Summations Only

Obviously. The means of transmission, the medium of expression, is my mouth.

Because I'm a member of society, and its in the interest of the public to do as they choose with the products that they own.I recognize that that freedom is in tension with the desire of content creators to exercise control over the dissemination of their works. But let them advocate for their own interests; I'll advocate for the interests of the public to distribute, comment on, and remix their own culture.The compromise you suggest, where copyright is enforced only for six months, is a compromise I accept. But that's a long way from the current system of copyright in perpetuity. It's your position of infinite copyright that has not ever been defended except as a naked money-grab by those who have inherited revenues from popular works.

Storage in your memory is not considered tangible as defined under copyright law. Further, copyright law does not prevent you from describing movie scenes orally. Copyright law would prevent you from doing a public peformance in which you recited the entire movie dialog from memory, but that isn't what you want to do is it?Perhaps this line of argument is not getting leading to the conclusion you want to promote. I think you are trying to argue that laws preventing you from posting/downloading movies to/from from the internet not only impinge upon your right to free speech, but are a recent configuration that others need to defend. I don't think you can get there this way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Talk away, it's perfectly legal to talk about the Hobbit.You're only not allowed to copy the bloody thing and sell or give it to someone else who hasn't paid for it.

Go ahead and talk. People discuss the Hobbit publically all of the time. And they don't need to interfere with any of the rights defined in 17 USC 106 to do so; they can rely on the exceptions granted in 17 USC 107 through 123.Please consider the definitions in 17 USC 101 before arguing about the literal meaning of the statutes cited below.

quote:

---

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

---

quote:

---

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

---

To the contrary - people can be (and have been) sued for their performances of a movie scene or song when those were not authorized by the original rights holders. Indeed, there's an entire movie about it. Now, it's generally the case that these performances evade scrutiny by the sheer volume of them and their general lack of redeeming value. But that doesn't mean they're not prohibited by law.There's an entire TV show about a high school choral group that performs pop hits, but completely unstated in the show is the fact that high schools are regularly sued for doing exactly this - performing copyrighted music without the expensive permission of rights holders.As evidenced by the fact that you never, ever hear it on TV, a group of parents singing the Birthday Song violates copyright law every time it happens; I can think of no better example of how copyright law insanity infringes on our rights to experience, adapt, comment on, and remix our own culture.

While it's likely that I could get away with it, it's actually not legal to talk about Hobbits without the written permission of the Tolkien estate.

I didn't suggest anything like six months. I suggested something between the 14 and 28 years that were established 200 years ago at the founding of this country and which are actually much older than even that. I did pointeout that your own proposal didn't accomodate even a few months.My only point is that the burden is on you to show why copyright law as proposed 200 years ago isn't acceptable. I don't have to defend DRM, SOPA or PIPA, or DVD region, or import/export laws, or any other new fangled stuff because I am not arguing in favor of any of those. As best as I can tell nobody else here is either.

The burden is not on me. The burden is on someone, like you, who believes that it's reasonable to use the courts to force someone to pay you money because they moved their body in a certain way.

Again, don't believe everything that the copyright holder says. There are no legal obstacles to talking about Hobbits that are not trivially easy to avoid.

Offs, it's perfectly legal to talk about the Hobbit. I wouldn't try performing it on a stage though.

Since I don't hold the opinon that such a use is reasonable, I'll take it that your point is without substance. Perhaps you should ask me my impression instead of assigning me positions and then attacking them.In my opinion, the law suit is meritless, with Beyonce's usage, even if she did actually copy the material, being excused under 17 USC 107.One thing to note about copyright protection that differs from patent protetion is that independent recreation is NOT infringement under copyright law. A plaintiff would have to show that not only was the Beyonce's material identical in some way protected by copyright law, but that Beyonce copied the material from the plaintiff as oppposed to anywhere else. Further, Beyonce could defend by showing that the plaintiff's material was not original, or that her copying was de minimis, or excused under fair use.Perhaps we can return to you showing why copyright law from 200 years ago is unfair?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's not whether I believe it, it's whether the courts do. And the blame lies with a system that treats a copyright holder's absurd assertions as reasonable on their face. I shouldn't have to avoid anything, when Hobbits are as much a part of my culture as they are of Tolkien's. It should be no more a matter for the law that TSR wanted to use Hobbits in a game than it was when Tolkien wanted to use elves and goblins in a book. He didn't invent those things; he remixed them out of the public domain of culture. And, in turn, hobbits need to enter that public domain so that others can remix them. Nobody gets permanent ownership of an idea; even temporary ownership is a courtesy that we extend, ostensibly to promote the arts and sciences. Yet a vast treasure trove of such art was created long before the notion of that courtesy was ever considered. It's not necessary for the creation of art.

Oh, so I have free speech, just as long as nobody is around to hear it?

Bullshit. Are you, or are you not, defending a system under which choreography can be copyrighted?Did this

quote:

---

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

---

appear in your Message 140 without your knowledge? If so, please inform Percy that the board has been hacked again and someone is posting under your name without your permission.