>"The dialog is just the script, so of course it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter how you sourced the script." //
When you purchase a movie, or acquire rights to watch that movie you also acquire rights to consume the script, no? The movie is the script rendered in to an alternate form, visualised and audible (to must users).
Is there not an argument that transforming the sound output in to an alternate consumable format, be that braille/sign/subtitles or an alternate language, is mere consumption.
Is it right that if I translate a work - I've licensed - for a friend as we sit and watch it that I should be criminalised [it's generally a tort of course].
The point of copyright is after all to reward the creation of artistic works and benefit the public domain and stimulate the generation of culturally important works.
Shouldn't the copyright we grant as the demos ensure that all have access to the [potentially] culturally significant creations that we're protecting.
When you purchase a movie, or acquire rights to watch that movie you also acquire rights to consume the script, no? The movie is the script rendered in to an alternate form, visualised and audible (to must users).
Is there not an argument that transforming the sound output in to an alternate consumable format, be that braille/sign/subtitles or an alternate language, is mere consumption.
Is it right that if I translate a work - I've licensed - for a friend as we sit and watch it that I should be criminalised [it's generally a tort of course].
The point of copyright is after all to reward the creation of artistic works and benefit the public domain and stimulate the generation of culturally important works.
Shouldn't the copyright we grant as the demos ensure that all have access to the [potentially] culturally significant creations that we're protecting.