Webwork - 1:58 pm on Aug 21, 2008 (gmt 0)

The woman's use probably is "fair use" if she's showing the video to her family and friends, at home, without charging a fee, but what happens when the same video is played in a public movie theater - a theater that profits by selling candy or by placing paid ads on screen prior to the show, even if "the theater" - Cinemaplex OR Google - doesn't require paid admission tickets?

Does your interpretation of "what is fair use" begin to shift a bit when you can see that someone is intending to profit - make coin - from the performance?

Almost as an aside, I ask: Does the "musical score" add value to "the recorded performance"? Does the soundtrack make the entertainment more entertaining? Is watching a video of a kid, running amuck, funnier if accompanied by a musical score that adds punctuation or color? Without the musical score would the performance be equally "marketable"? Appealing? Entertaining? Therefore, would as many people be drawn to the video without the soundtrack?

I wonder . . Do the blogosphere pundits who who pooh-pooh the music industry's or musician's teeth gnashing about "file sharting" have any objection to people massively copying and redistributing their blog's content?

Would the pundits mind a "written works file sharing system" that cut them out?

Probably not.

Besides, just how popular would that be? :P

[edited by: Webwork at 2:12 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2008]