Comment by oharapj

>The problem with that perspective is that the concept of copyright originates from and only exists within that system. Copyright itself is a legal contrivance. If you want to propose some other way of doing things, you need to argue from first principles and articulate the normative assumptions that you are starting from.

That's great, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm building a legal case for the artists in the attached article. Until then, I'll keep an open mind and not dismiss opinions about what should be the case on the basis of 'that's not the law'

I will say that the idea that certain works that have artistic and cultural significance shouldn't be plundered and watered down for corporate gain isn't overly complicated and fits entirely within the framework of "promoting the progress of science and useful arts". Preservation of existing successful ideas and mythology is important, and existing ideas and mythology can absolutely be ruined by new works produced by uncaring entities

Should this actually be the law? Maybe its implementation would be impossible/too messy/hurt more than it helps. I don't know. Is it good that people have opinions that go against the status quo, and should we dismiss those opinions by saying 'that's not the status quo'! Yes and absolutely not