Questions and "The Bed Intruder Song"

Question 1: Lessig comes back to writing as an example of how we should measure our reactions to remix culture: writing frequently brings in outside sources without being sued. However, we cite our sources - we have to in order to avoid plagiarism. As academic writers, we cannot not quote our sources. When composing remixed texts, the source material is frequently severed. Would Lessig defend remixed texts that do not have a works cited embedded in it? What counts as "common knowledge" in a remixed text?

Question 2: Lessig places a lot of emphasis on individuals and "whole fields" making the choice to have their work public: "Whole fields need to establish a different copyright default. Not necessarily by legislative change. Or at least not yet. But by the voluntary action of those who believe the default should be different" (278). I wonder if this faith in the individual is rightly placed? It's true that when first starting out, artists and creators are thrilled to have anyone take in their work - so only some rights are reserved. However, if that artist is picked up and becomes part of the professional field, it seems like that past openness fades away. Who is Lessig asking to take up "Some Rights Reserved"? Is this realistic?

On to the story and re-story of Antoine Dodson. "The Bed Intruder Song" qualifies as a remix, at least according to Lessig, because it takes a "quote" from an outside source, some audio and video from a news story about an attempted rape, and mixes it with an original song. The source and original material are further intertwined by voices from the report being auto-tuned and the composers of the song appearing in the video. The original YouTube video is even cited, including a link to it at the end.

The video further fits into the remix category because the "meaning" of the two videos are worlds apart. To me, the original news segment was a sensational story. I mean, the idea of a stranger climbing through your bedroom window and getting into bed with you while you sleep is incredibly creepy and disturbing - it's like the beginning of a horror movie. The news crew showed up and capitalized on the high emotions they found there. One thing I found odd about the piece was how willing, aggressive, and openly angry both Antoine and Kelly Dodson were. Neither seemed frightened or anxious or hesitant to talk about it (like I suspect I would be). Instead, they insulted and threatened the guy on TV - and it was funny. Antoine said, "Hide your kids. Hide your wife and hide your husband because they raping everybody out here." Who says that?

Well, Antoine does, and he sings it a dozen or so times in "The Bed Intruder Song." I'm not sure why Auto-Tune the News picked the blandest possible title, but it does steer them away from having to openly acknowledge the fact that they are making fun of a rape story. In the original version, I laughed at Antoine's words perhaps because they seemed so out of the ordinary. In the remix, I laugh because he's become a stereotype. The whole story is so ridiculous that it seems like it couldn't have happened. When I saw the original for the first time, I thought it was entirely staged. Auto-Tune the News is capitalizing on high emotions, like the original news team were, but this time they seem to be mocking Antoine instead of even mentioning that he helped fight off the perpetrator.

Basically, Auto-Tune the News took a story about an attempted rape and made it funny. But I still don't know for sure why I'm laughing.

I didn't realize how very little I knew about copyrights and plagiarism until I read these articles today. Frankly, these issues feel painfully obvious; I wrote this - don't steal it. Easy, no?

Ok, so no. Without the apparent remnants of Fair Use running around, I wouldn't even be able to make copies of articles for my classes. And according to Logie's article anyway, things look to be getting grimmer for us poor teachers/students. Instead of focusing on public access as a key component in determining copyrights and their limitations, legislators seem to be paying more attention to the commodification of intellectual property. It seems that if a copyright holder can claim that either they are losing money (Napster?) or someone else is profiting from their work (for-profit educational institutes), then the hammer needs to come down. However, there is an awful lot of gray area interspersed between the oddly-specific page requirements ("Not to exceed five years, but no less than three," [obscure "Arrested Development" quote, anybody?]).

The issue of plagiarism is no less interesting to me. Looking back over classes I've taken, plagiarism was always addressed in this way, "And you all can read this (copy-pasted) excerpt from the student handbook about plagiarism in your own time. Moving on..." Instead of being well-defined, plagiarism mirrors the haziness of copyright laws. Kids know it's wrong to buy a paper and they know it's wrong to copy-paste other people's work, but what about that kid who used Cliff's Notes? Plagiarism needs to be better addressed in the classroom, I'm behind DeVoss and Rosati on that.

This leads me to a question for all you current instructors: what do you teach your students about plagiarism/copyright? Do you address these issues explicitly? Do you come across a lot of plagiarism or a need to bring up copyright law?

As for WWWS (What Would Weinberger Say)? I don't know, maybe something like, "Copyrights are soo last -ism." Or perhaps, "Plagiarism is the new black." Looking back at Weinberger, I'm now surprised that he does not explicitly address plagiarism or copyright in this new mode of organization (I know, I checked the index). Weinberger seems much more concerned with public access than what Fair Use says he's entitled to as a member of the public. Remember, for Weinberger, Everything is miscellaneous and everyone should be able to help miscellanize it.

