Remix presents a conflict between creative expression and copyright law.  The right to create and incorporate work that has already been produced is an issue that concerns both executives involved in receiving financial gains, and the artists who wish to protect their art. 

John Philip Sousa argued that being an inactive listener would crush creative pursuits by individuals.  He believed that by simply listening, or becoming a part of the "Read-Only" (RO) culture, the practice of any art-form would dissipate.  Without closely studying the intricacies of musical technique, people would lose out of touch with creative expression.  Sousa's argument proclaims that in order to be creative, one must be active and not passive.  This statement remains to be true, but one can also participate in actively creating by first submerging oneself into the art of another.  Inspiration and influence must be triggered by some force, and it may come in the form of another work.  Many artists must first look to other sources for their creative ideas.  For example, Martin Cooper, the director of research and development at Motorola, credited the Star Trek communicator as his inspiration for the first cell-phone.  In another example, physicist Leo Szilard read H.G. Wells' The World Set Free, in which he first received the notion about atomic energy and to solve the problem of creating a nuclear chain reaction.  This eventually led him to push for arms control and the peaceful use of nuclear power after WWII.  These examples prove that listening/watching is not a passive act.  Lessig too argues the same point, and states that both being a listener and an actor involve acts of creativity. 

However, in order to add to an original work, the technologies of the 20th century prevented individuals from contributing in such a manner.  Individuals could only read,watch or listen to a work, but not add to it.  The Internet has stepped in and changed this model of creativity.  This can be seen through the work of Girl Talk.  Also, the work of Candice Breitz in which she had several of John Lennon's fans sing his songs is another example of how technology has changed the way creative ventures are pursued.  However, this work in particular was questioned by some, and required her to get special permission.  In a similar fashion, Eric Whitacre, the creator of the digital choir produced an original work in which he pulled in 185 different voices to sing an original piece that he wrote.  This required individuals to send in videos of themselves singing in various octaves of the song Whitacre wrote.  Whitacre then assembled these voices together and created the song.  The difference between Breitz and Whitacre is that Whitacre wrote an original piece, whereas Breitz used the work of an established artist.  Whitacre's practice of combining different voices to create a single song is an excellent example of inc operating technology and talent.  All of the participants were a part of one choir.  This example provides a stark contrast with the work of Girl Talk and other artists who use the content of other talent.  Whitacre put together various voices into one song, much like what mash-up artists do, but his own original work. 

Question:

Should amateurs who wish to participate in mash-up culture be held accountable if they choose to produce work of their own, even if they don't gain any financial benefits?