>>7695

I think if we end the conversation, it'll be because you have a fundamental inability to understand what words mean.

This gibberish about selling physical things versus intellectual properties is just smoke and mirrors. The function of copyright is built into the name - the right to copy - which inherently takes into account the difference between IP and physical goods. It's like you've never seen a row of all the same paperback book or CD before.

Granted, it should not be that Hot Topic has the power to rip off artists and then resist their complaints with the power of high-priced attorneys and legal fees. But that's not a failure of copyright law so much as a problem with corporations and a huge imbalance in available funds.

And my earlier point still stands - by not respecting copyright, people like you are working towards a scenario where people either drop out of art, because there's nothing left in it for them, or they will seek shelter where the money is.

ALL RIGHTS ARE ARBITRARY AND UNNATURAL. There is no right you have that cannot be taken away if someone with enough power decides he doesn't have to respect it. Society only exists inasmuch as people agree that we should have certain rights in common, and agree to abide by and enforce them.

Sadly, the ease of digital copying has created a generation of leeches that started out not knowing any better, and have subsequently grown into justifying and rationalizing their copying with a lot of weird idealism and entitlement.