Digital media has introduced many new things to the world. For the 16% of the world’s population that has access to the internet, a plethora of information is available at our fingertips that previously would take a lot of energy to seek out. The advent of computers additionally makes it possible for new information such as news stories and pictures to move around the world in a matter of seconds.  

This convergence and greasing of data has resulted in new problems that we did not have before. Two of these problems are remix and cultural appropriation. “A remix is an alternate mix of a song different from the original version, made using the techniques of audio editing,” according to wordiQ.com.  It is possible for anyone with a computer, music on their hard drive, and editing software to create a remix, though it is also done by recording artists and producers themselves. The Remix Manifesto, written for remixers who do not own the rights to any songs, states that “culture always builds on the past,” and what remixers are creating is something new and original out of something stale. It also claims that we will not be able to “build free societies” unless we “limit the control of the past”. The problem with remixing, when not given permission to do so, is that the songs (or video) being used are generally protected under copyright and intellectual property (IP) law. In this case, the right of the individual to protect their IP property is held over that of the group to use the property in what ways they see fit. An argument also made by those in favor of remix is that most of the entertainment industry is owned primarily by a few large companies that are out for profit rather than the public good. 

Maori culture also has found reason to dislike these large companies. In Protecting the Family Silver, the argument is made that Maori cultural items are being exploited by creators of video games, music, and other products. As an example, one game gave its hero tattoos that were only befitting of a woman, as well as using a revered instrument in Maori culture in an offensive way. In addition, Maura, head of a New Zealand music group, found that she could not use her own name as the title for her band in Germany due to copyrights placed upon it. The Maori people have no wish to do away with the IP system, however. They wish that the law could be altered to include their rights to their culture, without fear of appropriation by others.

Charles Ess suggests that “our ethical responsibility may be more accurately understood in terms of distributed responsibility” (Digital Media Ethics). It is not possible for one individual to take the all the responsibility for even one act, so to speak, on the internet. This implies that, while cultures are different around the world, we must be able to define certain ethical norms around which we can make decisions concerning digital media since it causes us to be so interconnected. Remixers and the Maori people have differing reasons for disliking the IP system. However, both agree that it needs a change. When copyright was originated, its inventors could not have dreamed of the world we have today. In the US, Congress has the right “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (US Const., art I. sec. 8, cl. 8.). The way in which they do so needs to change in response to the changing of technology and times.