Copyright Should Encourage Derivative Works 136
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."
Re:Um, no. (Score:3, Informative)
For example, do I want people making derivative works of my copyrights (my novels)? No. That's my CHOICE.
No, it's a government granted PRIVILEGE. Hopefully, it will be revoked some day. Even your copyrights are derivative works with little more than personal anecdotes.
Re:Just be careful what you wish for... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that's not exactly true. If there were a EULA, you might still be bound by it. The author of the original GPL'd work may be able to take action against the author of the derived work, but you are merely a third-party with no standing to enforce the GPL.
Re:Remixes (Score:3, Informative)
Typically when a song is remixed or sampled, the copyright holders have given permission and are getting royalties.
Re:Remixes (Score:2, Informative)