4 ms·
Not really. He still had to go through the process of creating something. He still needed to buy and assemble materials. He didn't just borrow someone's Lambo a
by bena 18y ago
Not really. He still had to go through the process of creating something. He still needed to buy and assemble materials. He didn't just borrow someone's Lambo and throw it in a matter replicator.
In copyright infringement cases, people are making exact duplicates without having to work to produce those duplicates. When someone makes a copy of a picture/song/program, they get all of the benefit without having to reward or acknowledge the effort that went into producing the original.
This guy is more like a cover band than Napster.
- Retric 18y agoIn most cases you still need to pay money to the songs author to legally be a cover band. The way things are setup he probably broke the law in such a way that he can get away with it. (AKA, they are not going to sue because it's good press and they might sell logos / parts to other people doing this.)
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y agoJust a quick note: The amount of work or effort which went into producing a work is not legally relevant to its status under copyright. This, for instance, is why mere lists of facts are not copyrightable. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Tel... ) the "sweat of the brow" doctrine was soundly dismissed.