17 Mashing, Modding, and Memeing Writing for a New Generation of University Students Rodney Jones Introduction There has been considerable interest in – and, in some quarters, alarm at – the ways digital media are affecting students’ writing practices. Many educators are convinced that the internet has led to an epidemic of plagiarism and a shallow “cut and paste” approach to writing which works against the development of either creativity or criticality (Duggan, 2006; Schur, 2012). Studies conducted at major US universities (see for example McCabe, Butterield, and Trevino, 2012) have found that large numbers of students regularly copy from online sources, and the popular press is awash with headlines announcing a “cheating crisis” (ABC News, 2013) and a “plagiarism plague” (Campbell, 2006). Teachers and educational institutions have mostly responded to these developments with a morally charged, “take no prisoners” attitude towards plagiarism, often accompanied by strict penalties and supported by the use of plagiarism detection software. 348 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS Students, on the other hand, are sometimes confused when the practices of “sharing,” “curating” (Potter, 2012), and re-using content that are central to their everyday writing practices out of school are so frowned upon in the composition classroom. As Martine C. rife and Nicole, D. Devoss put it, “Attempting to convince today’s digital writers that writing practices that are seamless and may seem ‘natural’ in and across digital spaces are actually suspect and perhaps dishonest is dificult” (Rife and DeVoss, 2012: 92). Adding to this dificulty is the fact that much of the writing students will engage in in workplaces after they graduate more closely resembles their everyday “cut and paste” practices than the practices that they learn in school. For example, in a recent study of writing practices which i carried out in public relations irms with collaborators Vijay Bhatia, Stephen Bremner, and Anne Peirson-Smith, we found that proposals, reports, and press releases were typically prepared using templates and recycled “boilerplate” text, as well as by recombining content taken from internet websites without attribution (Jones, Bhatia, Bremner, and Peirson-Smith, 2012; see also rife and Devoss, 2012). Unfortunately, many contemporary discussions of plagiarism in educational institutions effectively short-circuit opportunities to engage students in fruitful discussions about issues like the ethics of sharing and borrowing, the origin and purpose of intellectual property laws, and the different conventions for citation and attribution associated with different writing contexts. They also represent a missed opportunity to get students to relect upon more fundamental aspects of the writing process associated with what Mikhail Bakhtin calls “heteroglossia” (Bakhtin, 1981) – the borrowing and mixing of multiple “voices” which is an inevitable part of all writing. Understanding how to effectively borrow the ideas of others, to curate them and combine them, and to make something new out of them, are important literacy practices necessary for successful participation in a whole range of online practices such as blogging, social networking, and online gaming (Jones and hafner, 2012). They are, however, also important skills MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 349 for successful academic writing, albeit involving very different conventions of borrowing and citation. one problem with the way issues of textual ownership are addressed in both composition classrooms and in discussions of internet piracy is that they often focus more on what cannot or should not be borrowed, than they do on the creative possibilities that ethical borrowing open up. Another problem is that discussions of plagiarism and intellectual property are often oversimpliied to the degree that all copying is treated equally as theft. The widespread use of metaphors related to property and theft is perhaps one of the most insidious features of contemporary discourse about plagiarism, belying a lack of understanding among many administrators and faculty (not to mention students) of the fundamental difference between copyright law (which is meant to protect the economic interests of copyright holders) and conventions of academic citation, which are meant to facilitate the creation of knowledge by giving people ways to ethically borrow and build upon the ideas of others. There are major differences between copyright law and conventions of academic honesty. The irst is that copyright law has nothing to do with attribution. even if one clearly cites the source of a copyrighted text, if it is copied in ways that are not considered fair use (see below), it can constitute an offense. So it is possible to violate copyright law and not commit plagiarism. At the same time, copyright law generally only applies to the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, and so it is possible to commit plagiarism by using someone else’s ideas without attribution and not violate their copyright. Students in contemporary composition classes need to understand both copyright law and conventions of academic honesty (especially since most contemporary composing practices involve both copying and reusing existing materials and the necessity to attribute those materials to their sources). At the same time, they need to know the difference between the two, and to understand when and where it is appropriate to apply these different 350 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS rules of “textual ownership” (Spigelman, 2000). Finally, they need to be given the opportunity to explore how