2 ms·

Sure, but you're not giving enough attention to the fact that this is all happening against the backdrop of capitalism. It's really NICE when stories can be jus

Sure, but you're not giving enough attention to the fact that this is all happening against the backdrop of capitalism. It's really NICE when stories can be just freely shared and remixed and built from, and we're all richer for that, culturally, sure. But artists and authors and comedians have to earn a living! If we want their output to be free, we can't expect them to also have to pay all for their inputs and, you know, keep making art! If we judge art to have value under capitalism, there NEEDS to be a way of protecting that value for those who create it. Alternatively, we could explore alternatives to this whole capitalism thing, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Spivak 3y ago
Right, which is why I'm saying that artists should retain exclusive control of the actual works that they produce and receive mandated royalties from anything that "covers" it (i.e. is substantively the same). Movie adaptations would fall under the category of covers. Where I think it gets murky is when you try to claim ownership over the characters and universe. Because that prevents anyone who's inspired from sharing and selling their work. They either have to come up with their entirely unique OC or do what a lot of authors do which is pick a universe and cast that's in the public domain which is why we get so many greek god adaptations, Camelot, vampires, zombies. The creativity that would flourish if "Harry Potter" could be used with the freedom that people use Count Dracula would be incredible.