The Digital Divide

Banks and Selfe & Selfe are both primarily concerned with how technology can play a restrictive role for people stuck on the other side of the digital divide. Although it may be nice, and even common, to believe that technology is the great democratic equalizer we've all been waiting for, the situation is not nearly as straightforward. Banks specifically addresses how the issue of access to technology affects racial minorities, specifically African Americans. Selfe & Selfe are more focused on the technology itself can have violent, colonizing effects on its users. They both came at this issue from different angles, however, both urge teachers to create students who won't just consume technology but will actively critique it, too.

Power and agency are written all over these two articles. Selfe & Selfe want to take away some of the all-encompassing power held by technology producers and put it in the hands of teachers and students. While we may not be able to re-write the software (at least not right now), we also may not have to. Instead, we can simply study technology's many interfaces to figure out what improvements we would want. While reading the chapter, I wasn't sure what the authors were ultimately trying to argue for - because I certainly don't know anything about computer programming. However, by allowing us (as teachers and students) to start this process by critiquing technology, this plan also will let me, anyway, learn more about the technology I'll be analyzing.

Banks specifically wants to put power and agency into the hands of black Americans, and he clearly lays out the groundwork for this with his extensive survey on research in the field of African American rhetoric with regard to technology access. He makes the argument that not just material access that matters because people must also be willing and know how to use it. Coming from a rural part of Iowa, I can easily apply this sentence to most of my neighbors as well as the African American community. I like that Banks speaks honestly about public access to computers - most of the time you'd have to go to a cramped public library and be restricted to only a certain amount of time. Is that really the same thing as sitting on your couch, laptop on the coffee table, going through menus and learning how your computer works? Absolutely not - and that factor is the same across racial lines.

As for what Foucault would say to all this? Perhaps these are two different ways to attempt to buck the Panopticon, but ultimately, it still feels a little like we're fighting a losing battle here. In Selfe & Selfe we're told to start analyzing technology for its colonizing, dominant role - but no matter what, technology is still going to be political. We can learn to distance ourselves from it and be cognizant of its colonizing effects, but I still had to jump through about 16 different web pages before I could finally reach this one, and no amount of analysis was going to save me from that. In Banks, it's made clear that material access is only the tip of the iceberg because people also have to have a reason and know how to use technology. How do we give that to anyone on the other side of the digital divide without ultimately becoming missionaries for technology (and doing some colonization ourselves?). It's a tricky situation, and Foucault might just tell us that we're all trying really hard - but still very stuck.

Face-off: Hesse v Selfe

I hate to take the Midwestern and mom-like position of "You're both right!" However...

Selfe's argument is well-thought out and compelling. In Eng. 501, we just read about some of the English department's history in the university, and as a Communication Studies major, it saddens me that most of my classmates have never had the joy (and terror and apprehension) of taking a class in public address. I found that the best speeches I gave started extemporaneously, with me just talking to myself, leaving the writing process until dead-last. While my background in learning how to formulate a written argument played a role, the students who struggled the most in public speaking are those who don't adapt their content to their presentation's form. It's true that aurality has taken a backseat to writing, and students (including us current grad students) may be handicapped for that. Learning about as many different modes of communication as possible would serve to enrich our students' lives - along with giving them tangible, real-world composing skills that all sorts of companies would love to have.

However, Hesse also makes a good point. What Selfe is calling for is a drastic re-thinking of composition. While this new definition might fly within English departments and Rhetoric and Composition, it would be necessary to sell this idea to not only other departments, but the administration and students as well. It certainly runs the risk of being seen as taking away from the "serious" work of writing. Another point on which I agree with Hesse is his questioning of just how much composing (not just writing, but creating videos, web pages, sound clips, etc.) students are actually doing outside the classroom. Personally, and before this class, I had a Twitter, Blogger, and Facebook account, and in all three I spent much more time consuming than composing. Sure, I tweeted and blogged every once in a while, and commented or changed my status once a day - but I wouldn't say that I (or most people I know of) are really utilizing all these modes. Perhaps Selfe might respond by saying that is all the more opportunity to teach these kids how to engage more fully in their world - a point I'd be inclined to agree with.

In the end, I side more with Selfe, but I like the cautionary approach of Hesse. He brings up practical problems that would need to be addressed for these changes to be implemented fully, things that can be easy to ignore when caught up in the frenzy of academic theory.