QUOTE: apotheon, copyrights as per the Berne Convention do NOT apply censorship at all
I get the impression you're not even reading what I write in any depth. How is "No, you can't say that to anyone!" not censorship?
QUOTE: they just protect the creative work I've done.
"Protect." Like a protection racket. That's the only kind of "protection" it provides -- by stopping people from communicating with each other in a manner that in no way actually affects *you*.
QUOTE: The way the US lawmakers have warped copyright laws is another matter altogether. Due to this, other countries are now headed down that path to do the same or similar before they get shafted by the US laws and companies.
I've already addressed this, and your response is evidently to pretend you didn't notice.
QUOTE: I can legally take anything you've said and rephrase the concepts in totally different words and it is not a breach of copyright, but using the same words is.
*You* are the guy who suggested it's not about the *words*. What about music and paintings and photographs? Don't bother answering; that's a rhetorical question.
QUOTE: When I've created a new character and world, they are copyrighted by me, but only in the style in which I've created them. Fanfic is an odd area because most of the fan authors actually violate the copyright by using the specifics used by the original authors; however, some of the originating authors do give permission, some don't. An example would be a fanfic story about a Hermoine Granger as a witch at Hogwarts is a copyright violation, while a story about a teenage surfer-girl called Hermoine Granger set in Hawaii and no magic with a different physical description is NOT a copyright violation because there is more than enough differences, although it would be better to change the name a bit to avoid any risks.
This is all . . . pointless. You've done nothing to call anything I've said into question by saying that. I don't even know why you said it.
QUOTE: Every year millions of college and university students do assignments where they look up books and papers by known researchers and authors. They then have to prove they know what that stuff means by writing a paper where they rephrase the material. By using different words they are NOT breaching copyright of the initial material, even though they can use up to 10% as direct quotes to support what they're saying. So you can say what's written without a licence, you just can't give an exact quote without approval - that even applies to reporters.
This also applies to software, and also disputes nothing I said.
QUOTE: In my opinion copyright should never have been applied to software,neither should patents be allowed for genes.
In my opinion, neither copyright nor patents should ever have applied to anything, because it's a bald-faced attempt to change the laws of economics to suit the short-term desires of a relatively small group of monopolists.
QUOTE: The copyright laws are all that protects my books from being stolen and printed under another person's name so they can make the money from their sales.
Stealing actually involves making something available to the victim of theft. Copyright infringement does nothing of the kind.
Copyright is not about someone else's name being used in the credits for a book. That's not copyright infringement; it's plagiarism, which is *fraudulent* -- a completely different body of law.
QUOTE: That's what they were intended for, that and other works of art - I'd not call software a work of art.
I can only assume that either you have not put much time into writing code or when you do write code you do it like a construction worker paints a wall. Software *can* be art. It can even be poetry.
Keep Up with TechRepublic