It is odd to what degree the nerds of Boing Boing voice their shocking avariciousness. One would have thought that the interests of the creative parts of society would be best serves by their protection. Instead, we read this article on the need to devalue the property rights of the things of other in order that they, the takers, get what they want - money:

Either way, they typically aren't the original record label, film studio, publishing house, TV production company or any of the other names that might be on the copyright declaration. They are someone else, probably someone entirely unexpected. This is, after all, the dawn of Remix Culture. What's changed is the presumption that the primary rights-holder is the best at extracting the commercial potential of creative material. Instead, anyone can do it: the advertising company that remixes an old movie to sell a car; the Linux t-shirt done Warhol-style, or just plain old DJ magic.

Recently, on a related discussion specific to the issue of an older TV show on DVD, one commenter stated that the real issue to his mind was only a failure of the interest holders to get together and cut the deal. Apparently, no one considers whether the owner's disinterest in that deal matters. This is apart from the secondary question of whether the cut offered in exchange even meets the interest owners expectations.

Implicit in the declaration of "the dawn of the Remix Culture" - don't forget the capitalization - is such an astonishing revival of "new economy" dot.com thinking by a slightly different sector of the same digital trade that it is almost refreshing in its foolishness. There is, of course, nothing at all new in any of this. The allegation that "what's changed is the presumption that the primary rights-holder is the best at extracting the commercial potential of creative material" is exactly the same justification industrialists used to impoverish labour in the industrial revolution. Common thought had it that no one in 1840 knew better how to extract the commercial potential of children than the factory owner. Sure, copyright breach is not child labour but each are things prohibited in law as they are aspects of fundamental liberties: the first, the right to not be exploited due to unconscionable bargaining inequity and, the second, the right to control one's own creations against those whose technological inequality would snap it up otherwise. The fragility of intangible interests, even when transferred for value from the original creator, rests only on their protection under law and the owners ability to exclude those who would convert them for their own purposes and profits. Their misuse leaves them depleted of their value through misguided exposure in the market. Who will read Anne of Green Gables to the kids once the little darlings hear of Anne of Green Gables, Sexy She-Wolf of Stalag 17?

The "Remix Culture" does not care. It does not care about the right of others to simply say "no", to say "I have my own purposes for my things which do not include you". It's like they see your cottage, think of what a great party could be held there and then respond to your unhappiness after they trashed the place that you had been invited.