With the obvious disclaimer that the law isn’t a logical system, and therefore there is a disconnect between what is actually legal/illegal, and what people think ought to be legal/illegal… Assuming that a copyright exists to grant legal protection to the Author of a Work, what the argument here comes down to is “What is a Work?” …(and to a lesser extent what one needs to do to be an Author of such a work)

You seem to accept that it is reasonable for a film to have copyright, and presumably for a book, a song or piece of music to have copyright.

What is it about these things that makes them a Work that can be protected?

It might be argued that they all have “creative worth”, but a bad film has just as much protection as a good one, so the concept of “work” can not be based on concepts of “artistic merit”

I would argue that essentially they are just ordered information, a suitably cold and abstract classification, and one more suitable for courts to decide on.

By this definition a dance certainly classifies as a Work, (of course so do genes so we may be able to copyright our kids! [provided of course we can demonstrate Authorship]) so of course would software and other less traditional creative Works.

The argument then shifts to what one needs to do in order to Author a Work, and how different a Work needs to be from another Work to count as a new Work…

I suspect your argument as to why a Dance can’t be copyrighted is based on what the Law IS as opposed to what people MIGHT LIKE it to be, but I would still be interested in what you think it OUGHT to be.

(on a side note under english law, it is not possible to copyright the plot of a story, nor is it possible to copyright a joke, unless it is particularly long and complex… so perhaps comedy is not the new rock and roll after all!)

If I were a pop star, should I be able to perform, say, an entire Britney Spears dance routine to my song? Her choreographer has no further right to his/her creative work?

(Another interesting case: stage directions. They should be in the same set as choreography — just instructions on how to move the human body. Suppose I remake the entire Die Hard series, scene for scene. Would that be allowed if I write my own dialog?)

Now, your idea of the Wicker-Nick sounds like a case for patent — it’s a method for creating something. I think there is an interesting argument then for patenting dance moves, as methods for creating… slick rhythm? a fly appearance? sex in movement?

Also, if I were in the US I would promise to steal your moves, have you sue me, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and bring down the whole damn deck of cards once and for all.

Sadly, being from the colonies all I can offer is that my government will do it’s best to adopt your crazy-ass copyright laws where it profits multi-national companies, without granting any of those pesky fair-use laws (or any other benefits of the American copyright “System” ) which might profit actual people, and not just vampires/middle-managers and lawyers.