im very surprised that you are falling on the consumer's side of this debate, whereas i strongly support the rights of musicians to their intellectual property.

Honestly, the more I think about this, the less I am on one side or the other. I certainly believe that the musicians have a right to refuse that their music be used in other works, and to be rewarded for their music contributing to the success of a work in which it is used. And yet the anecdotes in my entry still make it sound like the copyright holder is the bad guy. Why is that? Well, there are a few more specific points in the debate in which I feel I can stand on more solid ground.

1. Thanks to the success of copyright and trademark holders in inundating our lives with their wares, it is becoming increasingly difficult for documentary makers (especially independent ones) to freely portray real life, because of all the copyrighted and trademarked sights and sounds that tend to occur in it. This seems wrong to me.

2. As the filmmakers of "Mad Hot Ballroom" said, The shot of the boy shouting "everybody dance now!" should have been covered under the Fair Use doctrine. But they were advised by their lawyers not to even try to make that argument to the record company, because the record company could basically bury the filmmakers with legal costs from lawsuits any time they disagreed, without having to be legally right.

3. I got the feeling from some of what I read, though I haven't looked into this too carefully, that in some cases it's difficult (and therefore costly) even to track down the copyright holders of older works.

I think all these points come down to the fact that in the cases I've talked about the filmmaker is the 'little guy' and the copyright holder, usually a record company rather than the musician, is the 'big guy' with more power and money. When it comes to big studio movies using the latest hit song in their commercials I don't think anyone is shedding a tear. And you can easily argue that this is just one manifestation of a system which is biased in many ways toward the 'big guy', including the legal system as seen in number 2. The copyright system may not be the best place to attempt to reverse this bias, but I think there probably is some room for improvement.

"Thanks to the success of copyright and trademark holders in inundating our lives with their wares, it is becoming increasingly difficult for documentary makers (especially independent ones) to freely portray real life, because of all the copyrighted and trademarked sights and sounds that tend to occur in it. This seems wrong to me."

--Is it not these "copyright holders" who make our life rich and interesting enough for a filmmaker to make a documetary about? And, if not, why do you care about the absence of these copyrighted and trademarked object?

"I got the feeling from some of what I read, though I haven't looked into this too carefully, that in some cases it's difficult (and therefore costly) even to track down the copyright holders of older works."

--If no one is sure who has a copyright over something, are these hypothetical copyright holders really the ones to be concerned about trying to reclaim proprietary rights? I mean if you have a piece a property, and you care about retaining it, shouldn't you not obscure the fact that its yours?

"I think all these points come down to the fact that in the cases I've talked about the filmmaker is the 'little guy' and the copyright holder, usually a record company rather than the musician, is the 'big guy' with more power and money. When it comes to big studio movies using the latest hit song in their commercials I don't think anyone is shedding a tear. And you can easily argue that this is just one manifestation of a system which is biased in many ways toward the 'big guy'"

--Whose rights are really being potentially violated here? What qualifies as a "big guy"? What qualifies as a "little guy"? Do not both the big guys and little guys have equal right to buy, sell, produce, and hold property in a lawful and peaceful manner? What right do the majority little guys have to steal from the minority big guys who provide these copyrighted materials to the masses? I guess I believe in defending the rights of the minority.

"Is it not these "copyright holders" who make our life rich and interesting enough for a filmmaker to make a documetary about? And, if not, why do you care about the absence of these copyrighted and trademarked object?"

Sometimes documentaries are made about copyrighted or trademarked things, though I think those are relatively few. Much more often copyrighted and trademarked things merely turn up in the background, and these are the cases I was referring to.

"if you have a piece a property, and you care about retaining it, shouldn't you not obscure the fact that its yours?"

I don't think the copyright holders are trying to obscure anything. They simply don't know that anyone is interested in licensing the works, and they are not required to keep the public informed that they are the owners. For more on this you can google "orphan works".

"What qualifies as a "big guy"? What qualifies as a "little guy"? Do not both the big guys and little guys have equal right to buy, sell, produce, and hold property in a lawful and peaceful manner? What right do the majority little guys have to steal from the minority big guys who provide these copyrighted materials to the masses? I guess I believe in defending the rights of the minority."

Interesting reversal. Firstly, of course everyone has equal rights, although intellectual property does not confer the same rights as physical property. I define a "big guy" as a party with a lot of money that can use the threat to sue as a bargaining chip against a party that cannot afford to pay the legal fees, and therefore stifle fair use, which is intended to aid the right of free expression. As I said this is certainly not happening in all cases of licensing, but it does appear to be happening some of the time.

it was kinda of a cheap reversal anyway - we obviously agree on point #2, I think we were talking past each other on point #1, on point #3 where does this idea come from that " intellectual property does not confer the same rights as physical property" (i dont know anything about law) ....this is completely unrelated but i was watching some show on "behind the scenes at the food network" (this is a very typical thing i would watch). They showed this guy who "re-labels" all the packages and cans of ingredients they use with fake labels he created. i think in this instance, its probably not about copyright, but that they dont want to give companies free advertising.