both copyright laws and conventions of academic writing are the products of certain historical conditions and relationships of power and the opportunity to engage in critical debates regarding their aims and principles and their contemporary manifestations in things like corporate prosecutions of people who share content online and the use by universities of computerized tools that purport to be able to “analyze” the “originality” of student writing. in this chapter, i will introduce a series of activities designed to engage students in exploring how their everyday literacies associated with sharing and reusing the content of others can actually contribute to rather than detract from the development of creativity and sound academic writing skills and to foster the conditions in the composition classroom for more open, non-judgmental discussions about intellectual property. i will be focusing primarily on three different but related literacy practices, which i call mashing – the ability to borrow and effectively combine ideas and content from others, modding – the ability to alter borrowed ideas or content in a way that makes it “new,” and memeing – the ability to promote one’s “new” idea in a way that encourages other people to borrow it and to further alter it or combine it with other ideas or content. These activities aim both to sensitize students about the different conventions around borrowing and remixing associated with different kinds of writing, and to open up space for them to participate in larger debates about the economic, legal and cultural implications of copyright and intellectual property legislation and conventions (lankshear and Knobel, 2003; lessig, 2004). Mashing i use the term “mashing” to refer to the practice of “remixing” or “mashing up” different content to produce some kind of new textual product. Contemporary notions of remixing are usually MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 351 traced back to the music industry and, in particular, hip-hop, whose artists regularly “sample” segments of previously recorded music in producing their songs (Arewa, 2006). More recently, however, the term “remix” has been used to refer to nearly any instance where people use digital technologies to copy and combine the work of others. Critics like Bakhtin (1981) and roland Barthes (e.g. Barthes, 1978), or course, would be quick to remind us that the practice of remixing is as old as communication itself. one reason for the increased prominence of this practice in recent years has to do with the fact that digital technologies, by their very nature, make remixing so much easier: processes which before required laboriously copying text, recording and re-recording on analog tape, or operating complicated professional ilm editing equipment can now be accomplished by anyone with a few clicks of a mouse. Scholars in literacy studies (see e.g. Jones and hafner, 2012; Lankshear and Knobel, 2003) have identiied remixing as a core practice associated with “digital literacies.” examples they have given of this practice include remixing clips from movies to create “faux” movie trailers, superimposing new music or soundtracks onto video clips, making videos from captures of online gameplay (machinima), recombining or photoshopping images found on the web, and recombining plots and characters from novels, movies, or television shows (fan iction). The simplest kind of remixing can be found on social networking sites like Facebook and Pinterest where users simply collect and “curate” different kinds of content from a wide variety of websites (as well as their own photos and texts) to create online albums, timelines, or “boards.” even the simple process of collecting different content in one place requires a certain understanding of audience and of intertextuality – how the different texts one has brought together interact with one another. Such skills, of course, are also important for academic writers. lessig (2005), in fact, uses academic writing as a classic example of remixing. The essence of the teaching of writing (in a traditional sense), he argues, is teaching students to take material from different sources and to combine it to create something new. Part of 352 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS this process is teaching students certain conventions of attribution. The basic principles governing academic writing and electronic remixing, however, are not very different, and by helping students to see this, the process of weaving the voice of different scholars together in academic writing can be made to seem more familiar and more manageable to students. Modding “Modding,” or modifying, is a term that is usually associated with a practice commonly engaged in by video-gamers of modifying in some way the software of the games they play to alter graphics and other aspects of gameplay. This practice has become so widespread that sometimes game companies even encourage it, and some of the most popular games on the market today are actually the result of such acts of unauthorized customization by players. here i am using the term in a broader sense, to refer to the practice of altering an idea or a piece of content (such as an image or a video) in a way that transforms it into something new. Whereas mashing involves combining content from different sources, modding involves taking content from a single source and adding something of your own to it. like mashing, modding is a literacy practice which is central to both new forms of digital creativity and to more traditional forms of writing, including academic writing. in his book Borrowing Brilliance (Murray, 2010), business writer David Kord Murray argues that