Comrade Blade Nzimande is complaining that EFF stole the ‘red colour’, he does not have a copyright on the ‘red colour’. There’s nothing we can steal from him because he has nothing but that skuurpot (pot scourer) face of his. Why didn’t he complain when Vodacom was red?— Julius Malema
Most Powerful Copyrights quotations
The danger in media concentration comes not from the concentration, but instead from the feudalism that this concentration, tied to the change in copyright, produces.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived even in part.
There is no sense in owning the copyright unless you are going to use it.
I don't think anyone wants to hold all of this stuff in a vault and not let anybody have it. It's only worth something once it's popular.
The war against illegal file-sharing is like the church's age-old war against masturbation. It's a war you just can't win.
But here's the thing: what you do as a screenwriter is you sell your copyright.
As a novelist, as a poet, as a playwright, you maintain your copyright.
My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright.
You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.
I have a hunch that the unknown sequences of DNA will decode into copyright notices and patent protections.
To summarize: Americans have one of the greatest legal systems, but not a monopoly of the sense of justice, which is universal; nor have we a permanent copyright on the means of securing justice, for it is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.
The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it.
I have stood in a bar in Lambourn and been offered, in the space of five minutes, a poached salmon, a leg of a horse, a free trip to Chantilly, marriage, a large unsolicited loan, ten tips for a ten-horse race, two second-hand cars, a fight, and the copyright to a dying jockey's life story.
I am explicitly not opening the giant can of worms that is the ongoing current discussion of patent, copyright, and trademark reform.
I support copyright. I mean it is intellectual property, it is the thought process of someone and those things should always be protected.
Authors have a greater right than any copyright, though it is generally unacknowledged or disregarded. They have a right to the reader's civility. There are favorable hours for reading a book, as for writing it, and to these the author has a claim. Yet many people think that when they buy a book they buy with it the right to abuse the author.
Copyright law is a dinosaur, ill-suited for the landscape of today's media.
I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I’m concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!
Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.
Time has lost all meaning in that nightmare alley of the Western world known as the American mind. We wallow in nostalgia but manage to get it all wrong. True nostalgia is an ephemeral composition of disjointed memories... but American-style nostalgia is about as ephemeral as copyrighted d?j? vu.
Congress shall have Power . . . to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for.
The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, but some draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve.
Certainly the interest in asserting copyright is a justified one.
How much greater would their contributions to the U.
S. economy be if U.S. copyright owners could access foreign markets otherwise dominated by pirate product?
The line of 'Make America great again,' the phrase, that was mine, I came up with it about a year ago, and I kept using it, and everybody's using it, they are all loving it. I don't know I guess I should copyright it, maybe I have copyrighted it.
I think if the copyright regime focuses on the people we are supposed to be helping, the artists and creators, and builds a system that gives them the freedom to choose and to protect and to be rewarded for their creativity, then we will have the right focus.
This song ain't black or white and as far as I know it don't infringe on anyone's copyright.
I think copyright is moral, proper. I think a creator has the right to control the disposition of his or her works - I actually believe that the financial issue is less important than the integrity of the work, the attribution, that kind of stuff.
Of all the creative work produced by humans anywhere, a tiny fraction has continuing commercial value. For that tiny fraction, the copyright is a crucially important legal device.
Copyright law has got to give up its obsession with 'the copy.
' The law should not regulate 'copies' or 'modern reproductions' on their own. It should instead regulate uses--like public distributions of copies of copyrighted work--that connect directly to the economic incentive copyright law was intended to foster.
It's the golden age of French cinema again but it's because Sarkozy had the guts to push through copyright law.
In our day the conventional element in literature is elaborately disguised by a law of copyright pretending that every work of art is an invention distinctive enough to be patented.
Traditional copyright has been that you can't make a full copy of somebody's work without their permission.
In making policy designed with copyright in mind, you end up making decisions about whether other important technologies, such as privacy-enhancing or file-search technologies, should be encouraged or discouraged. A collision is happening between creativity and protecting IP.
I think art is the only thing that's spiritual in the world.
And I refuse to forced to believe in other people's interpretations of God. I don't think anybody should be. No one person can own the copyright to what God means.
I'm a bit cynical that it ever will be addressed properly.
I think it is healthy to get some sort of copyright protection. But some of it has gone on forever.