“For a car or a handbag, once stolen, no longer is available to its owner, while the appropriation of an article of ‘intellectual property’ leaves the original untouched.” This quote is a response to the “bullying” from statements made by companies to keep people from recording and reselling pieces of media that don’t belong to them. It’s an author-proclaimed gray area that I believe to be quite thought-provoking. So much of plagiarism was about taking and stealing, but it might be much more like the artist is living in a mansion and every time the art is shared or reposted it’s like someone moves into that mansion. Maybe it’s annoying and the situation would have to change if too many people shared, but it isn’t really harming anyone as long as the artist’s name is still listed as the owner on the lease. Either way, as long as the artist still gets credit, taking action against pirating a movie or reselling a piece of art seems almost petty and more like a flex of legal power than anything else.
How might this situation be different(i.e. the artist actually suffers more than anyone else)?
“Seen from the perspective of the toymaker, the Velveteen Rabbit’s loose joints and missing eyes represent vandalism, signs of misuse, and rough treatment; for others, these are marks of its loving you.” This quote makes a bit more sense when paired with a quote from earlier in the paragraph. The Skin Horse talks about becoming real only when you are truly and utterly loved, and that the consequence of this love is becoming ragged. Thus, it would make sense that plagiarism or the reinvention of ideas comes from a love or admiration of them. When a band does a cover of a famous song and another band does a parody of that song, then it should be concluded that the song is so beloved and well-known that it’s possible to transform it and make it your own, in a way, without taking away from the original creator.
Is there a line or a gray area between plagiarism and adoration? How would we define motives from success?
