Belial6, im getting sick of your lies and ignorance, and this will be the last time i post in this thread.
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.
im leaving this alone. you have no idea what copyright is about, you obviously dont understand the rules, and its obvious that you havent even attempted to study them, instead you are asking me for the answers, unless you go and study some copyright laws, i suggest you see a lawyer.
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.
would you mind explaining to everyone what a 'workable form' is, and why your oppinion is so much better than everyone elses, nobody else on this board seem to think that copyright is wrong
Definition of idea
All copyright does is protect 'ideas'.
Wrong! i just said to you that copy right will not protect ideas - so dont give me a definition of 'idea', you are plainly wrong
I dont know where you live, however, i would like to point you to
www.copyright.org.au. please study this, you have no idea what copyright means, this is my main resource when i need to know somthing about copyright
if you knew somthing about copyright, you would know that 'ideas' may not be copyrighted. an actual representation of an idea that can be copyrighted. if you write your ideas on paper, your actual text may be subject to copyright, thats not an idea, it is text.
If you are not familliar with the game(or its history) 'Tetris', i suggest you go and study its history.
you might find that the creator of tetris has been threatening to take legal action against a large number of authors of 'Tetris' clones, for what they term as a 'look and feel copyright', the fact is that they are wrong, there is no such thing as a 'look and feel copyright', just like you cant copyright an idea.
you can not copyright rules to a game, you can copyright the written interpretation to those rules. the rules are only an idea.
you can not copyright an invention, that is what patents are for, an invention is an idea. however you can copyright the actual blueprints for that invention, blueprints are a representation of an idea.
in australia you may not copyright 3D objects, however, you can copyright 2D representations of those 3D images.
a 3D piece in a board game for example can not be copyrighted, the blueprints for makeing that piece, or sketches of that piece may be copyrighted
**please learn that ideas may not be copyrighted**
If you were to study copyright law, you would already know that a word, or a phrase, or a one-liner, may NOT be copyrighted.
Well, since everybody constantly uses ideas that others came up with on a daily bases, it becomes a gray issue.
Belial6, there are no grey issues, remember that ideas are not copyrighted, i dont know if english is your first language, but you still get confused between an idea, and a representation of an idea... proves to me that you dont know what you are talking about from the begining
What ideas are ok to use, and which are not are pretty much constucts of the copyright law itself.
Wrong. study it!
You seem to be working off of the premise that copying someone is evil because it is illegal,
where have i said that? and i noted that you used the word 'someone' when i am talking about THINGS, i hope you are not trying to decieve, and deliberatly twist my words, by replacing 'somthing' with 'someone', you cant copyright a person, they can copyright their work
and thus should be illegal because it is evil. It's a circular argument.
point out where
I have written a circular argument. you have just written a sentence that has nothing to do with anything that i have written, and you are implying that it is what i mean... it is not
I take all of the 'your a big dummy' jabs as attempts to prove me wrong without facts.
the fact is, that i have the facts(from copyright.org.au), and you dont know the facts, and dont understand copyright in general
It is a common tactic in such situations, when logic fails on the subject.
Belial6, you cant have a logical argument when you dont know what you are talking about
i would say that unless you are only playing dumb, you would think i am not logical, because you have no idea as to what copyright is about
And perhaps the points on everyone committing copyright violations hits a little to close to home.
Everyone?Belial6, you dont seem to be the sort who would steal a persons car or vcr, and think its good, just because you dont believe in the right to private property.
i would hope that you wouldnt kill an innocent person just because 'once apon a time there were no laws against murder'
please tell me, Belial6, that you are not the sort of person who jumps on the bandwaggon when 'everybody' else is doing somthing that is moraly wrong
dont tell me that all the software publishers, authurs, artists view of wanting to protect their work; their IP, should be disregarded(irrespective of what the law says), just because you disagree with copyright
please dont say that you would choose to violate the rights of others just for the sake of picking up some free software, when there is plenty of legal(and perfectly moral) free software out there from users who choose to give it away
...that you as a pirate are right, and software developers are wrong for wanting to protect their work.
Belial6, i wouldnt like to hear that you are a pirate
because if i ever caught you pirating any of my programs, i would rip your ####ing balls off, and eat them for breakfast. and that would be perfectly ok, according to your logic, because once there was no law about that kind of thing, and its a kind of grey area anyway. perhaps the law is wrong, and people who believe in respecting other peoples rights, and choose to not violate the rights of others, should be shot or raped because you disagree with the rules that society has only recently put on people. and that if a person doesnt want their software copied, they shouldnt release it, and if they dont want their car stolen, they shouldnt leave them out on the street.
BTW Belial6, what is your view of anarchy?