[Stilton]

Originally Posted by Except that it's your answers to my issues which are the straw man arguments.  I made a statement (that names and short phrases are not protected by copyright), which you then repeatedly attempted to dispute by responding to something different.  If you cannot answer my points, then don't answer them - because if you attempt to answer something different I will simply assume that you didn't read it properly and stress the point again until you do address it.

The statement you mention above:  I have responded to it repeatedly.

Once again:  The statement you refer to is pretty much true, but beside the point. You raising it again and again is the straw man I'm talking about- I have never claimed that Tolkien has a copyright on the phrase "That would be folly". Disproving a claim that I have never made (but sounds close to one that I have, straw man) doesn't buttress your position.

Tolkien has rights to story/theme/etc. which has been deliberately invoked by the guy who placed the ad (Kylotan).  Maybe it's improper use, maybe it isn't, but your refrain about copyright not protecting phrases etc utterly fails to address the claim you continue to present it in response to.

The fact that copyright does not protect short phrases in and of themselves does not imply that short phrases are always legally incapable of creating an infringement by conjuring up material which IS protected.  Several precedents reviewed here demonstrate that fact.

Your first post, and subsequent posts, have failed in their stated goal of proving that there is no improper infringement based purely upon the length of the material quoted.

Stilton

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ July 31 2003) It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Better watch that above KaVir.  InfoCom might send 10000 lawyers against you.  Using that .sig is folly.

[Jaewyn]

Amazing, 7 pages of people trying to play policeman. Don't you think if there really is a problem then it's up to the owners of the alleged copyright material to do something about it? My guess is that they are really the only ones that can do something about it. Move along people, nothing more to see here.

[Stilton]

Jaewyn:

Originally Posted by Amazing, 7 pages of people trying to play policeman. Don't you think if there really is a problem then it's up to the owners of the alleged copyright material to do something about it? My guess is that they are really the only ones that can do something about it.

No, who would be the policeman? Unlike the other recent one, there was no call for action in this one. That makes this thread pure useless hypothetical debate

I did think of a more concise way to phrase my recent posts, though:

The straw man is the confusion of
"Copyright does not protect short phrases, etc."
with
"Copyright cannot be infringed by short phrases, etc"

To demonstrate that length of the ad is by itself conclusive proof that it doesn't infringe, it would be necessary to demonstrate the second. Demonstrating the first doesn't help.

It's Guiness time! I suspect that I owe KaVir one too.

Tyche:

Originally Posted by Better watch that above KaVir. InfoCom might send 10000 lawyers against you. Using that .sig is folly.

It IS possible to survive a grue convention with appropriate attire- I recommend doing so for the nostalgia value (free download). I agree that attempting to survive a convention of 10,000 lawyers would be folly.

Stilton

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Jaewyn wrote: Amazing, 7 pages of people trying to play policeman.

No, it's 7 pages of people arguing legal issues, on a legal forum. That's not really any different from people arguing building issues on the builders forum, or coding issues on the coding forum. If you don't want to read about legal issues, then I have to wonder what you're doing reading the "Legal Issues" forum.

However I think the discussion has gone about as far as it can, at least as far as I'm concerned - I don't feel I've anything to add that I haven't already said.