Authorless?

Are there some things that shouldn't have an author?
I feel like my response to this would be an extension of a previous post of mine, where it seemed like ownership should maybe not exist at all.. but again, that's probably too drastic a statement. Reading the article this week concerning the history of hip-hop, it almost seems unfair to put a price on some properties if there are individuals that want to use those properties to create something new. Yet, I don't think that individuals should be able to use whatever samples, etc. they want no matter what; I think there should still be a system where they would have to request permission of the author to rework their original work, but this would not necessarily be a process where money changes hands. Basically, I feel like they should be able to use whatever materials they feel necessary, but without having to pay for them. Which, I guess, creates a problematic situation where it's okay for certain things to be authored, but not okay to profit from them. Perhaps then there's a more reasonable price that can be put on certain properties to allow others to use them? Yet, how do you determine the worth of intellectual property? Would it be based on popularity, or maybe how much work was put into it? But back to the question at hand.. there seem to be some gray areas concerning some works and whether or not they should be considered to have an author. For example, I've seen people on Youtube that make mashups of video and audio clips explicitly state in the comments for their creation that they are not the owners of the material.. yet is it possible to have authorship without ownership? Obviously, most of these mashups are being created for pure entertainment value and not for profit, but even still, I don't think that makes them any less of an author. They may not be the owners of the materials that they use, but in a way they are the owners of the unique way in which they put the materials together.

Authorship and ownership (since all of my titles seem to start with A or T, I think I'll stay with this trend..)

After going through the readings for this week, especially McLeod, it's almost tempting for me to say that ownership should not rest with anyone, but perhaps that too drastic of a conclusion to come to. It seems that there should be a line drawn somewhere as to what should or should not be eligible for ownership, but where would we even begin to compile a list of criteria of what qualifies for ownership or not? Also, on one hand while it seems simpler to allow corporations to own rights to multiple properties, as opposed to individuals, it seems to then create a system whereby access to certain materials is limited to a minority elite, who get to decide what to do with these properties. I suppose this is just a consequence though of the intermingling of capitalism and economics with cultural production, a complication that was due to arise. The issue I seem to grapple with is that it does not seem so absurd a notion that someone should be able to receive monetary compensation for their creations, but that the laws that protect individuals and their works in order to regulate the flow of monetary compensation to the creator seem to put certain limitations on the actual creative process. So once again, I feel like I don't really have a solid position on where ownership should lie, since there are obvious advantages and disadvantages on both ends. It would be easy to say that ownership should not lie anywhere if people admit that creative works are building off of previous existing works, and so ownership should rest in community, not in particular individuals and especially not in a corporation. But since the infusion of ideas about capitalism into the arena of cultural production, I feel like ownership will continue to be consolidated into fewer and fewer hands, which can be seen as counteractive to the creation of new works.