Warning About Licensed Characters And Copyrighted Material
Business By Rachel5370 Updated 31 Jul 2010 , 3:55pm by costumeczar
As an amusing side note, when I used to use character pans (a looooong time ago), I always thought that "For Home Use Only" meant that they were not "commercial" grade pans, and not meant to stand up to being used 5 times a day... that they were for only occasional use in a home oven. 
It's Disney's drawing that you'd be copying, though. The drawing is copyrighted whether people like it or not.
Nonetheless the altered image is still not exclusively Disney. Disney would have to change the name of the drawing for it to be their sole property. Not call it Little Mermaid, not Peter Pan, not Cinderella, not Sleeping Beauty etc.
The drawing may be their interpretation of the original character, but the name/title is not theirs to use. It was taken from someone else.
sorry to burst your bubble but....
it does not matter that the name is the same....so what! that is NOT what is being copyrighted.
it is the unique artistic image == that actual drawing that is being copyrighted .
and that IS exclusively Disney's and IS protected.
If a character/person's name could be protected then there would be ONLY 1 Doug in the world, and one joy and one susan and one......
but if you take a photo of me -- that IS copyrighted and IS protected and I can toast your tookis in court for making copies of it without my permission.
ditto for disney
----
further in the case of all those stories -- there is a concept called
PUBLIC DOMAIN ---
meaning SO old that it no longer belongs to anyone but instead belongs to everyone.
which is why any kids' author can tell their version of Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc. --- yes even peter pan is "THAT" old (well he did swear to never grow up!) ---
but they can't in their retelling use Disney's art.
----
so if you want to create a Cinderella cake -- go for it with YOUR OWN art and not Disney's.
of course the children will want Disney's version and aye, there's the rub.
it's OFF LIMITS -- protected by copyright -- which you don't have and they won't give without receiving a fee.
As an amusing side note, when I used to use character pans (a looooong time ago), I always thought that "For Home Use Only" meant that they were not "commercial" grade pans, and not meant to stand up to being used 5 times a day... that they were for only occasional use in a home oven.
HAAAA! That is funny, but oh so true??? How are people to know what their intentions are beind that? Maybe it needs to be more specific as we are now on 11 pages and it seems to be largely a mystery as to what is allowed and what isn't....SPECIFICALLY. I'm not talking about the basic, don't recreate the image..I'm talking about the grey areas. Most laws have grey areas. Ask any police officer/criminal lawyer.
I found interesting copyright info on the following link:
http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n#fairuse
this isn't anyone's opinion or interpretation...it is the actual info from the "horse's mouth" It states the allowance of fair use of the copyright. The whole site is interesting.
I found interesting copyright info on the following link:
http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n#fairuse
this isn't anyone's opinion or interpretation...it is the actual info from the "horse's mouth" It states the allowance of fair use of the copyright. The whole site is interesting.
And point number one on that list pretty much kills the rationalization of "but I paid for the pan so I can sell the cakes." Thanks for posting.
I found interesting copyright info on the following link:
http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n#fairuse
this isn't anyone's opinion or interpretation...it is the actual info from the "horse's mouth" It states the allowance of fair use of the copyright. The whole site is interesting.
1) not from the horse's mouth -- note the .com ending. for it to be from the horse's mouth it would be .gov as in:
http://www.copyright.gov/ << now that IS the horses mouth (and neck and body and hind end too!)
------------------------
2) re: "fair use"
read CAREFULLY --
Does NOT -- repeat --- DOES NOT/ apply to making cakes for sale in any way, shape or form!
----
(teachers now have to know this by heart -- just completed "retraining" on it 2 months ago)
Fair Use is for:
journalists -- so they can write a review, a critique and the like. Allows them to quote from a literary work or show a clip of a movie or TV show or play a portion of a song to illustrate the point they make about the quality of the work in question.
academics (fancy term for profs and teachers) -- allows us to use "a small portion" (and how small is hotly debated and not clearly or succinctly defined but does have rule of thumb guidelines) of a movie, a song, a play, a......, any copyrighted work as part of teaching a class (ie direct instruction) and in very specific circumstances, the entire work itself (such as in a film critique class -- can show the whole film to the class so that they can learn how to critique it).
students--again small portions (such as 10 sec clip of copyrighted music) so they can "gussy up" their presentations and reports. (unfortunately they all too often stop there and do not include any real "meat" <editorial comment based on 30+ years of teaching)
public speakers -- so they can include pithy quotes or enlightening A/V images to illustrate their talking points (see students above for problem here)
the Weird Al Yankovics of life -- Parody -- and I chose him for his fabulous parodies of all things Michael Jackson.
