Quote:
Originally Posted by nation-x
That article is a diatribe of false equivalency. What a crock of bullshit. Take the example of the bricklayer.
Before the bricklayer laid a single brick there was a contract drawn up that protected the bricklayer from non-payment. That contract is a legal document that obligates the parties. The bricklayer is protected by laws to ensure he will be paid for his work. |
so why can't normal contract law protect a copyright holder too
if the contract law is equivalent to copyright protection, why not simply abolish the copyright laws and define the relationship by contract law alone.
Quote:
I could go on and pull each section of that bullshit article apart piece by piece (especially the Blackwater part). Any idiot that believes it should be forced to breathe from his/her nose for a change.
Copyright protects intellectual property. Without copyrights someone could copy a book word for word and sell it as their own... soon we wouldn't have anyone writing books. The idea that people that earn their money from ideas or digital goods shouldn't have legal protection for their work is ridiculous.
You really are an idiot if you subscribe to this nonsense.
|
he is not arguing for the abolishment of copyright law, just the banning of the copyright holders from the position of authority they currently have
they act to influence the laws.
Under that senerio the example of blackwater being allowed influance government defense decision is a valid comparision.