Educational uses

While reading Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a lot of the stories struck out at me. One was about characters and how they came to be. It was interesting because Walt Disney remade a cartoon from another show. But did that other show file lawsuit? What right did Disney have to copy another character. If anyone was to make an image of Mickey Mouse and redistribute it on national television Disney Inc. would have a field day. Of course there's the concept of the inventor. Many are entitled to their works and if someone is profiting from it besides them from the same work then of course it's wrong. But when it comes to changing the ideas and concepts that's where many have put in the time to improve or better an already out there idea. Where's the harm in that? Science is based on someone else's work and challenging it (some even prove other's wrong). Who truly has ownership? Many who can afford to pay for patents and lawyers to protect their rights will do that. For the less fortunate person you'd have to get permission and most likely pay a fee.
Another story that I found interesting is the story of a student who has worked hard to improve technology. He of course is a student at a technology institute. What made me so wrapped with emotions on this case was that this "search engine" was what the school was allowing other students to make and yet he was the one to get punish for it. Most of all is that his content on file wasn't created by him or deals with music. Yet the RIAA had the notion to file a lawsuit against him. Where does creativity and ownership draw the line. When is it okay to persecute someone who's education was to change the technology around him or her? Of course he dropped the case by a settlement, but what message did the RIAA expect to convey if they are going after students? Yes technology is changing fast but when the law stops the innovation of change (and probably for the better), many will begin to fight back.