copyright is bullshit

case study 1
George Harrison case study

RATING SYSTEM: 5=Exactly the same 4=Very similar 3=Somewhat alike 2=Barely the same 1=Not
alike in any way
Melody: _no idea_________
Harmony/Chordal Structure: __4________
Rhythm: _4_________
Tempo: _4_________
Lyrics: _2_________
Instruments: _3_________
1. How else are the two songs similar? both have music and singing
 2. How are the two songs different? different lyrics and instrumentation

holistically id view it as an original work and rule in favour of George Harrison

case study 2
i can only assume in the chair case with the loaded way the question is phased we are ment to conclude both chairs are the same so i'll say they're the same though ultimately I'd rule in favour of the superior artwork (12 monkeys)

case study 3

the work is as exciting as something as pedestrian as a video remix can be. it should be perfectly legal because copyright is a joke. this discussion has been had so many times i'm very very very very bored of it so forgive me if i don't defend my position passionately. copyright now stretches a century to protect mickey mouse and superman. many exciting texts fall out of print because its illegal for anyone to publish them. copyright discourages creativity. discourages dissemination of information. discourages productivity and is just straight useless.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.