system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Extending copyright holders' control to derivative works that are based on theirs, stiffles creativity and is counterproductive CMV

There are two possible attitudes to justifying why even though copyright is supposed to protect a specific expression of an idea, in the past century it has been expanded to controlling whole "franchises" and "universes". 

One is, to talk not just about the expression, but about the whole idea, as the creator's moral "property".  George Lucas created not just six Star Wars movies, but the general "idea of Star Wars", therefore he should own "the idea of Star Wars" (Or Disney should, as it is now). But this just highlights the problem of talking about ownership regarding information: apparently the act of writing a new story can also be an act of theft, because Disney owns not just a thing that they possess, but the authority to limit other people's speech. This gives a disproportional authority to a few early movers, so by now a great amount of our basic pop-cultural ideas are entirely controlled by a handful of corporations. 

 The second common point is, that such works are not really creative anyways, there is no new story at all, *only* an act of copying. Copyright's purpose is to promote the progress of *useful* arts, and it's doing so by banning such copying. However, in practice, it leads to the exact opposite, it encourages IP holders to exploit the franchises that gain a market value due to their exclusivity. 

Plenty of our classic works of art are derivative based on a puublic domain previous work, and plenty of our most highly valued pop culture works are sequels (prequels, spinoffs, adaptations, reimaginations, etc). If telling these have a value, that value is being unduely witheld from the artists wishing to utilize them.
gpt
>  But this just highlights the problem of talking about ownership regarding information: apparently the act of writing a new story can also be an act of theft, because Disney owns not just a thing that they possess, but the authority to limit other people's speech. 

First, you may be using a poor example because LucasFilm gives broad leeway to Star Wars fanfilms as long as they're not for-profit.  But let's ignore that.

Legally, you can't own an idea.  You can own a particular execution of an idea.  There's nothing keeping you from making your own space fantasy, complete with laser swords and tyrannical space empires.  But if it's similar enough to the specific story and characters of *Star Wars*, you're borrowing from their execution.

*Star Wars* is a brand with immense value.  Much of that value comes from the reputation of the licensed entries in the series and its established situations and characters.  If director McG decides he wants to make a *Star Wars* film, and it's worse than Episode I, there's not even any lightsabers in it, and Luke Skywalker dies of autoerotic asphyxiation, that is damaging to the *Star Wars* brand, damaging not only to the value of future films by LucasFilm but damaging to the value of the films they have already made.

Now LucasFilm will need to distance itself not only from McG's film but from all the other *Star Wars* films flooding the marketplace.  The *Star Wars* storyline will become incoherent because there's no authority controlling the canon.

This would be bad for the original artists and the consumers, and also a disincentive to artists everywhere.  Especially smaller filmmakers.  How could any indie filmmaker hope to become successful with a low-budget film if it could be instantly remade-- for free-- by a studio with a much larger budget?