---
so the only way to apply Fair Use to cakes would be if:
a) you were a journalist reviewing the quality of a Wilton character cake pan (sshhhhhh -- we already know what many of your are thinking)
b) a teacher showing how to use a Wilton character cake pan
c) a student showing the teacher and the class what you can do with a Wilton character cake pan.
d) a public speaker giving a presentation on the use of Wilton character cake pans
e) a parodist -- (I'll let you all dream up your own ways to do parodies of Wilton character cake pans -- keep it clean!)
=======================
3) re: first sale doctrine
if you wade through all the mumbo jumbo legal beagle-ese ---
yes, you can sell any copyrighted work you bought at a rummage sale, or on ebay or...... so long as it is the actual copy YOU bought, thereby leaving you with only the $$ and not the work
you can also let others borrow it as much as they like
but NO -- in buying a copyrighted work "off the self" -- you do NOT get license to make copies.
thus the whole several pages back argument raised and linked about the lady with the clothes and first sale is
SPECIOUS to the discussion of cakes.
she was NOT making copies of the images.
she was merely using the fabric with the images to make her product and then sell it.
she had paid for the image and could use it.
the is the SAME as using DecoPac kits
it is NOT the same as buying the pan and then replicating it for sale.
simple analogy -- yes you can buy the latest Twilight novel and read it, lend it and finally sell it at a yard sale.
but -- you can NOT make copies of it and sell them.
same here.
buy the disney (or other) character pan and use it personally all you want and finally chuck it in the yard sale (or use to prop up that wobbly table)
but do NOT ever use it to make a cake for sale.
Thanks for the link. I am working on getting official statements from Louis Vuitton, Coach and Tiffany because I have noticed these are very popular in cakes. I have been asked to do a Louis Vuitton cake, and I'm thinking it's a no on that one! My first impressions on the phone were that Louis Vuitton would be the one NOT to copy. They have sued Target and won. The Coach rep said "Go ahead!". These were customer service reps, so I don't put much stock in that. I will wait for the official policy in written form. I will post it here. There again, I think we all need to make it black and white for ourselves because there are so many gray areas otherwise- as illustrated by my conversation with 2 handbag companies- totally different answers! Too bad there is not a "Cake Union" that could help us with this!
Ok, I just paid $15 to get this answer from an online attorney service. Here it is:
With trademarks, the key would be whether the cakes cause consumer confusion as to the origin of the goods i.e. is a consumer likely to be confused into thinking that Disney is the origin of the goods, or that the goods are officially licensed by Disney? If so then there is a TM infringement issue. Now most people might not think, ocrrect or not, that Disney is in the cake business, so there might no tbe much confusion out there...and even more so with brands like LV...people may assume/know that they dont make cakes. A disclaimer will help avoid confusion, but it will not solve the TM issues entirely because various forms of confusion can still exist....but do whatever you can to avoid misrepresenting that the cakes are affiliated with or endorsed by Disnet, LV etc.. As a practical matter, companies differ on how zealously they enforce their IP, and how willing they are to go after small-time infringements....and depending on the scale of your use, they may never realy discovery your use to begin with, but that is an uncertainty/risk. The safest bet of course would be to get permission, but that is not easy for many reasons.
