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.