A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/megalomaniac)

“Hell, watch a movie in flagrant violation of some idiotic IP law, but just claim it’s an act of performance art in which you challenge everyone to contemplate the idiocy of IP laws.”

Notice you use the word “claim”… Perhaps you do know the difference thus between “claiming” to accomplish something and “being acknowledged” as to accomplish something (megalomaniacs don’t know this difference in fact). What you tend to so “humbly” call “performance Art” makes no difference though. There’s no law protecting “performance art” that I know of. You seem not to understand that your example would hardly be acknowledged anywhere (certainly not in college) as a “descriptive quotation” even if it was just 10 seconds long … since like it is suggested, that movie doesn’t essentially relate to IP laws in the first place.

“Of course I meant the MEANING being communicated is broadened.”

Maybe you meant it, but in that example, it’s a delusion. For its quotation worth, it “objectively” equals adding random alphabetical signs to the work of someone else.

Of course I meant the MEANING being communicated is broadened. The point is that, by reductio ad absurdum on what constitutes ‘broadening’, the most trivial, practically-meaningless, yet technically still meaningful, ‘broadenings’ qualify.

Hell, watch a movie in flagrant violation of some idiotic IP law, but just claim its an act of performance art in which you challenge everyone to contemplate the idiocy of IP laws. Message/meaning, broadened. Any justification you claim is ‘good enough’ to qualify for fair use.

And I think maybe you do not know what megalomaniac means?

“Feel free to revise your objective definition if the direct consequences displeases you.”

You are a megalomaniac.

By “broadening”, people are not speaking of physically broadening the message conveyed by some part of an artistic creation, which is absurd (in case you didn’t notice) … but rather broadening its specific meaning.

I don’t know about being a megalomaniac, but the message communicated by “entirety of movie” is absolutely ‘broadened’ by adding “I like this movie” to it. Therefore it satisfies your objective definition.

Feel free to revise your objective definition if the direct consequences displeases you.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Can anyone either direct me to a good article on the subject that lays out the ins and outs of this position?

And just quickly, free MP3 downloads? Movie Piracy? Are these considered OK?

An even more detailed question: what about song sampling? For example, when rapper Puff Daddy sampled a Police song and basically just re-wrote the lyrics, it was considered a new composition. I think any musician would argue that it was basically a karaoke performance (with alternate lyrics). In this anti-copyright view, would The Police not be entitled to some sort of royalty from Mr. Puff Daddy? I would think that if you took this position to its logical conclusion (again, based on my mere superficial knowledge of Mises.org’s opinion), Puff Daddy would not even have to ask permission of The Police, let alone pay them…I’m not trying to be confrontational, I’m honestly just looking to broaden my mind on the subject.

“It’s all the same lunacy.”
Aw really? I don’t “like” your type of sanity.

Go and sell all the leeched stuff you want over the net and pretend you’re free… I call that freedom of the dwarfs. Go and pump enough water ahead, off the small stream that makes your neighbor’s mill work, so it turns only with half the speed. That’s freedom of the Gremlins.

Just because they need an excuse for feeding on someone else’s identity made people read the article on IP by Dr. Kinsella from 2001. But who even bothered to read the related philosophical questions on which it is supposedly to be based (for instance by Rothbard)?

The final line in the previous post should read,

“I like this movie: [entirety of movie]“

To the extent that the above is objectve, the below is a legitimate exercise of fair use:

“I like this movie: “

If you want to discredit IP legislation, you really should stick to the patent issue.

And please, just because Mr Galambo is mad and he favors “eternal copyright” is not a good argument against the justice of it all.