On 3/4/98, Leah Theriault <wheedle[_at_]uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> On 3/3/98, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
> >
> >[excuse the sarcasm]
>
> Well, you must use whatever you think you've got. ;-)
Hehe, actually in the first draft I didn't include the bracketed comment. I stuck it in to please the moderator, thinking maybe I was being too uncivil. :-)
> Despite your attempt to undercut the main thrust of my argument,
Attempt, shmempt, you mean my brilliant mortal blow.
> I remain firmly entrenched
Not a good thing to remain. Have you detrenched yet?
> in my view that Copyright law should be used sparingly to protect only
> those creative investments which would not otherwise be made for lack of
> protection.
Now there's a novel idea (or an idea for a novel). That would surely disappoint a lot of folk if carried out in law. All those plumber's catalogs down the tubes.
> While I concede that such works should be protectible at a broad
> level, once a work is given any protection at all, the forces of gravity
> tend to result in greater and greater protection for that work - in this
> case that would mean protection for smaller and smaller components.
First, I want the list to vote on whether the word "protect*ble" should be spelled with an "a" or an "i" or whether we should just chuck the English language and come up with something with some logic. Second, as long as I'm on a roll, personally I think the forces of gravity have a grave impact on both figure-skating and choreography in general. I'm trying to visualize all those skaters skating without gravity. Boggles the mind.
> Let's not forget that wholesale copying will not necessarily occur
> without copyright laws: there are internal incentives which operate
> to discourage such copying. In the 'artistic' sports, such as
> figure skating and floor gymnastics, these internal incentives are
> particularly strong: creativity is valued such that no competitor would
> want to copy a routine exactly. Judges want to see originality in
> overall composition as well as skill in the component moves.
This is no doubt true, but wouldn't it be limited to just the competitive setting? What about the for-money, no judges present, arena? What about the copyright owner of the routine essentially licensing it free to others in the competitive context (or it being permissible through fair use) but making money off of it later? Why should someone be able to copy it later in a for-profit, non-competitive context?
Anyway, those are all the rinky-dink arguments I have for today.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:29 GMT