nearly all good ideas in business are, to some degree, simply creative “mods” of old ideas. The processes he discusses by which old ideas are made new are processes which are also central to more academic forms of reasoning and creativity, processes of selecting, incubating (including discussing and debating), judging (or critiquing), and enhancing (altering or expanding). To some degree, modding can be seen as a higher level skill than mashing. Whereas mashing simply involves mixing different ideas or texts in an inventive way, modding takes invention to a new level, building MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 353 on old ideas to make something new. This process is not just an important part of academic writing – it can be argued that it is the very basis of scholarship itself. Memeing of course, not all old ideas are good enough to borrow and transform, and not all transformed ideas catch on (Berger, 2013) as really signiicant contributions to a particular ield. “Memeing” refers to ways that writers and other creators shape new ideas in ways that are able to attract the attention of others. The term “meme” was introduced by evolutionary biologist richard Dawkins to refer to a “contagious idea” (Dawkins, 2006; see also Berger, 2013; Jenkins, 2013). “examples of memes,” he writes, are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. (Dawkins, 2006: 192) The notion that ideas or content can have a kind of “viral” quality is, of course, especially associated with the internet, where, because of the high speed at which information travels, the ease with which it is borrowed and reproduced, and the way the medium’s network structure facilitates the exponential growth of audiences, people often speak of internet content (such as images, blog posts, and youTube videos) as “going viral.” Colin lankshear and Michelle Knobel argue that the literacy practice of “meming” is central to successful human communication, both online and off (lankshear and Knobel, 2003). “Memes,” they write, “highlight the profoundly social dimension of language and literacy. in a nutshell, memes require networked human hosts in order to get established, to grow, and to survive” (p. 233). Although teachers regularly caution student writers to 354 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS consider their audience, students are seldom invited to consider their ideas as having a life beyond the page, as things that can potentially be taken up by others, spread, remixed, and modded. Along with learning how to appropriately borrow, combine, and build upon the ideas of others, students of writing need to be given a chance to relect on the qualities that make ideas and texts worth borrowing in the irst place, the features which make a piece of writing potentially “contagious.” Description of Activity and Strategies for Implementation The following activities draw on students’ understandings of their everyday digital literacies and aim to: (1) engage them in meaningful discussions about intertextuality, intellectual property, and the ethics of borrowing; and (2) help them to understand how they can transfer skills associated with these everyday literacies to their academic writing. The activities are suitable for upper secondary or beginning university students who are involved in learning the basics of academic writing. Warmup Exercises These exercises serve to focus students’ attention and sensitize them to the concept of “mashing” through getting them to do short, imaginative writing tasks. Task 1: Parisian Love (a) Play the following video for students: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS4lb-ie4lc The video consists of a series of google search terms combined with different sound effects. The search terms are as follows: MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 355 study abroad paris france cafes near the louvre translate tu est très mignon how to impress a french girl chocolate shops paris what are trufles? who is truffaut? long distance relationship advice jobs in paris AA120 churches in paris how to assemble a crib (b) Ask students to explain the story and to retell it as a conventional narrative. (c) Discuss how the video is a combination of two different “genres”: internet search and a love story. Ask students what the beneits are of mashing these two genres together. (d) Ask students to write their own “story” using only search terms. have selected students read their list of terms aloud and ask their classmates to guess what the story is. NOTE: This activity has many beneits beyond its aim to get students to start thinking about what happens when two very different genres are mashed up. it also helps students who are likely engaged in internet research understand that searching for information is a kind of journey or narrative during which external events and results from previous searches inform the choice of future search terms. Task 2: Mini Mashups (a) Ask students to produce a short text which mashes up one text from column A and one text from column B. 356 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS Column A Column B • • • • • • • • • • “Dear John” Letter Complaint Letter Job Application Political Speech Lab Report License plate SMS message Birthday card Advertisement Facebook Update (b) After students have shared their texts with one another, engage them in a discussion about: (i) the dificulties of itting together two disparate text types, and (ii) what their mash-ups reveal about the nature of the different kinds of texts they used. NoTe: The key point to emphasize to students is that combining different kinds of texts nearly always results in a product that is more that the “sum