>>605
>Again, your entire argument advocating for the establishment of copyright, patents, and trademarks is almost entirely designed around the public being incapable of making their own brands or signatures.
No it's not, it's based around art having value, and sometimes a work or parts of a work can be used in a certain way in another work in a logical way that can result in a better new work. I've been trying to explain it with story examples, which you've largely disregarded (ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION OF IF ROMEO & JULIET SHOULDN'T EXIST SINCE IT'S BASED ON A PREVIOUS STORY), but a very simple example can be seen with music. Until very recently, we've had to sit through movies and tv shows using knockoff versions of the "Happy Birthday" song because it was copyrighted. All of those instances are absolute bullshit which completely break immersion, and simply do not have the same impact or meaning as the real song. The song has a meaning beyond its simple words and melody. It has cultural capital. It is a part of our culture. And to deny us use of parts of our culture is ridiculous. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION IF ALL THOSE SHOWS AND MOVIES ARE BETTER FOR BEING FORCED TO USE KNOCKOFF VERSIONS OF HAPPY BIRTHDAY.