Problem with stuff like this is those pesky lawyer type wordings.I almost understand why they would want to do something like this.
Copyright stuff is a nasty place to get tangled.And yes,someone who produces tangible work,such as music,movies,hell online games,should receieve payement for those things,though prolly not as much as alot of them seem to think they should make.
But this leads to more stuff,which leads to more,a good example of what i mean is Promethuse V Mayo,if you dont know it,take a look.I could be wrong,but from what I think I understand,Promethues has a patent on...I have no clue wtf it is on,so i qoute:
The drugs themselves were already known to be useful to treat the disease, but according to Prometheusí patent, their use was in limited because their efficacy was difficult to monitor. The basis of the invention was in discovering the range of doses that would be effective without harming the patient.
I get confused easily sometimes,but this makes my head spin.Its not the drugs,nor the drugs uses that the patent is about.It's about something.....something above my head i guess.But from every article I have seen on this,and been quite a few,cuz i like puzzles,its basically saying,you can not form the corralation between "this" and "that" in your head,because we have a patent on it.
Just think,if SOPA is inacted,restricting internet,and can be sued for putting 2 plus 2 together in your head----meh I got work to do on a tin-foil hat