In which the evolution of the monograph is the remix
Posted By Kevin Gaugler on November 11, 2008
sponsors this blog
In a previous post I wrote about the new metrics for evaluating scholarly production in a Web 2.0 world. Then, Barbara recently posted about the spontaneity of publication on the new web. Building upon these thoughts, I wish to discuss the shifting expectations for content from single author monographs to multiple author modules. When using Web 2.0 tools one’s intellectual property is often not thought of as a precious component of a larger work that must not be removed from its context. Instead, one’s work becomes part of a larger net-work. Web 2.0 publishing platforms are designed to share, remix, and share again.
Anyone who studies Postmodern Theory or has seen an Andy Warhol painting can understand the value in remixing. Web 2.0 allows such remixing to occur, however, at rate of distribution much more intense than anything we have witnessed before. Furthermore, copyright holders have been angered by the use of their material without permission. Perhaps one of the most successful examples of remixed work is a video of comedian Judson Laipply performing the Evolution of Dance. To date, his 6-minute performance, which involves the splicing of over thirty copyrighted songs, is the most viewed video on YouTube and has received over 90 million visitors.
The Evolution of Dance
The implications of the The Evolution of Dance for scholars are not insignificant. Laipply has obviously benefited from the remix as he makes his living from re-performing the piece on college campuses. However, the larger question might be, did the musicians benefit from letting their music be preformed on YouTube in a remixed format? For a scholar, this of course is perhaps the biggest fear for most of us—that someone, without our knowledge or approval, will use what we have done and we will receive no benefit. On the comedian’s website he features a list of the songs he used in the performance along with links to purchase the songs on iTunes and an invitation for visitors to create their own remixed dances. One might easily conclude, therefore, that sales of these songs have increased due to the popularity of an unauthorized use of their creative work.
Laipply promises to release the Evolution of Dance 2 in the coming months, and besides a promotion for a Sonos music player, his video announcement mentions that the delay is due to the fact that he is “still working on a few song rights.” Perhaps the economics of sharing did not fully appeal to the record labels. But assuming there is a benefit to authors who freely share intellectual property, how then does one control the flow of creative or scholarly work in an open on-line environment? This blog posting, for instance, will most likely appear on another blog or be condensed to a headline on Twitter, FriendFeed or Digg. Some ideas might show up in a presentation on sites such as SlideShare or VoiceThread. The ideas might even appear in a peer-reviewed journal with attribution to me. I know of many peers who are unnerved by the reconstitution of their work online and therefore feel most comfortable publishing in traditional distribution methods of intellectual property. Journal articles and books are certainly valuable to me and to all those who publish in the academy. However, for those that believe that recognition and reward can be gained by letting others use their work, there is a mechanism for allowing that work to be shared legally: Creative Commons licensing. This blanket permission to share and remix one’s work has gained popularity in much of the intellectual community.
Let us briefly consider the example of MIT’s OpenCourseWare initiative in which the university began publishing each professor’s coursework under Creative Commons licensing in 2004. The permission to use and remix this content has lead to partnerships with several other institutions around the world to translate much of the material into Chinese, Portuguese and Spanish and Thai. As such, MIT’s brand penetrated linguistic and cultural barriers it was unable to reach otherwise and its reputation as a leading-edge hub of knowledge was solidified among those already familiar with the university. MIT’s effort has been underwritten by outside institutions as well, attracting over 30 million dollars in funding. For a more detailed story of the OpenCourseWare initiative, I recommend reading WIRED Magazine’s article from September of 2003. In short, however, MIT has proven that openly releasing one’s work can be mutually beneficial for the author and the community.
If you have not heard of Creative Commons licensing before, the following video will provide you with an opportunity to hear the reason for it. This following video is from the TedTalks series, my intellectual candy. We hope to discuss Creative Commons licencing often in our blog and through our podcast and we welcome your ideas on and experiences with Creative Commons in education.
Larry Lessig: How Creativity is being strangled by the law
About the author
Comments