Content deleted Content added
original research |
Muchosucko (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 79:
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 copyright 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 to 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.--[[User:Muchosucko|Muchosucko]] 22:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
| |||