of its parts,” that it usually results in a product that produces some kind of new insights or knowledge. Task 3: Critically Evaluating an Internet Mash-up (a) Choose a mash-up from the internet. Some examples of what you might choose are: (i) A faux movie trailer that mashes up the plots of two different movies (see for example “Brokeback to the Future,” which combines the plots of Brokeback Mountain and Back to the Future http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=8uwulxrv8jy) (ii) A piece of fan iction (for examples see http://www. faniction.net) (iii) A popular internet “meme” which involves the combination of content from multiple sources (for example, video clips, audio soundtracks) (see below). The example chosen to illustrate this exercise is the you Tube video “Ain’t Nobody got Time for That” featuring “Sweet Brown” (Kimberley Wilkens). The video is based on a segment of a Baltimore news report featuring an interview MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 357 with a woman (“Sweet Brown”) whose home caught on ire. The interview is remixed and edited with numerous clips from movies and a musical soundtrack that samples Brown’s words in the interview. This video is an excellent example of the kind of creative product that can be produced through practices of remixing (mashing and modding), as well as of the ethical and legal issues associated with this practice. in fact, this video led to a lawsuit in which Wilkens sued Apple Corporation for offering a version of this remix for purchase on iTunes. (b) Play the original source material for students (for “Ain’t Nobody got Time for That” see http://youtu.be/zgxwbhkDjZM). Then play the remixed version (for “Ain’t Nobody got Time for That” see http://youtu.be/bFeoMo0pc7k). Ask students to try to identify the different sources that were drawn upon in the remix, the degree to which a “new creation” was produced through remixing, and how the new text differs from the original texts in terms of message, purpose, and tone/style. (c) Ask the students to discuss in small groups whether or not they think the remix constitutes a violation of copyright. To make this determination, they will need to decide whether or not the use of the original source material can be considered “fair use” (or, “fair dealing” in U.K. terminology). go over with students the criteria for “fair use” set out in Section 107 of the US Copyright law (Title 17, U. S. Code) (U.S. Copyright Ofice, 2013). They are: (1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonproit educational purposes; (2) The nature of the copyrighted work; (3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. 358 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS NoTe: you may use instead the criteria for fair use relevant to whatever jurisdiction you are in. (d) Ask the student groups to pretend to be a jury and to render a verdict in a court case in which the creator or distributor of the remix is being sued for copyright violation. (For information on the case in which “Sweet Brown” sued Apple Corporation for copyright violation, see http://www.businessinsider.com/ sweet-brown-apple-lawsuit-2013-3.) NoTe: For an interesting interpretation of the “Sweet Brown” case, see the blog Above the Law (http://abovethelaw.com/2013/03/ sweet-brown-has-her-voice-autotuned-sues-itunes-and-others-for15-million/) (e) go over with students the criteria for plagiarism in your school or university. (You may be able to ind documents explicitly stating these criteria on your university website). Ask students to discuss in small groups whether or not they think the remix constitutes a case of plagiarism. have two students from each group role-play a teacher accusing the creator of the remix of plagiarism and the creator (in the role of a student) defending him or herself. (f) Based on the discussions above, ask students to formulate a clear list of differences between the criteria for plagiarism and for copyright violation. Ask them how these criteria might be relevant for the kinds of assignments they produce at their school or university. (g) Ask students to consider if and how the remix they analyzed became a popular internet meme. The main criteria for determining whether or not a cultural product has become a meme is the extent to which other people refer to it, link to it, and borrow from it to create other remixes. examples of this for the “Ain’t Nobody got Time for That” meme MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 359 include the large number of references to it in popular culture, its appropriation by other remixers, including advertisers (see e.g. http://youtu.be/oSTy4qvw9yQ), and its widespread adoption for “picture caption memes” (see for example http:// memegenerator.net/AinT-Nobody-got-Time-Fo-That). (h) Ask students to make a list of the qualities of the remix that they think contributed to it becoming a meme (possible qualities might include humor, relevance, timeliness, etc.). introduce to the students the following features of “contagious ideas” suggested by business guru, John Berger, in his book Contagious: Why Things Catch On (Berger, 2013). Ask them to discuss the degree to which the remix they analyzed demonstrates these features: (1) Social currency – People like to share this idea because it makes them look good, that is, it makes them seem interesting, clever, intelligent, hip, or funny; (2) Triggers – The idea is easy to remember because of things like memorable wordings, music, or images; (3) Emotion – The idea evokes in people some kind of strong emotion such as joy, amusement, anger, or sadness; (4) Practical value or relevance – People think the idea has something to do with them or that it is useful; (5) Stories – The idea “tells a story;” in other words, people can imagine an interesting group of characters and series of events associated with the idea. Task 4: Academic Mash-ups (a) Choose a piece of academic writing from a student or from the internet. The example used here is from the blog, a moment in the life of paul (http://paulburns8616.blogspot.hk/2009/01/ different-views-on-copyright-laws.html). 