FEED: Intellectual property vs Creative Freedom

I love discussions of intellectual property. I've been stating here for ages that just because something is readily accessible doesn't make it freely yours. That is, you can't claim that online music is free just because it's easy for you to acquire it without paying. There's a bench in front of my house that you could easily put into your car. Does that mean it's yours for the taking?

Anyhow, serious discussions of IP go much deeper. This article in Reason, starting with the Catcher in the Rye pastiche, is a good starting point.

Now, the court must decide if 60 Years Later falls under the "fair use" exception to copyright law. Is it an unauthorized sequel (red light), or a commentary or parody (green light)? Does it merely appropriate and continue the work, or transform it in a way that illuminates the original?

Salinger's lawyers have claimed that the new book is "a rip-off pure and simple."There is nothing simple about intellectual property law. Some things are fairly straightforward: a pirated edition of a book or an illegal DVD of a movie cuts into the revenues of the author or the producers. But a new work that builds on an earlier one can boost the sales of the original, particularly if it creates controversy. Film and television studios have sometimes gone after fan-made music videos based on TV shows and movies and posted on websites such as YouTube, even though such videos have inspired quite a few people to buy DVDs of the movies or shows. More...