Copyright Should Encourage Derivative Works

Techdirt has an interesting look at copyright and the idea that an author is the originator of a new work. Instead, the piece suggests that all works are in some way based on the works of others (even our own copyright law), and the system should be much more encouraging of "remixing" work into new, unique experiences. "Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation, based on a blog post by Rene Kita. In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally. It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music — which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to 'protect' such things."

Comments

Re:If Everything is copied...

[Tweenk]

But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.

Sorry but this is the purest form of assholery enabled by copyright.

If someone random releases a Batman comic, then there are three possible outcomes:
1. It sucks. Nobody cares, the original author does not lose anything. Publisher is annoyed because somebody is using "their" franchise, but since people tend to forget about shitty comics they doesn't care much.
2. It is acceptable. Some people will buy and enjoy it, but most probably won't consider it canon. The original author is unaffected. Publisher is annoyed because they think that money should belong to them.
3. It is absolutely great. Readers have a great comic, the "unauthorized" artist has a lot of money. The original artist might have a reduced ability to sell his future works if they aren't as good as the "unauthorized" ones, but most probably his earlier works will sell better because of increased popularity of Batman in general. Publisher gnaws his arms off because they did not make any money from the hit.

Conclusion: this use of copyright does not benefit the authors or the readers in the slightest. They only benefit the publishers, who can turn the creative arts into a money farm. The effect is a cultural land grab that stifles creativity, and prevents a great many works from being created because they would not be authorized. For example, a movie about the Stalinist terror using Disney characters could become a cultural milestone, and yet there is no chance of that ever being authorized.

Re:No really?

[Tweenk]

It helps a few major players, but harms industry on the whole. The same is true for other creative arts. The proponents of restrictive IP rights usually misrepresent the good of those few best known players as the good of the industry, but the reality is that prosperity lies in plurality and "lawless free-for-all", not exclusive deals.