Disney's creativity built upon the work of others... Well, what isn't? Knowledge has always been built upon knowledge; ideas aren't created in a vacuum. Author right to say key to success was brilliance of differences. Intellectual property hard to define and even harder to defend. Over-protection of intellectual property would stagnate the creation of new ideas, even if one would prefer to call it "mickey-mouse creativity" or whatever. Didn't much care for this chapter. Author wrote a lot and seemed to say very little.
"By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit." But without this allowance of a 'limited piracy' the spread of the musician's music would be severely disrupted, and how can that be considered a good thing for the artist?
And is the radio station really taking something for nothing? The recording artist, when covering a song, takes something from the composer (although of course the composer is compensated) in the hope that his performance will spread notoriety for his ability to perform. To me, that seems like a pretty fair price to pay considering this artist, for this song, needed simply to add some minor changes to a completely composed piece. I don't agree with the author when he says the radio stations get something for nothing; with two barriers to play a song, there would be no radio whatsoever, at least not a radio we'd actually care to listen to. It'd most likely be the same few songs repeated over and over again.
I think the legislation passed in regards to intellectual media has been successful in giving both sides gain for intellectual property. There must always be a producer and a distributor and an audience of any good or service. Cut one part of that chain out and everybody suffers. Hurray for intelligent legislation.