Quote:
Originally Posted by GregS
I only read a small section that referred to "copyright" infringements committed by John.
The law in the US may be crazy, but in not a single instance did this character infringe anyone's copyright.
Sketching someone's architectural work, is no infringement, turning the sketches into a design and selling a clearly derivative design, possibly yes.
The tattoo was a copyright infringement by the tattooist not the customer, for the artist that created the design.
Making copies of anything, for debate, education or any public purpose, is not an infringement if it is relevant and the purpose clear and fair.
The same goes for emails, regardless of the copyright symbol. A communication cannot be restricted.
It is the distributors of pirated works who are liable for copyright infringement, it is they who are denying royalties to the owners.
Our real problems have less to do with law, but finding a fair and practical means for owners to receive their royalties, directly.
Dare I say micro-cash?
|
I was going to debate some of these points with you, but then I realized it's not necessary. Go back and read the footnotes. He cited each section of copyright law.
I understand your viewpoint, and I think it's reasonable. But the whole point of the article was the difference between what the law says, and what everyone thinks is reasonable.