Originally posted by motorfish+Jan 12 2006, 07:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(motorfish @ Jan 12 2006, 07:12 PM)</div>
Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 12 2006, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon
@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.
From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.
Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth. That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.
As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think. From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.
[snapback]1157382[/snapback]
Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.
Why is this situatiuon any different?
[snapback]1157389[/snapback]
Dan, come on, if it was that easy you wouldn't have constant lawsuits against copyright holders for infringing, stealing, etc. of ideas, similar concepts, plagarism, etc. We all know the law isn't that black and white, it never has been.
EDIT: Blatant spelling mistake. 
[snapback]1157396[/snapback]
It is as easy as that. That's the exact reason why we have constant lawsuits over copyright. It doesn't stop people from challenging it all of the time, through people trying to change subtle things here and there about said product, wording things a little bit differently, selling it under the guise as something else. There's absolutely no limit to what people will do in order to get around a copyright if they think they have a chance of doing so and getting away with it.
[snapback]1157404[/snapback]
Wait a minute...so you're saying that the existance of a copyright makes it right? That there is no possible chance in any way that a copyright was done incorrectly? That documents were not properly signed nor covered? That the creation of a thing was not actually done by the person who got the copyright?
Funny then that so many books, songs, films, and other copyrighted items have been sued against and won by those who claimed the copyright was invalid in some form.
So no, it's not that easy.
[snapback]1157427[/snapback]
Some people are thieves and liars, that's why. Pure and simple.
the people who sued over copyright and won did so because they either had enough evidence claiming ownership/rights on said item, OR they already had an existing copyright on said item, which superceeded the later one.
I really doubt that LFL is out to screw SDS studios over. Why would they? Call it a hunch, but it just feels like it's the other way around, doesn't it?
[snapback]1157438[/snapback]
[/b]