360 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS Different Views on Copyright Laws i just read two very interesting articles with contrasting views on the laws of copyright. Both articles were very interesting and produced valid reasoning for their points of view. After I had inished reading the articles i could not take a side for either one because i felt like both of them were sound arguments. The irst one I read was about was from the point of view that copyright laws are essential to protect the producers of the information. he brought up a great viewpoint and talked about an animated Disney ilm that had taken four years to produce because so much new technology and been invented just for the one ilm to be produced. He also went into depth about how when the ilm was being created massive amounts of information had to be compacted and condensed on many separate computers just so that all the time and effort could be saved. he said all this to say that even though millions of dollars had been put into the project along with countless man hours it could all be undone if just one copy of the movie was prematurely copied and put on the internet. Not only would the Disney company lose money because people would be able to access the movie for free via the internet the anticipation and eagerness for people to see the movie would be dimmed because it could be freely accessed through the internet. This argument had many valid points and showed how copyright laws were essential to protect peoples ideas, money, and work. The second article did not completely disagree with the fact that copyright was needed but rather put a different spin on the subject. The man point of view from the writer of the second article was that for people to continue to invent and develop new ideas they would need free access to works from the past. one quote the author repeated multiple times was, “Creativity and innovation always build on the past.” i thought that this quote put a lot of things in perspective; one thing i think you can get out of it is that in order for people to evolve and come up with new ideas they would need access to prior works so that they could learn from previous works and ideas. in some ways this outlook is good because one can not truly know where he are going until they have seen where they have been. To conclude i think it is fair to say that copyright laws are essential to society but can sometimes hinder creativity because information is not always easily accessible to people. (From http://paulburns8616.blogspot.hk/2009/01/different-views-oncopyright-laws.html) MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 361 (b) explain to students that a lot of academic writing involves remixing the ideas of different scholars in a way that creates some kind of new product. Ask them to read the sample of academic writing that you have chosen and have them discuss the following questions: (i) What are the original sources that are mashed-up in this piece of writing? Has the author clearly identiied these sources? How does the identiication of the sources affect its effectiveness as a remix? (ii) What strategies does the author use to remix the ideas from the different sources (e.g. direct quotation or paraphrase)? how does he or she structure the material? Do the ideas interact in interesting ways? Can you think of a more interesting way to remix these ideas? (iii) Does the remixing of these ideas result in a new idea? if not, can you think of a way the author could create a new idea through the integration of these borrowed ideas? (iv) Does the author commit either plagiarism or copyright infringement? What steps can he or she take to avoid this? NoTe: Perhaps the most interesting point that can be made from the example above is that the piece would be much better if the writer had borrowed more from the original sources rather than less, that is, if he had directly quoted key passages or phrases from the two texts so that the reader could learn more about what each one said and get a sense of the “voices” of the two writers. Another interesting point is that, while the author does not technically commit plagiarism since he does not try to pass off the ideas of the writers he refers to as his own, by failing to reveal who the writers are, he makes the passage much less effective, and much less useful for readers who may want to seek out and read the articles he refers to. (c) The website goodreads (https://www.goodreads.com/) has a function that allows users to generate a list of quotes about 362 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS a particular keyword (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes). Ask students to use this tool to generate a list of quotes about the topic of their choice. Then ask students to choose 3–5 quotes and remix them in a paragraph in a way that avoids plagiarism and results in some kind of interesting, original product. Ask the students to discuss their remixing strategies (such as their choice of either paraphrase or direct quotation) with their classmates. (d) Ask students to apply the criteria they discussed for internet memes to either the piece of writing they analyzed in (b) or the piece of writing they produced in (c). Ask them to make suggestions