Copyright protects original & creative works from verbatim or substantially similar copying....so there would have to be a specific work that you would be copying, if its a character or logo (e.g. mickey mouse or LV logo) then really its a trademark issue unless you are printing a copyrighted image on the cake directly. If you drew/created a physical logo or depiction of mickey mouse then its not exactly a "copying" of the work because you are creating it by hand and in a physical medium that is different from the original....so the applicability of copyright is questionable and it is overshadowed by the TM issues. To avoid infringement for copyrights, do not make verbatim copies/depiction of copyrighted images/works. for more info on copyright/trademark laws and applications to everyday life see http://coursecracker.com/4/7487/college/law/intellectual-property-law/forums/index.html
Ok, I just paid $15 to get this answer from an online attorney service. Here it is:
With trademarks, the key would be whether the cakes cause consumer confusion as to the origin of the goods i.e. is a consumer likely to be confused into thinking that Disney is the origin of the goods, or that the goods are officially licensed by Disney? If so then there is a TM infringement issue. Now most people might not think, ocrrect or not, that Disney is in the cake business, so there might no tbe much confusion out there...and even more so with brands like LV...people may assume/know that they dont make cakes. A disclaimer will help avoid confusion, but it will not solve the TM issues entirely because various forms of confusion can still exist....but do whatever you can to avoid misrepresenting that the cakes are affiliated with or endorsed by Disnet, LV etc.. As a practical matter, companies differ on how zealously they enforce their IP, and how willing they are to go after small-time infringements....and depending on the scale of your use, they may never realy discovery your use to begin with, but that is an uncertainty/risk. The safest bet of course would be to get permission, but that is not easy for many reasons.
Copyright protects original & creative works from verbatim or substantially similar copying....so there would have to be a specific work that you would be copying, if its a character or logo (e.g. mickey mouse or LV logo) then really its a trademark issue unless you are printing a copyrighted image on the cake directly. If you drew/created a physical logo or depiction of mickey mouse then its not exactly a "copying" of the work because you are creating it by hand and in a physical medium that is different from the original....so the applicability of copyright is questionable and it is overshadowed by the TM issues. To avoid infringement for copyrights, do not make verbatim copies/depiction of copyrighted images/works. for more info on copyright/trademark laws and applications to everyday life see http://coursecracker.com/4/7487/college/law/intellectual-property-law/forums/index.html
or in simple speak:
get permission from original owner/creator
don't print out an image you've photocopied/downloaded from the net/scanned -- unless it you have permission from original owner/creator.
----
now how simple is that!?
If you drew/created a physical logo or depiction of mickey mouse then its not exactly a "copying" of the work because you are creating it by hand and in a physical medium that is different from the original....so the applicability of copyright is questionable and it is overshadowed by the TM issues. To avoid infringement for copyrights, do not make verbatim copies/depiction of copyrighted images/works.
Let me repeat....
I've shared this story before, but my neighbor works for Jim Davis, creator of Garfield. Some guy thought if he drew Garfield in blue, that would be ok. Mr. Davis is very protective of his work and took the guy to court, where a judge ruled that even with a different color, it's STILL Garfield!
or in simple speak:
get permission from original owner/creator
My neighbor also said that Mr. Davis generously gives permission for use all the time .... he just doesn't like it blatently stolen, altered or used w/o permission.
So to agree with Doug, and what many CC'ers have said in the past .... just ask for permission.
Yes, but you aren't making copies of the pan, you are making a cake with "licensed material". Maybe my reading comprehension skills have taken a dive, but I don't see where the first sale doctrine makes a distinction between reproducing licensed material and baking a cake in a pan with a licensed image. I've read it and re read it, and while it isn't clear either way, some of you are so adamant that it's not covered that I expected that I'd actually missed the part of the doctrine that said "Does not apply to character cake pans."
If anyone actually did read my comments, I NEVER ONCE stated that these pans were covered by the FSD. What I said was "IF the pans are/aren't covered...." The point was that just because Disney has an army of lawyers who say it doesn't make it so.
If, as Doug said, the deco pacs ARE in fact covered by the FSD, you've debunked one big fat lie right there. If you buy a deco pac, Disney can't specify how you can use them as long as you don't advertise it as an officially licensed cake. You CAN resell them regardless of if they are on top of a cake or in the original package, AND Disney cannot specify how you decorate the rest of the cake as so many here have said.
Too bad there is not a "Cake Union" that could help us with this!
There is...
it's the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' International Union (but they don't specialize in helping you out with your copyright legal issues, that would be left to common sense and your copyright attorney/agent).
or in simple speak:
get permission from original owner/creator
don't print out an image you've photocopied/downloaded from the net/scanned -- unless it you have permission from original owner/creator.
----
now how simple is that!?
Not that I'm trying to be critical but, if you feel so strongly about this, why do you use a copyright/tradmark image as your avatar? I know you aren't selling the image, but that doesn't make it okay according to your own words. You're using a trademark image on a public website without getting permission from the owner/creator.
Calvin and Hobbes® is a registered trademark used for Syndicated Cartoon Strip and owned by Andrews McMeel Universal, Universal Press Syndicate. Full trade mark registration details, registered images and more information below.
