It's confirmation bias on your part to argue that the state is using the term of art incorrectly because there's some other statute written by probably some other people that you don't like.
Clearly you have no idea what Confirmation Bias is. Here's the link again. Try reading it and educating yourself for a change.
Nice use of weasel words, too ("probably", "some other", "somewhere") instead of addressing the specific ruling I referenced, the ruling that you yourself brought up. The very same ruling that comes out of a backwater state that has a loooooong history of idiotic laws. That very same ruling which James B. actually explained to you means the fucking opposite of what you think it means.
And you think I am the one who lacks a legal education? Bwahahahahaha.
Oh, and here's another thing (actually two points on the same thing)
You state: I cite to authority
You may not realize it (I'm actually quite sure you don't) that when you say that you "cite TO authority" you're revealing how much you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
To put it another way, this would be you: "I can see that the sky is blue. But my Masters are telling me it is yellow. The Masters are never wrong, therefore, the sky must be yellow. Damn my lying eyes!"
I would suggest that you get your nose out of your law book (or Westlaw or Google Scholar or whatever) and instead actually educate yourself rather than delving further into the morass of Confirmation Bias you are currently wallowing in.
Somehow you manage to cling to that single (and wrong) opinion of the court that James Burkhardt totally dismantled as proving the opposite of what you thought it proved.
That's a pretty good example (just one of many) of you being blunt and dull. It doesn't help your case at all that you couldn't be bothered to respond to either of the assertions I linked to.
So go ahead and fire up Westlaw or Google Scholar and find some other idiotic citation that in a VERY NARROW sense seems to support your position and continue to demonstrate to us all how you just don't (or, more likely, can't) get it.
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. ”
- Neal Stephenson
It's pretty obvious that you fall into the "well-educated" camp but sadly on the stupid side. Just because you somehow learned enough to use Westlaw (or whatever) to find citations that you think agree with your opinion doesn't make you smart.
In fact, it shows your inability to think for yourself.
The same state where, say, you wanna throw a dinner party and would like to get a 6 pack of craft beer, a "case" (24 pack) of some regular beer, and a bottle of wine and you have to go to 3 different stores none of which sell anything but the above listed items (eg: you can't buy a loaf of bread at any of them).
Who is to decide that is does not have business potential? You, another? Business potential is decided by the market.
Yes, that's exactly correct. The market should be deciding whose works have value, but that is not what has been happening. Current IP laws have twisted the market immensely and have created an environment where everyone thinks their "art" has market value when that is clearly not the case. Worse, it makes the market treat them all as if they're valuable.
How are you managing to miss the point that badly?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bawk bawk: LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property ...
Wow. You (attempt to) defend property rights as being a "social construct" (which is by definition imaginary) yet accuse me of being "divorced from reality." That's some amazing cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.
Have you even bothered to read The Federalist Papers
Do you mean this one tiny bit where they refer to copyright? The ONLY place it's mentioned in the Federalist Papers:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress.
Funny, they are talking about rights, NOT property. They're talking about the public good.
No idea what you're talking about.
court decisions that lay waste to the absurd argument advanced by amateurs that copyright law subordinates the rights of authors to the public at large
Maybe something like this 1975 Supreme Court decision:
The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author’s creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)
Looky there. The discussion is about the public good being the ultimate aim.
I don't know what other possible lower court decisions you think you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court is laying waste to their absurd arguments.
It looks like it's you who needs to read (and comprehend) the Federalist papers and court decisions.