You might think that, if you believed that copyright wasn't completely broken. However, people get sued for the ideas all the time. Like this.
I really think you are relying on semantics. The idea/expression dichotomy expressed in copyright law means ideas in a totally abstract way. The censorship of copyright is applied to ideas that have been expressed.
The system limits the dissemination of the expression of ideas. Tell me that's wrong.
The entertainment companies want copyright enforced. They have that right, by law.
There is already a system for enforcement in place. They want new ones. New horrible overreaching entirely unworkable and completely useless ones. They actually believe that if they are given the entire resources of the US (and others) government, they can win this war on piracy! Just like we won the war on drugs! Except the property is intangible and near impossible to track. Hmm..
If you don't like it, ask your elected representative to get copyright off the books.
I've tried that. I just get a form letter back. If I ever have a few spare million dollars to hire lobbiest, you can bet I'll do just that.
Please don't play dumb.
Why not? Don't you want someone to play with?
Adapt or die, as you would say.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!111! Repeating back thing that we say is not the same thing as understanding them. (Ha ha ha!!! I'm still laughing at this one!!! :D )
ICE could claim that the web domain is a property, and that property has committed a crime (by linking to piracy)
It's an interesting argument. The main flaw that I see (and I hope that someone in authority to make these determinations sees it too) is that there is no law suggesting that linking is a crime. At least not yet. So no crime has been committed by the domains that have been seized.
You can jerk yourselves off all you like with assertions of Constitutional violations, but until a court says it- it just doesn't matter.
Dude. You have weird proclivities if you associate constitution discussions with sexual arousal, even if it's indirectly.
Anyway, you're argument is: "It's not unconstitutional unless a court says it is." I'm going to give your analysis all the attention it deserves. Wow. That's dumb. Read your statement yourself and see if you can find out where you went wrong.
It was obviously written for the perspective of someone who has never spend years creating something of value that many people want
How about written from the perspective of someone who is sick and tired of creativity being all about lawsuits. There is more creativity in the way copyright law is asserted than there is in 98% of the movies made by Hollywood last year.
Or it could be written from the perspective of someone who is sick and tired of the whining from the creators who only want total control of their "property". I absolutely support you in your quest for total control. Next time you create something, keep it to yourself.
Honestly. Let go of your government charity and stop acting like the universe has entitled you charge money for rehashing some story that was written and rewritten centuries ago.
The only thing new is ICE inventing new powers for itself. They can't have case law or any law to back them up because there isn't any. If they want new laws to give them these powers they need congress to pass some. I really think they were expecting that to happen and proceeded as if it already had. But it didn't, and now they are trying to justify their actions by twisting existing laws until they snap.
I think it's exactly that bad. In the magazine cover, the only thing copied is the feel of it. Somehow, the publisher thinks it should be able to copyright a feeling.
If you write a screenplay that duplicates the Twilight movie without using the same character names or any of the dialog, then I would say there isn't a problem. It then becomes a question of who did it better? What's wrong with that?
I gotta say it's really discouraging to see that non-literal copying is recognized in law. It completely goes against the concept that you can't copyright an idea. Is it really that much of a problem that one work has the same ideas as another? That's really the history of creativity, isn't it?