[delusional]

I don't know what to tell you. You will find no judge willing to entertain your analogy without you justifying why it's useful in the particular case. You are going to have to explain the difference, and you are going to have to argue why those differences don't matter.

[stale2002]

> You will find no judge willing to entertain your

Yes they will. Judges have already ruled that you can't just ban people from using your IP, like by standing on your head.

It is only publishing someone else's IP that is disallowed.

This is copyright law 101.

You can it seriously be arguing that an IP owner could ban someone from listening to their music while standing on one's head, for example.

[delusional]

Do you have a case where a defendant tried to argue that being upside down protected him from a copyright claim? You claim that they have decided it, can you cite that decision?

[stale2002]

You don't understand. The point here is that a copyright holder does not have infinite ability to prevent other people from using their IP.

Instead, they can only prevent copies from being distributed.

[delusional]

You're taking a much more narrow view of this discussion than I am. When I say IP rights I'm not talking about copyright specifically (which does not just cover creating copies, but also performances, adaptations, and distribution) but rather about the broad class of property rights to intangible "ideas". Trademarks, patents and the like are usually, and in my argument specifically, also included under that umbrella.

Even if we limit our area of consideration to just Copyright, you're just wrong. As the world currently stands, you probably get your music from a streaming service. That streaming service doesn't grant you the right to copy, perform, or adapt the music you listen to, they extend you a limited license. If you are in violation of that license, they likely reserve the right to terminate your access to the music. If that license said you weren't allowed to be upside down then standing on your head would allow them to prevent you listening. It does not matter that Copyright doesn't explicitly mention "listening to music while upside down" because your use is not mediated by copyright, but by the contract you signed.

Copyright does not govern how those individual contracts are formulated. We have Freedom of Contract in most of the western world. It provides a framework by which that contract even makes sense (they have property you even care to license with a contract), and a remedies should you violate it.

[stale2002]

Actually I am correct because if you don't sign any contracts then the copyright owner has no ability to prevent you from doing anything with the media, other than stopping the distribution of copies.

So, once again, the point stands.

[hollerith]

You are mistaken. If the work is distributed under a license, then you have no right to use the work except under the terms of the license. The license acts like a contract.

If the law did not work that way, then the GNU GPL would not be enforceable.

The GPL for example required that if I distribute a derivative of a GPLed work in binary form, then I must also distribute the same derivative as source code or at least provide the source code to any distributee who asks for it. This requirement of the GPL has been enforced by courts (e.g., in a lawsuit against Tivo) even though none of the defendants in these court cases signed a contract regarding the use of the software.