You really have the gall yourself to say that in a world where you can't as much as sing Happy Birthday to your child without violating copyright. You would pu

You really have the gall yourself to say that in a world where you can't as much as sing Happy Birthday to your child without violating copyright. You would put fish into a tank with barbed or poisoned food and blame them for dying not sticking to the safe food. You might have a point if I had a reasonable choice of not sending my children to a public school which teaches them the poisoned memes, eliminating free broadcasts of corrupt (aka copyrighted) content, etc. fighting the poison in other ways, but in America, corporatism is God, so it only works the other way, doing whatever it takes to hook our children on corrupt themes that will make money for the corporations even if free alternatives would have done just as well. If you are going to spout naiveté, then the opposite extreme sounds more attractive. If they didn't want it copied, why did they broadcast it in the first place. If they don't publish it, then no one will "take" it. But you want to have it both ways, on the one hand use public ideas with just a twist that you can poison with copyright and use to make money, make it popular and embed it into everyone's public spaces and minds, and on the other hand, retain tight control over what these people who have been polluted with it can do with it, when it has become part of them and their thought processes. This is corruption, pure and simple. There should be no place for governmental policing of thought in America just to satisfy corporate greed.