What is New Media, and Who Owns Digital Creativity in the Modern Age?

According to Lev Manovich's "What is New Media?," it is any previous media translated in a new, computed manner, that can be stored as a series of codes and numbers, and then accessed by computers.  This convergence of computer and art creates digital graphics, sound, music, images, and films, all which live under the umbrella of 'New Media.'

But this digital revolution has lead to a new debate: digital ownership.  In the two decades following the explosion of digital media online, two camps have emerged on the issue .  On one side are the proponents of proprietary ownership: corporations and developers who do not want to see their products taken without some sort of compensation.  On the other are those who believe data online is for the taking, citing the fact that for centuries, artistis have borrowed and manipulated fragments of other pieces to augment their own work.  In Jonathan Letham's essay, he cites that Blues players create in an open community, borrowing riffs and melodies, and augmenting them for their own songs.  But there is a fundamental difference between a trumpet player taking and using a melody in their own song, and someone downloading a song and using it in a digital creation.  The instrumentalist is physically creating the sounds coming out of their trumpet, and by virtue, is slightly changing it. On the other hand, the digital pirateer is taking a finished piece, and using it without changing the fundamental base of the piece, even if they modulate the piece, or layer other items with it.  Furthermore, by allowing a digital artist such as Girl Talk to take pieces and use them, that opens the floodgates for anyone to steal music, videos, or programs and use them illegally.  In an increasingly digital world, where most music, video, and applications are bought online, how can companies afford to develop new programs or invest in new artists, and why would they if there was no profit motivation.  Furthermore, by saying that items should be legal to download without cost, society would be acknowledging that art and creativity does not have value, which would directly affect me as a lighting designer, which would translate to not being paid for my design work.

To be clear, there is a difference between a home-video with a copyrighted music track playing in the background, and someone illegally downloading music, and augmenting it, and then selling it as their own creation.  As a compromise, consumers should pay for the goods they take, but should be allowed to disturb them in their own non-commercial creations, but as soon as they being presenting them as something comercial in any way, that product should no longer be refereed to as legal.