vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
That's actually inaccurate. In the U.S., the Supreme Court has held that copyright law is a constitutionally permissible speech restriction. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea in the presented form. If you film or take photos in the cinema, you're copying the protected expression fixed in the copyrighted work (the movie).
Based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions, "the First Amendment does not shield speech that infringes another's copyright. Copyright is an "engine of free expression" because it supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas."
Well, this just makes it 10x worse.
The Supreme Court have decided that "big business interests" are worthy of an exemption from the constitutional rights, but the nation's kids are not. It's time for the Supreme court to put an end to the loophole that allows potential perverts to "legalise" their activity by invoking their constitutional rights.
The problem no doubt is that big business can afford to take it right to the very top to get their exemption, but the kids in the pool or the cowgirls at the rodeo do not have the kind of political clout and deep pockets necessary.
However, what if the cowgirl has copyrighted her ass