If you want to see how broad and deep the "copying" business has become, you need to take a look at Kirby Ferguson's Everything is a Remix link here. Part 1 considers music, Part 2 looks at movies like the James Bond series, and Part 3 and 4 have yet to be produced. The point of this is how hard it has become to justify copyright as applied to music and stories. Look at the Vimeos to see how compelling the argument is. The material is highly entertaining as well.

Interesting. And I thought "Headlines" on The Tonight Show was a good example of fair use. Nice find.

Thanks for such a useful link, it gave me load fo information for my term paper

Is our so-called "remix culture" really a new Renaissance of learning and cultural progress? Certain thinkers such as Lawrence Lessig and Yochai Benkler knock vigorously on that door but are wise enough not to walk through. Plenty of bloggers and blog commenters, however, show no fear in ecstatically breaking through that thought barrier. In this post I will argue that in fact there are many parallels between the origins and rise of the European renaissance and our modern embrace of unauthorized distribution and use of creative works, but that while the Renaissance empowered creative output, the "remix culture" has the potential to contract cultural output.

An anonymous "Copyright Attorney" in fear for his job security wrote:

... the "remix culture" has the potential to contract cultural output.

Bullshit.

I watched the vimeos and found them interesting. However, the comment "The point of this is how hard it has become to justify copyright as applied to music and stories" does not seem to follow from the vimeos.

Why? Because the music and stories were created while copyright existed, which means that copyright was not violated. The point of copyright was never to prevent churning story or music elements and coming up with a new story or element, and the vimeos reinforce that such occurs and though the vimeos are insufficient to prove that such occurs constantly, the author of the vimeo did try to stretch his point that it happens almost always.

So, a counter comment could be, "The point of this is how little copyright appears to have affected the ability to create new music and stories."

That alone suffices to prove it should be abolished. It does not increase the incentives, its supposed purpose; but it is a restriction on our freedoms, one now shown to be lacking justification.

Abolish copyright now.

Nobody:

You introduced the subject of incentives. Up to the point that you introduced this new subject, there seemed to be no evidence related to incentives.

Bullshit. You yourself had just said "The point of this is how little copyright appears to have affected the ability to create new music and stories." (You, or another anonymous user choosing the same pseudonym, perhaps.)

In other words, you indicated that copyright is not an incentive with noticeable impact on creation of works.

Now you claim that I was the first to mention incentives?!

Nobody:

Your expletive is unnecessary to make a logical point.

I did say, the point of this is how little copyright appears to have affected the ability to create new music and stories.

Now, you tell me how that relates to "incentive"? My sentence says, reasonably clearly, the the existence of copyright has not appeared to affect, meaning prevent in view of the context of earlier statements, the creation of new works. Nowhere did I imply that copyright was somehow related to incentives, and I would appreciate you not putting words into my sentences that do not exist.

So, yes, I maintain that you have introduced the subject of incentives in a conversation that has related to the affect of copyrights on the creation of works that have some basis in previous works, the topic to this point.

An anonyshit writes:

[implied insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Now, you tell me how that relates to "incentive"?

I just did.

My sentence says, reasonably clearly, the the existence of copyright has not appeared to affect ... the creation of new works.

Exactly. It has not, in particular, appeared to encourage the creation of new works.

Nowhere did I imply that copyright was somehow related to incentives

You didn't have to. The Progress Clause of the Constitution states that outright.

and I would appreciate you not [false accusation of dishonesty deleted].

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Now hush.

Nobody:

So, you admit that introduced incentives into a conversation about whether copyright hinders the development of new work. I knew you would man (or woman) up when faced with the facts.

Your nasty ad hominem statements, false accusations and irrelevant expletives appear to merely be an attempt to transfer your psychotic behavior to me. I decline.

You have a nice day now!

An anonyshit writes:

So, you admit that introduced incentives[rest of bullshit, including numerous insults, deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

We had been discussing whether copyright had an effect on the creation of new works. One possible effect would be what copyright maximalists claim the effect will be: to incentivize and thus increase the creation of new works. The other would be to inhibit the creation of new works.

You admitted that copyright seems to have no effect either way; in particular it doesn't seem to increase it. (You focused on it not seeming to decrease it, but that's not the part I found as interesting as it not seeming to increase it.)

So, the original thesis stands: copyright is useless.

As an imposition on freedoms, and lacking as it does any justification dependent on it actually fulfilling its stated policy goal, it ought to be abolished. QED.

