Dude, you cannot possibly be advocating that any author give up the right to control their own words. You haven’t thought this through, it appears. But if you really do believe that, then have the guts to make an explicit, high-profile, detailed statement to that effect so we’ll know where you stand (among authors’ enemies).

And an author is rarely a lone genius producing a work. In fact, here’s what Kelly himself has to say at the end of his book:

“Hardly an idea in this volume is mine alone. In addition to the books and papers annotated in my bibliography, the concepts I present here have largely been condensed, paraphrased, or quoted from conversations, correspondence and lengthy interviews with the following people. Each, without exception, was extremely generous with his time and patient with my endless questions. They are, of course, not responsible for my idiosyncratic interpretation of their ideas. Some of the interviewees offered valuable corrections and comments to the work in progress. In addition, those indicated by asterisk [ed. that was 10 people] were kind enough to review portions of the final manuscript. Thank you.”

In the Kelly case, the one that seems most interesting to me, we’re talking about a non-fiction work (different than fiction, mostly for the potential utility of remixing), and the objective was to make valuable ideas more accessible.

In any case, I’m not suggesting writers be forced to give up their moral rights (though I suppose I might); rather, that in some cases there could be great value to everyone (writer and readers) by opening up rights in a wider way.

I agree that there is a mania for remixing that I think is interesting in niche cases only; so I was intrigued to see this example of a remix that appears to add significant value to a work, to a writer, and to the public sphere in general.

Because it’s the author’s damned book, not yours. It’s the author’s words, not anybody else’s.

“Remixing” is a mania among open-source fanatics that has no place whatsoever in literature. And your beloved Creative Commons licence would not permit an adaptation such as this pretty much anywhere other than the United States, since moral rights prevents the desecration of a work’s artistic integrity. Thank God.