Yeah, I do think it's [censored]. I was just pointing that out 'cause a lot of people's arguments so far rested on that point.

I can see the point of the lawsuit with respect to things like using Elijah Wood's face, but beyond that I think it's petty and unnecessary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17366992

Maybe he'd like to take on Ferodo automotive components next.


Oh, I see what you mean. Seems we're in agreement there, then...

Good man!

What idiots...Wow If tolkien was still alive he would most likely be disgusted,

That's absurd.

This.

Copyright law had/has a decent purpose in theory, at least at one time, but the way corporations are using/wielding it these days is ridiculous. I mean, wth, are they afraid this long standing little pub is going to ruin their gazillion $ movie profit potential? Give me a break.

It's understandable, as they were using LotR movie images. Other than that, anything not movie related should be fine.

Don't know if this has been said, but I just now read this online:

"I have just received a telephone call from Stephen Fry's business partner.
Stephen Fry and Ian McKellen will be visiting the Hobbit Pub sometime after filming is completed and they have even offered to pay for the license fee."

That's pretty awesome of them, if it's true!

I bet you Tolkien got his ideas from other mythology, and I'm sure someone else profited from those works -- the slippery slope sure can go a long way back if certain countries keep this ridiculous copyright nonsense up. It's simply gone way too far.

According to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/16/hobbit_reprieved/, the action against the pub is being (or has been) dropped. I suspect due to damage limitation rather than any other reason, but it seems this one has a happy ending anyway.

Yay!

I really hope that it is, since I live about 100 metres away!

Lucky!

Yep, damage control, but good for that pub, and for those standing up for them.

The point that most people seem to miss is this: If the copyright holders Don't go after everyone who violates their copyright, no matter how small or relatively inconsequential they might be, The holder could lose the copyright. This is why you hear horror stories of big corporations like Disney going after a day-care center for using Disney characters without permission. It's not because Disney or whoever are heartless corporations going after the little guy just to be mean and greedy, it's because if they didn't, they could potentially lose their rights, possibly costing them their business and losing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. It's not the company that's to blame, it's copyright laws as they stand now that's forcing them to pursue these copyrights violators.

I'd be more inclined to believe that if they sent out polite notices for trivial transgressions saying that a licence is required and may be obtained for a nominal fee, but instead what we tend to see are heavy-handed threats and unpleasantness: a person could be forgiven for thinking that suggests that they are indeed being mean and greedy.

I don't buy this. That might be the strictest possible reading of the law, but far from the most reasonable. I seriously doubt any loss of copyright would result from a failure to bring litigation against some bar or day care. I mean, there's a zillion Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit fansites out there making money of of advertising who use names, photos, quotes, scripts, video clips, etc. Are you suggesting that copyright, as it currently stands, requires the copyright holder to take each and every one of these site owners to court?

Copyright laws are broken in that they enable (not require) this blatant abuse, elevating copyright holders to such an absurd degree whilst offering little protection for the rest of society.

I think Bathead is confusing Copyright and trademark there. Trademarks can be weakened or lost for a variety of reasons, including the trademark becoming associated with multiple products (a failure to prevent other people from using it), the trademark becoming a generic term for a class of items (if you invent the moving stair case, brand it with the trademark escalator, and then everyone starts calling moving staircases escalators, you'll probably lose your trademark in your next court case), and other reasons. Copyright is much harder to lose, and every act of infringement doesn't need to be dealt with. Hell, copyright is magically granted by the act of creating copyrightable content.