As for its supposedly not decreasing the creation of new works, I'd like to know how you'd measure that. Google "ghost works" (full phrase search) sometime; it's a pretty thorny problem to measure more precisely but there is anecdotal evidence of copyright preventing some works being created. If the overall effect on rate of new work creation is null, then presumably it is incentivizing a few works as well, but are the works it's incentivizing "better" than the ones it's suppressing? I'd argue "probably not" as the works it's incentivizing will be ones whose authors' main goal is to get rich off royalties, and so will be pandering to the lowest common denominator -- yet another trite, seen-it-all-before Hollywood blockbuster, say. That sort of thing.

Nobody:

I thought you would likely respond with your usual nonsense, and you did, at the beginning, but then fell into a reasoned series of statements. I will, as I tend to do, overlook your irrelevant opening statements and focus on the later statements.

Freedom is a funny thing. We willingly limit our freedoms for a variety of reasons, some that seem reasonably based, some not. I am for maximum freedom that also yields maximum opportunity. The question that has yet to be answered by anyone with sound scientific data, regardless of whether they are an individualist, an objectivist, an anarcho-capitalist or any of the umpteen variations of libertarianism, is whether intellectual property rights enhance the total public good or harm the total public good.

The vimeos offered as some sort of evidence describe the amount of "inspiration" in later movies and music occurs from earlier music and movies. The interesting aspect of these vimeos, to me, is that there was all this creativity in music and movies by borrowing themes and sometimes even short segments of that which came before, and yet copyright was not violated even once. Thus, I marvelled that the vimeos seem to indicate that copyright has not harmed "building upon the shoulders of giants" even a little - as long as "building upon the shoulders of giants" is not "copying what the giants did."

Thank you for taking the time to respond with reasoned, intelligent statements.

An anonyshit wrote:

I thought you would likely respond with your usual [insult deleted]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Freedom is a funny thing. We willingly limit our freedoms for a variety of reasons, some that seem reasonably based, some not. I am for maximum freedom that also yields maximum opportunity. The question that has yet to be answered by anyone with sound scientific data, regardless of whether they are an individualist, an objectivist, an anarcho-capitalist or any of the umpteen variations of libertarianism, is whether intellectual property rights enhance the total public good or harm the total public good.

Bollocks. There have been numerous studies and they have pretty reliably shown that "intellectual property" harms the total public good.

Thus, I marvelled that the vimeos seem to indicate that copyright has not harmed "building upon the shoulders of giants" even a little

Cherry-picking only the data that supports your cherished thesis? Tsk, tsk. Perhaps you hadn't heard of the fan-made Harry Potter Lexicon that got shut down? Among numerous other examples where copyright bullying did stifle a work. The problem with fair use is that you have to be sued, not settle, and stick it out to a very expensive victory to really be in the clear.

Nobody:

And one of those "studies" would be? Point to one.

Yes, I did hear of the fan-made Harry Potter lexicon that consisted of copied information from J.K. Rowling's books. I read the judgment and the logic as to why the lexicon violated copyright laws. I think Rowling was foolish to halt the lexicon, but it was within her legal right under current laws to halt the copying. The authors of the lexicon were not "standing on the shoulders of giants," but reaching into their pockets.

So, did copyright stifle copying? Yes, it did, as the judge noted when he found for J.K. Rowling.

And one of those "studies" would be? Point to one.

How about you read the book "Against Intellectual Monopoly"? Then if you still have any questions post a followup here.

The fan-made Harry Potter lexicon that consisted of copied information from J.K. Rowling's books.

It contained substantial original content and was transformative. It referenced existing works. So do various notes, essays, and the like on Shakespeare's plays reference Shakespeare's plays, without being mere copies of them.

I think Rowling was foolish to halt the lexicon

Indeed it was.

but it was within her legal right under current laws to halt the copying.

And the legislature was foolish to grant her that privilege (not right -- privilege).

The authors of the lexicon were not "standing on the shoulders of giants," but reaching into their pockets.

Folderol. Nobody took any money from Rowling that she didn't willingly part with.

So, did copyright stifle copying? Yes, it did, as the judge noted when he found for J.K. Rowling.

Unfortunately, on that and many other occasions it also stifled creativity, the very thing that it has a Constitutional mandate to incentivize instead.

Nobody:

I waited anxiously for your follow up post all day.

I have read "Against Monopoly" cover to cover. I was initially quite excited with the authors said they were going to "prove" that intellectual property was "bad." Sadly, they then relayed a series of anecdotes and arguments rather than presenting substantive, unequivocal evidence that the cost of intellectual property rights outweighed the benefit. I was quite sad that the book did not appear to live up to its potential.

Your other comments were pretty much on point. I did not actually see the Harry Potter lexicon. Did you have a chance to see it before it was removed/eliminated?

I have read "Against Monopoly" cover to cover.

Then why did you ask for references to studies proving copyright deleterious? You already had plenty.