•   •   •   •

Download the Paper (150 K, PDF file) - January 26, 2007 Tell a colleague about it. Printing Tips: Select 'print as image' in the Acrobat print dialog if you have trouble printing.

ABSTRACT:
This brief Comment was prepared as part of a conference on Intellectual Property and Social Justice at U.C. Davis Law School in March, 2006. I argue here against a broad legal right to "remix" digital content -- to freely alter or modify pre-existing copyrighted works. I first note that remix culture is flourishing under our current legal regime, partly as a result of high enforcement costs on the part of copyright owners, and partly due to voluntary waivers of copyrights by content owners who see a market opportunity in encouraging remixing. Next, I argue that despite widespread de facto remixing, remixers should not be given a legal right to remix any and all content. I contest the assertion by some theorists that remixing is necessary for the self-actualization of people living in a media-saturated world. I note that themes of rebellion and resistance dominate the narrative of the pro-remix literature, and introduce a counter-narrative: the struggling content creator, trying to make a living creating and selling digital content. Because these creators have a dignity interest in what they create, and because intellectual property rights can help them make a living at what they do, the interests of remixers ought not automatically trump creators' claims.

SUGGESTED CITATION:
Robert P. Merges, "Locke Remixed ; )" (January 26, 2007). Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. Law and Technology Scholarship (Selected by the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology). Paper 30.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/bclt/lts/30