Is a little surprising how often those who defend and advocate for more stringent copyright laws are completely out of touch with contemporary culture. In fact, these laws often seem to want to avoid new forms of culture simply because they do not like (and do not understand) culture. For example, Michael Geist points as Leah Pinsent, a Canadian actor, appeared on behalf of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA), spoke to the government, arguing against a "mashup" provision of the reform Copyright proposed, which would legalize non-commercial, attribution, the work of mashup. According to Pinsent, this idea is immoral:

Mrs. Pinsent is fighting to ban the so-called "mash-ups" that allow anyone to borrow from the works of Canadian artists have created and combined with d ' other works to create something new. she says it is "immoral" and is a form of plagiarism.

course, plagiarism is when you take someone else's work

without attribution

(and is separated from the right author). The bill, the allocation is needed, so n ' is not clear whether Pinsent boring, except that she does not like mashups. But as we have seen time and again, this seems to be the cultural snobbery of someone who does not know much about the culture mashup n is no different from past generations, who looked down on jazz, rock, rap or any other new "" The music just does not come. Nothing in a mashup far from a great job. It is this strange belief that someone who does something with his work somehow "damage" to the original, but nothing is further from the truth. Mashups often introduce new audiences to old works and create new knowledge of the ancient works. I know it's absolutely true with me. When I listen to mashups several years, I am always interested in learning more original. So I'm at a loss to know how it may be immoral or wrong.
course, Pinsent is not completely alone in this opinion. After all, most of the world's "moral rights" included in the copyright, allowing creators to prevent others to change their work on "morality." In fact, moral rights are required by the Berne Convention (which the U.S. has granted bordered by a very limited It does not really exist). But I never understood how there is any claim true morality behind moral rights. How "moral" to prevent others to create something completely new? Apparently, once In addition, based on the idea that the new "hurts" the old, but I have not seen an argument for how it makes sense at all.

Find best price for : --Mashups----Pinsent--