Skip to main content

View Diary: Whoops! Romney Campaign Violates Copyright Law (Updated) (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Copyrights are subject to infringement (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, KJC MD

    You as the copyright owner have "exclusive rights" under the US Constitution.

    "Exclusive" means the right to say no, you can't use that and/or can't have that.

    Under English law landlords were given the duty to chase people off the land of the king. An Earl of Northumberland might have been given the duty and right to chase Scots out of Northumberland.

    A right to chase people off land was later found to be profitably traded off in exchange for periodic payment of money. Yes, Mr. Poor Scot, you can stay but I'll want a third of your sheep each year.

    Your right under the Constitution was meant to be exclusive, you were given the right to chase off infringers.

    The right of exclusion by chasing off infringers was all the right authors were meant to have under the Constitution.

    You probably read the Constitution in school.

    Romney, pay up for future use or I'll get a court (or YouTube(R)) to stop your usage.

    An infringer is not a thief, he is not stealing. He is a trespasser.

    They call it intellectual property for a reason.

    •  no, (0+ / 0-)

      Congress has power to grant exclusive use, if it sees fit to do so, for limited terms.  Copyrights are allowed under the constitution, but they are definitely not guaranteed.

      Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:51:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site