Quote: > Everybody has a different perfect world of copyrights and music/movie/video game > preservation opinion. Why it is that you think yours is better than everyone else's > to the point of pulling out your dick on our forum and taking a urination that would > impress a recently thawed out Austin Powers is a better question than the trolling > horse shit you are producing. If you have a vastly different opinion than everyone in > a community then you probably don't belong in that community even if you are writing > a thesis on them. You don't see me ranting on a vegan board about how they should eat > meat. You think companies should be dead before their games are emulated. Aaron > thought 3 years before adding to MAME. I guess I'd go with 7ish. Some other people > would say 10 etc. Whoopidee doo. Why don't you write a chapter on drug companies > getting less than 5 years to sell their IP before it gets legally bootlegged and how > video games should still be 100 before there is an emulator for their hardware > because some retard wrote a law about it before video games even existed. Can't wait > to read it...
Good point, but I have a few questions:
Why does the USA have copyright laws written into the Constitution?
Does your suggestion (being so important to this site) of copyright, be so construed, to have no legal duristinction like your argument suggests?
So copyright laws have no merit in your opinion and therefore have no moral obligation?
Does this stem from the belief that media should be free on the internet?