about how the “meme potential” of these pieces of writing could be increased (in other words, how they could be made more memorable, relevant, useful, and emotionally evocative for readers). Relections and Recommendations The activities described above are meant to introduce students to the processes of intertextual borrowing that are central to most academic writing by relating these processes to the digital literacies associated with remixing (i.e. mashing, modding, and memeing). They are meant to help students see academic writing as a form of “textual remix” which involves: Mashing – locating relevant source materials and combining them together in effective and appropriate ways; Modding – modifying, altering, or building upon the ideas that have been borrowed from others to create some kind of new idea or perspective; Memeing – presenting the new idea or perspective in a way that makes it memorable, relevant, useful and/or emotionally compelling for readers. MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 363 These processes, whether they are associated with internet remixing or academic writing, require students to consider two kinds of questions: (1) Questions about the ethics of borrowing (whether or not their borrowing is “fair use” based on things like the amount they have borrowed, the purpose of the borrowing, and whether or not they have given credit to the creators of the original source material); (2) Questions about the effectiveness of borrowing (whether or not the borrower is able to create some kind of new or original product out of source materials). Both students and teachers will undoubtedly ind that, for many writing or remixing tasks, the answers to these questions are not cut and dried: there may be considerable room for debate as to whether a particular instance of borrowing is either ethical or effective. Such debates can be particularly instructive for both teachers and students, because they remind us that ethical borrowing and creative production are not a matter of “following rules,” but a matter of making decisions based on the particular goals and circumstances of each new writing task and on the standards agreed upon within the particular community of writers or creators that one belongs to. References ABC News (2013, April 29) A cheating crisis in America’s schools. retrieved on 15 September 2013 from http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/ story?id=132376&page=1. Arewa, olufnmilaya. B. (2006) From J. C. Bach to hip hop: Musical borrowing, copyright and cultural context. The North Carolina Law Review 84(2): 547–645. retrieved on 15 September 2013 from http:// www.cs.northwestern.edu/~pardo/courses/eecs352/papers/sampling%20 and%20copyright.pdf. 364 CreATiviTy AND DiSCovery iN The UNiverSiTy WriTiNg ClASS Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. Michael holquist, trans. Caryl emerson and Michael holquist) Austin: University of Texas Press. Barthes, roland (1978) Image-music-text (trans. Stephen heath) New york: hill and Wang. Berger, Jonah (2013) Contagious: Why Things Catch on. New york: Simon & Schuster. Campbell, Don (2006) The plagiarism plague. National Crosstalk Winter. retrieved on 15 September 2013 from http://www.highereducation.org/ crosstalk/ct0106/news0106-plagiarism.shtml. Dawkins, richard (2006) The Selish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition. oxford: oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262452. Duggan, Fiona (2006) Plagiarism: Prevention, practice and policy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31(2): 151–154. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262452. Jenkins, henry (2013) Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New york: New york University Press. Jones, rodney h., Bhatia, vijay K., Bremner, Stephen and Peirson-Smith, Anne (2012) Creative collaboration in the public relations industry. in rodney Jones (ed.) Discourse and Creativity 93–107. harlow, U. K.: Pearson education. Jones, rodney h. and hafner, Christoph A. (2012) Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. london: routledge. lankshear, Colin and Knobel, Michelle (2003) New Literacies: london: open University Press. lessig, lawrence (2004) Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New york: Penguin McCabe, Donald, Butterield, Kenneth D. and Trevino, Linda K. (2012) Cheating in College: Why Students Do It and What Educators Can Do about It. Baltimore: Johns hopkins University Press. Murray, David K. (2010) Borrowing Brilliance: Six Steps to Business Innovation by Building on the Ideas of Others. New york: gotham. Potter, John (2012) Digital Media and Learner Identity: The New Curatorship. New york: Palgrave Macmillan. rife, Martine C. and Devoss, Nicole, D. (2012) Teaching plagiarism: remix as composing. in Michael Donnelly, rebecca ingalls, Tracy A. Morse, Joanna C. Post and Anne M. Stockdell-giesler (eds.), Critical Conversations about Plagiarism 78–100. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press. MAShiNg, MoDDiNg, AND MeMeiNg 365 Schur, richard (2012) Sampling is theft? Creativity and citation after hiphop. in Michael Donnelly, rebecca ingalls, Tracy A. Morse, Joanna C. Post and Anne M. Stockdell-giesler (eds.), Critical Conversations about Plagiarism 69–77. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press. Spigelman, Candace (2000) Across Property Lines: Textual Ownership in Writing Groups. Carbondale: Southern illinois University Press. U. S. Copyright Ofice (2013). Copyright Law of the United States of America and related laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. retrieved on 15 September 2013 from http://www.copyright.gov/ title17/92chap1.html.