Content deleted Content added
L33th4x0rguy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 82:
I don't understand the sections that say citation needed. a) they link to other sections of wikipedia that say the same things b) the statements are common sense if you know anything already about intellectual property theories c) in one case the wikipedia article that gets linked to makes the same statement but does not cite specifically and does not have the same original research / not cited flag raised. [[User:69.236.40.68|69.236.40.68]] 18:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:The theory of copyright law rests on the interpretation of title 17 of us code. the word "magic" appears nowhere in this code. The only way to blend the two, i.e. interpret the law as it pertains to magic tricks is to actually have some sort of case go to trial and be decided by judges in a court of law. I am not aware this has happened. Therefore, any article that relates copyright law to magic is pretending to be a judge in federal court. Ultimately, arguments about the law should have legal case citations. Any statements about the law made by the uneducated (like me) should stay on talk pages instead of seeping into the article space as this article has. --[[User:Muchosucko|Muchosucko]] 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::Please note that copyright, patents and other forms of intellectual property law are not purely an American thing. Wikipedia should reflect the law in other countries too. In fact IP law is now governed to a large extent by international treaties and conventions (eg. The [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]]).[[User:Circusandmagicfan|Circusandmagicfan]] ([[User talk:Circusandmagicfan|talk]]) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
== Cleanup ==
| |||