The extra credit blog is mind boggling. Which topic would I like to talk about. Since I'm listening to music while I'm typing I'll go with remixing. The thought that having every college professor so far tell us that rewriting or copying is lazy and borderline illegal and providing us with dooming outcomes to stop our potential dreams at a halt if even a hint of plagiarism shows up is ridiculous. To know that memorization and repetition or duplicating great work was all people had to do back then is mind blowing. I began to think then is it something along the lines of technology making it too easy to duplicate and now only takes minimal effort, is that why it's frowned upon so harshly?
Now that time has passed now things that were once honored with high praise now has evolved into something that is no longer acceptable. So looking at how the evolution of rules and regulations what time did the movement or shift begin? According to Wikipedia the first recall of copyright laws begins back in 1710, but it was more formed around reprinting of books. To ensure those creating the works of art were well aware of the printing or reprinting of their "original" material. So, then now how is it down to specifics such as quotes for sentences in college papers? Originally this copy right movement was formed around religions and churches to monitor the use of printers to send out information to the public therefore only privileged people were even allowed to print. The website also talked about that people said that they would stop preparing material if they would not receive credit or be acknowledged for their performance of knowledge. This to me seems silly. And then I remember everything comes back down to power and money, of course. So due to the fact someone wasn't going to be able to stamp their name on a piece of paper or written information and ideas they couldn't make money saying 100% it was "theirs."
I think that remixes of speech and written material is inevitable, even if we are consciously aware of "copying" something. I also find it very interesting why if the fact or the matter that plagiarism is a thing put into practice, why make college kids constantly expand or acknowledge previous work when as an institution you want us to be original? For it being looked down upon using others' knowledge and information as a student why do they ask us to piggy-back off of already existing ideas? why not leave the floors open to discussions and keep the possibilities endless? Why must we always hit a certain amount of sources, is it to merely know if we can properly cite those who came before us, or is this containing the will of freedom of thought and speech? If everything has been done so far a certain way why not purpose a new direction? Escape and remix the remix as a whole, break the box, and explore.