"despite all the inherent fuzziness and ambiguity of the issue, most people can distinguish between something "original," something inspired by other things, and a blatant ripoff."
Amen.
Creating a thing that most people would consider original AND that is actually worth reading, watching, listening to etc is not easy to do. If one wants to float the proposition that there are no original ideas, and that artists work with pre-existing ideas, fine. But taking from prior art...the thing that others made is entirely different. People want to steal the valuable thing that they did not create because they are not wealthy enough (in skill or money) to afford their own.
There is some slopping thinking in the post above.
"All works are built on those that came before." To be informed or inspired by the work of others is not the same thing as taking chunks of a previously existing work and using them in your own.
"Pretending that there is a true original creator who deserves credit, money or control is a problem -- because it means no new creative works could be done without getting permission."
No it doesn't. It means precisely the opposite. The more something is unlike its predecessors...the more new it is, the less need for concern of IP infringement exists.
Denying original creators rights and compensation to their work is silly and dishonest. But stifling mash-up and remix creativity is silly and counterproductive. Honest people should be able to sort out who owns how much of a composite work.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by M13.
Re:
"despite all the inherent fuzziness and ambiguity of the issue, most people can distinguish between something "original," something inspired by other things, and a blatant ripoff."
Amen.
Creating a thing that most people would consider original AND that is actually worth reading, watching, listening to etc is not easy to do. If one wants to float the proposition that there are no original ideas, and that artists work with pre-existing ideas, fine. But taking from prior art...the thing that others made is entirely different. People want to steal the valuable thing that they did not create because they are not wealthy enough (in skill or money) to afford their own.
Re: Fear the High Quality...
These products are purchased at least as much for the status they confer as for their quality. A Rolex does not tell time particularly well.
Of course there is an original creator of a piece of work.
There is some slopping thinking in the post above.
"All works are built on those that came before." To be informed or inspired by the work of others is not the same thing as taking chunks of a previously existing work and using them in your own.
"Pretending that there is a true original creator who deserves credit, money or control is a problem -- because it means no new creative works could be done without getting permission."
No it doesn't. It means precisely the opposite. The more something is unlike its predecessors...the more new it is, the less need for concern of IP infringement exists.
Denying original creators rights and compensation to their work is silly and dishonest. But stifling mash-up and remix creativity is silly and counterproductive. Honest people should be able to sort out who owns how much of a composite work.