??

How, exactly? You seem to be presuming that authors have rights over every possible use of their characters, even if they never explored those uses. I don't get how that's right.

Again, I think we're running into a "What original creator actually did" v. "What latecomer creatively expounded upon"

yes rather then go through a back and forth I do agree there is a matter of definition as to what constitutes a work.

But I think it should be the person solely responsible for the pieces existence, the one that put in all that time, effort, and creativity, that should define what that is.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with how someone else envisions a work.

Also, there's no "artist's rights" in copyright law

you mean the work that they couldn't have envisioned in the first place? if you are a writer then write your own story, dont rip off someone else
thats exactly what it is, a copyright is the right that protects an artists intellectual property from being used without compensation to the original creator. It is the end all be all of an artists right. Without a copyright they have no ownership of their creation and it can be reproduced and/or altered without any repercussions.

So you don't know the difference between inspiration and plagiarism?

We already have the George Lucas idea here so let's pull a few extra ideas into here.

Let's pull up orcs. Or Orks. Anyway, Tolkien thought them up kind of similar to Japanese samurai IIRC. That was an inspiration. Later on, the orc(k)s became a part of Warhammer. Now here's a question. Should the Tolkien estate profit off of the creation of their dead master?

The correct answer? No.

Let's pull up a few more to drive this "ripping off" thing into the ground. Grey Album - Merging of Jay-Z and Beatles. Caused a shut down. Fans reacted. It's still being downloaded and listened to today.

girltalk - Makes money off remixes

Pogo - Remixes Disney music and ??? Profit

Since I've already gotten into fangames, I won't pull up more games save to say that people are constantly modding games despite copyright law.

Aero, don't do this... You know not enough about copyright law and economically speaking, there's a lot more here that you're ignoring to come to your conclusion. Quite frankly, it's almost as if you're forgetting the fact that copyright law is too long in the tooth, based on Mickey Mouse law, all about enforcing a copyright instead of finding new ways to make money, and always retroactive in punishments instead of about progressing the arts and sciences as stated in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8.

-E- Further, copyright is a statutory right, not a natural right. The natural right to express your views in the 1st Amendment trumps any and all copyright.

dont know enough about... do you have any idea how extensively I have studied copyright laws? How many hours of formal education I have taken in regards to its usage and legal definitions. I have even talked with lawyers that specialize in civil law to confirm my understanding of copyrights, as well as business consultants, business owners, and investors about its affect on modern economics and business practices.

These aren't my guesses, these are things I have checked with people that have been to court over these matters.

Do not insult me by saying I do not understand copyrights and their affect on media industry.

[edit]if copyrights didn't exist me, and nearly all my contemporaries would be screwed. You are the one that shouldn't be talking about things you dont understand when it messes with the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people in this country alone.

Have you read Media Piracy yet?

How about the effect of piracy on the quality of information goods

Watched Channels and Conflict by Michael D Smith?

How about the suppressed report from the movie industry saying pirates are good consumers?

And just for added measure, meet the IP attorney that is an anarcho-libertarian, Stephan Kinsella, who helped me to rethink IP completely.

My thought stands. Copyright law isn't about protecting the artists. All IP law is broken to make lawyers and attorneys rich. Our patent office is a literal minefield. Copyright law isn't much better because it's cheaper to sue than innovate.

Finally, we have people pushing for copyright in industries where it is NOT needed. I will make the argument that copyright is no longer needed in the digital era. The push for more and more copyright law, when it's over 70 years, when statutory damages are beyond the bank accounts of normal people, when there are far better ways to make money through economic growth rather than the regulatory capture of copyright law, is a push for the worst possible scenario for innovation and cultural relevance in the US today. So if you honestly make money by being a copyright bully, in any way, shape or form, then yes, you lose my respect.

-E- By the way, this:

I started reading copyright law before Bill Clinton signed the DMCA. I've been following up on it through dmusic.com when the RIAA was having the sue em all strategy. I've since moved on to other sources. I used to read Copyhype until it became so bad with strawman logic in support of the same vague artist's rights idea that you're pushing now. I read a lot of Techdirt because the community is pretty good along with the stories they find. Torrentfreak, Ars Technica, Escapist, TechCrunch, hell, even the MPAA can have my attention to understand the arguments they put forth.

I didn't pay much attention to the NET Act until recently, but I have watched the chilling effects of the takedown procedure in action on Youtube. I've read copyright law through the eyes of Lawrence Lessig's three books, and remember when he unsuccessfully argued against the extended terms of Eldred v. Ashcroft. I've watched the Grokster inducement cases, and saw Napster go down the shit hole. I'm interested in picking up the book "Moral Panics" among a few other copyright books. The best money I spent was on "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies", debunking a ton of ideas about how supposedly artists need copyright to distribute. A new argument, that people just don't pay attention to, is that the consumers now are also creators.

If anything, all patent and copyright law affects me greatly so you're damn right I'm concerned about it. If you want to argue from on high, be my guest. But don't be surprised in the fact that I know about fair use and it's vague four factors actually strengthening copyright law by allowing it to be flexible instead of snapping in twain similar to what Protect IP and the Six Strikes litigation does to it.

Just going to say that any one that thinks copyright is to protect the artist is full of shit and living in denial of the reality of what it's used for.

I thought the point of having multiple relevant degrees was to help inform your argument, not be your argument?

Guys I've copywrited forum posting as Lumenskir, Sifright, Jagos, SMB and Aerozord. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.