The Copyright Clause Of The State Of Washington Should...

The Supreme Court has tried to explain that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution was intended to establish independent, entrepreneurial, self-sustaining authorship and publishing as the means of serving the public interest in securing the production of valuable literary and scientific works. To that one must ask what are the consequences of remix? When I think about it remixing has left a positive and inferior aspect of life for many people. When people are able to steal or copy the work of an individual without any consequence they are sending a clear message saying that they are free of the law. Therefore, I propose that the copyright office of the state of Washington should change the copyright policy of remixing so that it may benefit more people than just the original artist. What are the common consequences of remixing? According to Jenkins, â€Å"The rise of disco culture in the 70s inspired producers to cut longer ‘extended versions’ of singles so club patrons could weed out the songs they liked for more than the usual three to four minutes†(Jenkins). I believe that if true artists fear that their music may be remixed then they may not do it to their best ability. Now, imitation/remixing in art is not only all right, but it is encouraged, and using someone else’s sound, idea, etc. is considered flattery. According to UC Davis professor of law Thomas W. Joo said, â€Å"Most copyright scholars agree that this power is inimical to semiotic democracy and that reforming