Belial6, learn some law... the 'coke' logo is regitered as a trade mark. why? for the very simple fact that you cant actually copyright a logo(well people try that because the cat afford to register a trademark, but does it have the same effect? not likely!) read up on copyright law, please.
You might be right, it might not be illegal to make copies of someones trademark unless it is used in trade. So, let me give a better example. You take a picture of your pal, and he happens to be in frount of a movie theater, or in a room with a movie poster that makes it into the shot. The movie post DOES have a copyright.
i wonder if anybody else is with you on this one?
I believe most consumers do agree. Do they (or I) believe that copyright should be completely destroyed? Some probably do, but most would be happy if it could be returned to a workable form. Obviously many on this board think it needs to be changed.
Here you are twisting the meaning of what i have written. YOU KNOW that i am not talking about 'derivation'! you have delibratly chosen to change the subject from copying the actual works of a person to basing work on anothers 'ideas', ideas cannot be copyrighed!
Definition of ideaAll copyright does is protect 'ideas'. That is the whole point. Hence the 'Intellectual' part of 'Intellectual Property'. And with the 'derivative' rant, are you saying that the crackers who change the code on the game before distributing it are ok? I'm doubting that. Copyright is supposed to protect against both exact copies, AND derivative works.
the idea of Interlectual Property is ancient... However, how new or old it is is completly irrelevant. how is a new legislation nessarilly more 'wrong' than an old one?
What makes it relevent is that right and wrong are human constructs. There is a very large contingent of the population who believe that outlawing the use of human knowledge and culture, sometimes to the point that the culture is lost, is evil.
Also, can you point me to a IP reference that would support the statement of IP being ancient? You are the first person I have run across that made that statement.
Well apparently not. The whole reason copyright exists is that authors would write a book, take it to a publisher, who would publish it and pay the author for his work, and then a whole bunch of other *SCUM* publisher's would completly rip-off both of them... is that fair? is that the way you would like it to work again? ripping-off authours and their chosen publishers work, soley for your own selfish gain?
Well, since everybody constantly uses ideas that others came up with on a daily bases, it becomes a gray issue. What ideas are ok to use, and which are not are pretty much constucts of the copyright law itself. Do we call children who sing Ring Around the Rosies "evil" because they didn't get the authors permision? What about a partent that tells their child the story of Jack and the Beanstalk?
the language is not copyrighted, it is specifically public domain.
You seem to be working off of the premise that copying someone is evil because it is illegal, and thus should be illegal because it is evil. It's a circular argument.
I take all of the 'your a big dummy' jabs as attempts to prove me wrong without facts. It is a common tactic in such situations, when logic fails on the subject. And perhaps the points on everyone committing copyright violations hits a little to close to home.