I have mixed feelings about it too. The problem that she originially had (using recordings of a long-dead artist in "Sita" and being fined many thousands of dollars to use them because some recording company still had the rights) seemed messed up, and I know as a writer that it's really true that nothing is entirely original (it's all intertextual in a way). I once got into a really difficult negotiation when I was publishing a critical essay and wanted to quote about 200 words from a writer as part of my analysis of his style (oddly the problem came from my publisher--his own publisher couldn't believe I really had to ask for that). Beyond that, I can't think of much that I've read that doesn't in some way refer to or draw on something else that's been written. Last night's "House," for example, had a lot of references to the movie 9 to 5, starting with the title--and I really don't think they should have had to pay royalties for that.

On the other hand, people like you who put your creativity, hard work, and materials into your works certainly need to be able to profit from your creations. I did think "House" needed to pay royalties to the singers and music companies for the songs they played during the episode.

The question I can't resolve is exactly where to draw the line.