Goods and/or Services: Syndicated Cartoon Strip
Serial Number: 73586466
Registration Number: 1410480
Filing Date: Mar 6, 1986
Last Applicant(s)/
Owner(s) of Record Andrews McMeel Universal
4520 Main Street
Law Dept.
Kansas City, Mo 64111 US
Universal Press Syndicate
4400 Johnson Drive
Fairway, Ks 66205 US
Related Products: Paper Goods and Printed Matter
Calvin is actually a good example of why people are protective of their copyrights and would go to sue someone for misusing it. how many Calvin car stickers have you seen where he's peeing on something? Not the intent of the copyright holder, I'm sure, so I doubt that they had permission to make those. If he took that to court I have no doubt that the judge would rule in his favor, considering it was SOLD for profit.
Unless Doug is asking for payment for everyone who looks at his avatar, I doubt that he's infringing on a copyright anywhere. But Doug, that could be a lucrative sideline, and far more satisfying than banging your head against the wall with this topic any longer.
How hard is it to understand...If you use a copyright that you don't hold, and you SELL IT, you need to get permission before you SELL IT. It's amazing to me how many ways people can try to justify not doing that. Just write a damn email and see if they give you permission, for pete's sake. It'll be a yes or a no, and then you'll know for sure.
How hard is it to understand...If you use a copyright that you don't hold, and you SELL IT, you need to get permission before you SELL IT. It's amazing to me how many ways people can try to justify not doing that. Just write a damn email and see if they give you permission, for pete's sake. It'll be a yes or a no, and then you'll know for sure.
"But Mom!!! What about .......?"
when decopac sells the kit IT is restricted -- there is a card included that shows exactly how the cake must be done to be an approved design. don't follow it and they find out, they can sue.
FSD applies to the PAN, not the cake. Disney has and does restrict use of the product created with the pan (just like the flea spray I nuked the yard with yesterday clearly states for "home use only" and that commercial use is a punishable violation) Disney has clearly said for HOME use -- aka NONcommercial use -- only. Selling is commercial. Making for your own child is not.
avatar-- this falls under another area of copyright -- that if the creator does not pursue or allows use of it in a general manner for personal use without protesting, the user is in the clear -- but it has to be a NONcommercial use. This is the same thing that allows you to draw Mickey all you want for yourself and Disney can't say a thing. It's personal, private, NONcommercial. This is what allows you to make a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Cake for YOUR own child -- it's personal, it's private, it's NONcommerical and Disney can NOT say a thing. This site is NONcommercial (even tho' littered with ads...ggrrrrrr) and the use of the avatar amounts to me wearing a t-shirt
in fact Disney, Davies, Watterson, et. al have an intrinsic interest in seeing us use the avatars -- it's free advertising.
(ever considered that? -- We PAY Disney, etc. to buy their clothes to wear so we can be their advertising!)
================
finally -- well, I've reached "that" point.
the point where my mom used to say to me:
"Fine, go play in the traffic. Just don't come crying to me when you get hurt."
finally -- well, I've reached "that" point.
the point where my mom used to say to me:
"Fine, go play in the traffic. Just don't come crying to me when you get hurt."
But Moooooooooom! Traffic is fuuuuun!
How hard is it to understand...If you use a copyright that you don't hold, and you SELL IT, you need to get permission before you SELL IT. It's amazing to me how many ways people can try to justify not doing that. Just write a damn email and see if they give you permission, for pete's sake. It'll be a yes or a no, and then you'll know for sure.
What's hard for me to understand is how some people are so concerned with protecting the rights of others that they disregard their own. If it's a matter of personal morals it's one thing, but the law is something entirely different.
Disney is only one of several big corporations who have effectively put small companies out of business for excercising their rights under federal law. Most of these lawsuits never make it to court because these small companies can't afford to fight it, they can't afford to hire lawyers to pick through all the grey matter to tell them what their rights are.
Suppose someone who frequents this site is making disney cakes using deco packs, and those cakes are big sellers in her small business. Disney comes along threatening a lawsuit. Had she searched this site 2 days ago, she'd have found nothing but comments from people who certainly aren't copyright lawyers telling her that she can't sell them, or that she can only reproduce them exactly as disney specifies. Forward two days to this thread, and now she at least has information on the First Sale Doctrine and she suddenly has a place to start.
