I find it unreasonable people seem to think this is so obviously wrong. I happen to disagree with you, but others seem to pretend this is obviously black and wh

I find it unreasonable people seem to think this is so obviously wrong. I happen to disagree with you, but others seem to pretend this is obviously black and white, it isn't. Creativity itself is a subjective measuring stick. In your example, literally writing down the words spoken during a film would be to transcribe it. If I, or another, took the time to do such a thing, it would be identical presuming we both did this correctly. This would not be creative as we are simply doing something as procedural as doing weights and measures. I find these things somewhat arbitrary, because, conversely if I were to read aloud a book and make an audio recording, presumably that would be copywritable. If I had the rights to make such a recording, or if the work was in the public domain, I believe my voice & intonation would constitute either creativity/originality and the uniqueness would allow me to apply. I am not a lawyer, nor am I sure whether there is precendent. The point is, that these are very similar things and it is treated very ambiguously. Should I own my own voice? Should I be allowed to simply read something and consider it a creative work? Does intonation and enthusiasm matter in the delivery of the work? It is all a bit rediculous, and frankly copywrite should be limited substantially. However, it is clearly a case by case basis and thus super difficult. Certainly, we would want to promote people like Elon Musk to create things like the Tesla (ironically much of it is open sourced) but at the same time, would want people to build on innovations and enjoy these things unhindered, or what is the point.