovernment.  Without clear definitions of authorship and a well-defined chain of authority, it seems like anything goes.  The A.P. can even demand that bloggers take down 39-word snippets from their critical pieces online (though, in all fairness, they did invite quite a backlash and are now “rethinking” the decision to make a fuss…and it’s kind of old news).

I don’t think remix and its consequent mass digital distribution can be controlled, especially when the collage-bit suppliers are sending off mixed signals.  Some artists ask for their work to be remixed, some are indifferent, some demand royalties for the use of their original pieces in derivative works.  When Le Tigre says “yes” and Metallica says “no,” we get an additional layer of complication on top of an already challenging question.  Websites like http://funkyremixes.com/ provide and promote remixes of music from bands that give the thumbs-up, and blurs the Y/N line even further.

I feel like I’m parroting Barlow by criticizing the current system and not offering an alternative, but I don’t really have one.  The warpspeed pace of technological development and commercial application is so far ahead of the sluggish legal system that we can’t possibly try to patch up today’s rules, which really evolved in yesterday’s social/technological environment, enough to address tomorrow’s clever loophole-finders.  We need a more open system of regulation that allows college kids to keep wasting time making bad music, permits fantastic mash-ups to be played on the radio, and rewards creative minds for their original works.