And insinuating that questioning the law and knowing your rights is childish and comparible to an arguement between parent and child is ridiculous. The corporate suits at Disney are NOT my parents and especially after having researched the company a bit in the past few days I am certainly not inclined to believe everything(if anything) they say.
I have read all 12 pages of this thread and have come to a conclusion.
No matter what is proven to be law, there are some who feel that they can take advantage of the gray area because it did not state it can not be done in exact words that they think it should say. Because it did not say "you can use this pan to make a cake without receiving money for making it for another person. No compensation for making the cake, ingredients paid for by another, your time to bake and decorate paid by another, then they can use this argument to do what they want. Even though it is not the specific wording you think it should be, you still do not have a legal right to sell them!
No sense in arguing that the characters are old, written before Disney got started or not. They have fine tuned the look of the character and they want to protect it. No Tinkerbell made as a joke overweight or pregnant and no Mickey with marijuana leaves these will decidedly lower the "wholesome" image they have tried to keep.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, stop making excuses and using the what if mind set. Just plain don't make them for resale or recreate them in fondant, gumpaste, rice krispies or any other medium and them sell them. No matter how you interpret the words as written they boil down to one thing, You Can Not Sell Them!!!
It is like windshield wipers on a goats butt, it ain't gonna work.
evelyn
when decopac sells the kit IT is restricted -- there is a card included that shows exactly how the cake must be done to be an approved design. don't follow it and they find out, they can sue.
FSD applies to the PAN, not the cake. Disney has and does restrict use of the product created with the pan (just like the flea spray I nuked the yard with yesterday clearly states for "home use only" and that commercial use is a punishable violation) Disney has clearly said for HOME use -- aka NONcommercial use -- only. Selling is commercial. Making for your own child is not.
avatar-- this falls under another area of copyright -- that if the creator does not pursue or allows use of it in a general manner for personal use without protesting, the user is in the clear -- but it has to be a NONcommercial use. This is the same thing that allows you to draw Mickey all you want for yourself and Disney can't say a thing. It's personal, private, NONcommercial. This is what allows you to make a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Cake for YOUR own child -- it's personal, it's private, it's NONcommerical and Disney can NOT say a thing. This site is NONcommercial (even tho' littered with ads...ggrrrrrr) and the use of the avatar amounts to me wearing a t-shirt
in fact Disney, Davies, Watterson, et. al have an intrinsic interest in seeing us use the avatars -- it's free advertising.
(ever considered that? -- We PAY Disney, etc. to buy their clothes to wear so we can be their advertising!)
================
finally -- well, I've reached "that" point.
the point where my mom used to say to me:
"Fine, go play in the traffic. Just don't come crying to me when you get hurt."
I have to say your explanation on why you say you're free to use Calvin as your personal avatar is quite interesting.
avatar-- this falls under another area of copyright -- that if the creator does not pursue or allows use of it in a general manner for personal use without protesting, the user is in the clear -- but it has to be a NONcommercial use.
I highly doubt Watterson would have an intrinsic interest in seeing anyone use his images as an avatar online. I also disagree he'd be happy to see the image and think 'hey, great, free advertising'. Watterson was against that type of thing. He did not want his characters being displayed anywhere but his comic strips. He was also against his images being made & sold as clothing, toys, or whatever else. There was a scant few items made with his images with those being special causes. Fighting over that very thing with Universal Syn amongst others, is why Watterson decided to pack the strip in.
A FAQ you might find interesting.
Can't I scan an image and put it online?
If you are not the original creator or copyright owner of the image, you cannot legally redistribute that image. Scanning an image and placing it online is redistribution and it is a breach of copyright.
This includes images found in magazines, books, newspapers, greeting cards, calendars, catalogs, CD covers, brochures, etc.
Major companies such as Disney, Hallmark, Warner Brothers, etc., have very strict regulations about the redistribution of their property.
You cannot legally scan and redistribute photographs, cartoons, illustrations, drawings, etc., if they are protected by copyright.
You cannot legally create a "fan site" using copyrighted photographs without the expressed permission of the photographer or copyright owner.
You cannot "freeze" an image from a television program, movie, or film for redistribution. The television program, movie, or film is protected by copyright as a complete entity and as individual frames.
