Why not simply let people decide for themselves what they want to do or redo? What is the sense in having one person tell everyone else what is best for them?
How does imposing some artificial restriction add anything? If someone wants to redo something old, let them decide and let others choose.
If there are other versions of Casablanca or LoTR, do the originals disappear? No. They are just as they were. Except people would then have a choice of which they thought better. Would other versions 'crowd-out' the originals? To claim that sounds rather close to admitting that lifting restrictions would increase creative output.
If there is a problem with abundance here, it is one of how the public can be best enabled to make a choice -- it is not properly solved by imposing the 'choice' by means of restrictions. It is no business of the creator to decide for the public what they choose.
How does imposing some artificial restriction add anything? If someone wants to redo something old, let them decide and let others choose.
If there are other versions of Casablanca or LoTR, do the originals disappear? No. They are just as they were. Except people would then have a choice of which they thought better. Would other versions 'crowd-out' the originals? To claim that sounds rather close to admitting that lifting restrictions would increase creative output.
If there is a problem with abundance here, it is one of how the public can be best enabled to make a choice -- it is not properly solved by imposing the 'choice' by means of restrictions. It is no business of the creator to decide for the public what they choose.