The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You just answered your own point about the Nike shoes

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Oh crap! (see in situ)

You just answered your own point about the Nike shoes

with the "unless explicitly stated otherwise." The point was really quite silly in that you are trying to make a point against the pro-IP position by implying it means someone couldn't rightfully sell their shoes at a garage sale. Nike would lose sales if they did in fact require that no one can resell them as a condition of the original sale--would you buy them instead of other firms' shoes if so? These sort of statements pop up routinely in anti-IP arguments claiming every utterance, letter, etc would be strictly copyrighted. Just because aspects of copyright law are ridiculous doesn't mean the pro-IP people endorse everything in copyright law such as criminal sanctions. I assume most pro-IP people believe only in civil remedies for violations. [And just to state it, I am still on the fence on this but lived for decades passively accepting copyright legitimacy and I don't change my mind at the drop of a hat (the first time I hear an argument).]