"A derivative work, by definition, would be less creative, as it uses the characters and settings created by someone else. A portion of the world is done for them."
That depends on the original work and the fanfiction in question. There are forms of creativity beyond creating something out of whole cloth. For example, the creativity required to make the worlds of Fallout and My Little Pony mesh nicely together is substantial.
Unfortunately, that fails to identify who holds the copyright, which actually is useful information. Something like "This video is no longer available because User XXXXXX has been accused of violating Company YYYYYYY's copyright" is the closest you can get to that without removing relevant information or including potentially false information.
"Yes as I said we can keep going back and forth with examples."
I'm not actually presenting counter-examples, which would mean saying no-DRM makes things sell better. I'm saying DRM is tangential to sales. Better games with broader appeal sell more. The Witcher fell short of Diablo because not as many people want that kind of game. The Sims is ahead of it because it's the best entry-level video game ever made. Diablo is selling a lot because it's Diablo. Your "counter-example" to my point is not.
"But companies have shown they would rather restrict the game with drm and even change their entire development strategy by moving to consoles than put up with piracy."
That only demonstrates that the heads of the companies in question view piracy the same way you do. I can come up with counterexamples there, too, if you'd like.
"I'm sure we can keep coming up with examples/counter examples. But so far d3 has had 0 piracy and sold 8 mil units."
And The Sims 2 has piracy up the wazoo and has sold 20 million. Asking whether or not something has been pirated is entirely the wrong question. Given the sales of Diablo 2 and 3 being the most anticipated game in the history of humanity, I would've expected its sales to be in that range. The 0 piracy is a red herring; those sales are because it's Diablo.
"I mean look at witcher 2, they released it without drm to be nice and it was pirated 4.5mil times for 1mil in sales."
In short: they sold one million units. Good for them.
"Are you betting companies would risk giving their game away for free when they see the piracy rate of the witcher 2 the success of drm laden d3? People will still buy drm laden games."
People still buy games that can be pirated too. The "risk" is almost entirely imaginary. If you go through this list, you'll note that almost every one of them is easily pirated. You can find the top one here.
No, I'm still not keen on having to put up with server lag in a single-player game.
"Imagine, people paying for digital copies! Some kind of magical wonderland."
If this kind of thing was actually necessary, Diablo 3 wouldn't be losing to Half-Life and Minecraft wouldn't have earned a dime. Imagine, people buying things without being forced to. Some kind of magical wonderland.
"Maybe I'll just go download his music and not pay."
You could at least watch it on his YouTube channel and contribute to his ad revenue. It's not a big deal, though, because half a million of his fans are better people than you.
"Is Blizzard trying to push cryptic drm onto the masses in order to sell 0 value digital copies for $59.99 each?"
Yes. They haven't actually been successful in keeping people from pirating the game, but they're trying.
"If there was a way for the music industry to restrict access like this, they would."
It's been tried.
"All pirates are not necessarily customers, but some customers are pirates given the choice."
Anyone who wants anything electronic has the choice to pirate it. No DRM scheme yet used has prevented that. Those eight million Diablo 3 purchases are because eight million people chose to buy it, not because they didn't have another option.
"But the incessant whining about how you can't use other people's property to the extent you feel as though you should be entitled (even though in fact you aren't) just gets old."
Except I am entitled to do what this guy was asking permission for. Parody is fair use in America, which means that I can do this without fair of retribution:
Bad laws, bad laws, bad laws, bad laws
They cripple innovation, they make singing a sin
If you aren't a corporation then you just can't win
They need evaluation, but so much money's coming in
A heinous crime? Rewriting songs,
Unless you suck EMI's dong
Bad laws, bad laws, bad laws, they're bad
Electric and Musical Industries is watching so beware
There are no parodies that they will let you share
So just pay them and say please,
Or you will know true fear
They're lawyered up, they'll find your flaws
There's no saving you
Signed, bad laws.
See that drivel I just whipped up in half an hour? That's what Huge was trying to do. It's what he was being asked a thousand dollars for the honor of doing. If this post had been written by an Australian, they could be taken to court for this, but it's cool since I'm posting from the other side of the ocean. That doesn't seem the least bit silly to you?
Except that this isn't "just like everything else in the world". Parody is fair use in the part of the world I live in. No one in my portion of the world needs to ask permission to make "If I Had Soup" and upload it to YouTube.
"Anyone notice how all those old school rules are really about maximizing label profits by screwing over the artist?"
Actually, I hadn't noticed that. How does refusing to sell things in Australia until they're not cool anymore maximize label profits? I see your explanation of "billing the artist for each release", but that seems weak.