The group of key terms are all connected through the protection of the rights of an entity of the creator of an "original" thought. Originality is put into question, as well as whether the creation of an artistic work is a product of a possessable, transferable authorship and how the classification differs if media environment that influenced the creation of the piece. A work, voluntarily or involuntarily entering the public sphere of "the commons" (Rudolfo pg. 236), is being defended as having a right not to be copied, which is limiting creativity.  

I believe the most relevant term in the context of Miller's work is "recomposition". A permission based society would have to find the exigence of the wronged creator greater than that of the constricted artist. If the world really runs on money, or on culture, will be put into question. Can recontextualization in the form of sampling be enough to show distinct authorship? If so, then an artistic, non-permissive society is the goal. Recomposition connects to Miller's "genre" as she mentions there are a multitude of situations that are acted upon with a multitude of other, corresponding "genres". Whether the recomposition of these genres is original thought or predictable and unavoidable, cuts to the core of the copywrite debate.