The featured article claims that Article 8 of Iran's copyright law mentions an exception for public libraries and educational institutions.
Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments, which are noncommercial, may reproduce protected works by a photographic or similar process, in the numbers necessary, for the purposes of their activities, according to a decree to be issued by the Board of Ministers.
I don't see how it's fundamentally different from sections
I fail to see why this is cruel or dictatish (kings english), not that I disagree those terms apply to Iran. IP is a completely artificial concept, there is no such thing as rights here. There is no such thing as "theft of another's work" just infringement of these artificial grants to stimulate creativity. It makes perfect sense that a government wouldn't extend the grant to limit itself allowing creative people to profit from their work while allowing the government to utilize the best the citizenry has pr
That shows the moronic premise of the article. If the government doesn't make it a crime, it isn't a crime. "IP rights" are nowhere considered "natural law", they are specific government policy with aim for certain economic outcome.That Iran happens to differ from US law is unsurprising, MANY countries differ from US re: IP law (e.g. software patents). Hard to take article seriously when 99% of it is misguided and superfluous. But "OMG IRAN" plays well in Zionist States of America, so...
A classic case of: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi [wikipedia.org].
The featured article claims that Article 8 of Iran's copyright law mentions an exception for public libraries and educational institutions.
I don't see how it's fundamentally different from sections
Is the OP sure that the arrests were for piracy, and not for putting up something that might be considered either pro-Western or un-Islamic?
IP is a completely artificial concept, there is no such thing as rights here. There is no such thing as "theft of another's work" just infringement of these artificial grants to stimulate creativity. It makes perfect sense that a government wouldn't extend the grant to limit itself allowing creative people to profit from their work while allowing the government to utilize the best the citizenry has pr