Non-artists never have a desire to have something changed? Ever?
Have you found that hairdresser who affirms that her business is harmed
because she cannot modify the music she plays in her salon or who modifies
free music to specifically please her clients?
You picked that example. I therefore assume it is the good one to make your
case.
Other artists are not part of the public?
When the free software movement says "users must be free to modify the
program", the reason is not "because they can be developers too". Here is
the distinction between functional and artistic works.
Like me commissioning someone to make those new Mimi & Eunice episodes
instead of doing it myself?
For the nth time: copyright should never go in the way of producing new
works. I am talking about exact copies or integration or unoriginal
modifications (e.g., adding a logo in the corner of a picture to use it for
advertisement is not an original modification) of recent works.
Not only do we not same to be on the same page here we don't even seem to be
in the same room. Perhaps not even in the same building. Maybe not even the
same planet?
On my planet, Netflix and Spotify have many customers who pay subscriptions
to a catalog of artistic works; iTunes and the Kindle store make money
selling exact copies of artistic works; people still buy books and magazines;
radios, shops, bars and night clubs play recent music; movie theaters sell
more and more entrances, etc. How is it on your planet where "selling copies
doesn't work anymore"?
I guess you didn't read that All Creative Work is Derivative link I provided
earlier.
Not only I did but I agreed:
I agree that high-quality artistic works can be, or even often are,
derivatives. That is why copyright should never go in the way of creating
original works (its objective!), including mash-ups or remixes, even if they
reuse works published today. (...) But I do not see any emergency in letting
anybody do small variations of existing works, or, more commonly, reuse the
works unaltered in a commercial way. Is it that bad for society to have those
possibilities delayed by five years?
You never justified the emergency to let anybody commercially use the
artistic work, unaltered, from the day it is released. On my planet
(described above), that change means the end of current business models for
artists (although the money raised with copies/subscriptions and taxes on the
diffusion is mainly captured by intermediaries: a problem to fix).
