I’ve heard there’s two main systems of writing down choreography, but I wonder if they are very much practiced…

The not-yet-final version reads:

In 1960, [choreographer] Bob Fosse brought a show to the National [Theatre in Washington, D.C.] that was to affect the future of all choreography — not because of its impact on the art form but because of its impact on copyright law. The show was about a World War II Marine reject who, despite being discharged for hay fever, wants to return home as The Conquering Hero. Its tryout at the National was so poorly received that Fosse was fired. Two of his ballets were retained, but without credit. Fosse took the case to arbitration and won, a judgment measured in cents rather than dollars as Fosse was more interested in principle than in principal. The case, R. Fosse vs Producers Theatre, Inc., drew attention to the glitch in copyright law that had allowed music, lyrics and books of musicals to be protected but not choreography. That law was changed to make choreography a protectable property.

The case, which was an “award” by the American Arbitration Association rather than a full-out court-decided suit, is not a published document in a public record. The American Arbitration Association tells [us] that they maintain no archive which could be referenced. However, documents on the matter are in the Library of Congress’ Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon Collection.

The not-yet-final version reads:

In 1960, [choreographer] Bob Fosse brought a show to the National [Theatre in Washington, D.C.] that was to affect the future of all choreography — not because of its impact on the art form but because of its impact on copyright law. The show was about a World War II Marine reject who, despite being discharged for hay fever, wants to return home as The Conquering Hero. Its tryout at the National was so poorly received that Fosse was fired. Two of his ballets were retained, but without credit. Fosse took the case to arbitration and won, a judgment measured in cents rather than dollars as Fosse was more interested in principle than in principal. The case, R. Fosse vs Producers Theatre, Inc., drew attention to the glitch in copyright law that had allowed music, lyrics and books of musicals to be protected but not choreography. That law was changed to make choreography a protectable property.

The case, which was an “award” by the American Arbitration Association rather than a full-out court-decided suit, is not a published document in a public record. The American Arbitration Association tells [us] that they maintain no archive which could be referenced. However, documents on the matter are in the Library of Congress’ Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon Collection.

The not-yet-final version reads:

In 1960, [choreographer] Bob Fosse brought a show to the National [Theatre in Washington, D.C.] that was to affect the future of all choreography — not because of its impact on the art form but because of its impact on copyright law. The show was about a World War II Marine reject who, despite being discharged for hay fever, wants to return home as The Conquering Hero. Its tryout at the National was so poorly received that Fosse was fired. Two of his ballets were retained, but without credit. Fosse took the case to arbitration and won, a judgment measured in cents rather than dollars as Fosse was more interested in principle than in principal. The case, R. Fosse vs Producers Theatre, Inc., drew attention to the glitch in copyright law that had allowed music, lyrics and books of musicals to be protected but not choreography. That law was changed to make choreography a protectable property.

The case, which was an “award” by the American Arbitration Association rather than a full-out court-decided suit, is not a published document in a public record. The American Arbitration Association tells [us] that they maintain no archive which could be referenced. However, documents on the matter are in the Library of Congress’ Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon Collection.

To that person the phrase ‘vain imagining’ can be assigned.

Protecting your vain imagining is interventionism which is a small act of totalitarianism. If you were to gain power would you be just as unethical and because of the greater scale of your actions become a tyrant?

Of course we are not talking about intentionally fraudulent acts which are crimes, pure and simple.

All hail Kinsella’s indisputable arguments!

Crowd: HAIL!!!”

Sounds like a Hitler/Obama-ian crowd.

You have never paid $0.99 for full ownership over a song. In fact, upon purchase or sometime prior (think music subscription) you agreed to conditional ownership of that song. In this way, and using the current definition of IP, you do not “own” any of the songs you currently listen to.

If I have already paid my $0.99 for your song and created a visual expression of the music, from whence do you get the right to now “own” my expression of your song?

One of the most powerful arguments I have read on why protection of IP is foolish.

Crowd: HAIL!!!