It is prudent to assume that everything that is published has a restricted copyright. Check the source of the image you want to scan for its copyright restrictions
From the R I G H T S website..
http://www.rightsforartists.com/
Wipers on a goat's butt! Bahahahaha!!!!
Everybody take an hour to breathe. I see signs this is getting heated and we don't want it shut down. Take a breather and come back, please. I enjoy a good debate and would hate to have this thread disappear.
No sense in arguing that the characters are old, written before Disney got started or not. They have fine tuned the look of the character and they want to protect it. No Tinkerbell made as a joke overweight or pregnant and no Mickey with marijuana leaves these will decidedly lower the "wholesome" image they have tried to keep.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, stop making excuses and using the what if mind set. Just plain don't make them for resale or recreate them in fondant, gumpaste, rice krispies or any other medium and them sell them. No matter how you interpret the words as written they boil down to one thing, You Can Not Sell Them!!!
It is like windshield wipers on a goats butt, it ain't gonna work.
evelyn
Recreating the image in gumpaste, fondant, or rice krispies IS considered copyright infringement whether you sell them or not, so says the law. If your kid wants a Mickey Mouse cake and you recreate mickey mouse in any medium for that purpose, you've effectively taken money out of Disney's pocket by foregoing the option to purchase the item and opting to make it yourself. It may be hard to enforce, and many companies probably wouldn't bother, but if "right is right and wrong is wrong" that point is moot, huh?
So Smokey you are saying I cannot let my daughter draw Mickey Mouse to put as artwork on her wall because it's "illegal" as instead I should've bought a poster?? 
I suppose by that law I couldn't even make pancakes that looked like Mickey for my breakfast because it's against the law?? That makes no sense to me.
Wipers on a goat's butt! Bahahahaha!!!!
Everybody take an hour to breathe. I see signs this is getting heated and we don't want it shut down. Take a breather and come back, please. I enjoy a good debate and would hate to have this thread disappear.
I think you're right, although I prefer to think of it as "passionate" 
I may be the only one willing to debate anything anyway. I'm absolutely aware of the fact that I could be completely off base here, and I think I've made it clear that I'm not an attorney and that much of this area is "grey" to me as well. I just think that people should make themselves aware of their OWN rights rather than depending on corporate america to tell them.
So Smokey you are saying I cannot let my daughter draw Mickey Mouse to put as artwork on her wall because it's "illegal" as instead I should've bought a poster??
I suppose by that law I couldn't even make pancakes that looked like Mickey for my breakfast because it's against the law?? That makes no sense to me.
Yes, technically because it is Disney's image and they didn't give you the rights to recreate it. I've honestly read so much about this stuff in the past 48 hours(I was up to the wee hours making cupcakes, I had some time 
) so it's all starting to run together. I'm in the middle of breakfast right now, but I'll find and quote a source in a bit.
It's one of those things that exist within the law but would rarely, if ever be enforced.
[I'm absolutely aware of the fact that I could be completely off base here, and I think I've made it clear that I'm not an attorney and that much of this area is "grey" to me as well. I just think that people should make themselves aware of their OWN rights rather than depending on corporate america to tell them.
[I'm absolutely aware of the fact that I could be completely off base here, and I think I've made it clear that I'm not an attorney and that much of this area is "grey" to me as well. I just think that people should make themselves aware of their OWN rights rather than depending on corporate america to tell them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgpiN9i45XM&feature=related
Well, costumeczar, you've managed to officially shut me up. It took that video to make me realize that your are most definately banging your head against a wall when you try to debate with people who know everything and refuse to look past their own noses.
Stick a fork in me.............
I loved the video, it added some needed tension relief in this thread. 
evelyn
[I'm absolutely aware of the fact that I could be completely off base here, and I think I've made it clear that I'm not an attorney and that much of this area is "grey" to me as well. I just think that people should make themselves aware of their OWN rights rather than depending on corporate america to tell them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgpiN9i45XM&feature=related
Well, costumeczar, you've managed to officially shut me up. It took that video to make me realize that your are most definately banging your head against a wall when you try to debate with people who know everything and refuse to look past their own noses.
Stick a fork in me.............
My point being that if people are saying "I don't know" and "I think this might be right" then it isn't a debate, it's a pointless circle of the blind leading the blind. There's a word for that, but I don't think it would make it past the obscenity censors.
Quote by @%username% on %date%
%body%