Skip to main content
Law

Return to Question

deleted 9 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
Source Link
AlanSTACK
AlanSTACK
  • 2.1k
  • 3
  • 11
  • 26

Why isdoes digital copyright seemingly impotent comparedappear to itsbe less effective than physical counterpartcopyright?

I oftenfrequently hear on the news about enforcement of patent infringements being enforced on physical products -, such as differentvarious types of wrenches, machinery, and toys.

However, I cannot recall an instancea situation where an online business has been sued afterfor creating a pretty muchproduct that is almost identical to another product. For instance, a particularly gregarious example of this (in my opinion), isin the case of video game app offerings for phones. Whenever, whenever a new trend is foundemerges, a wavemultitude of seemingly endless copycats alwayscopycat products seem to follow.

At firstInitially, I thought itthis was just due tobecause the rate of the ripoffs (e.g. the copyright holder/original creator ofis so high that the genre beingoriginal creators are unable to file claims as fastquickly as new ones pop up)copies appear. However, I have also see hugeobserved that large corporate groups, such as "Ketchapp"Ketchapp and "Voodoo" whoseVoodoo, often have entire portfolios more or less consistconsisting of slightly alteredmodified versions of popular products created by competitors.

HowIt is difficult to understand how this is feasible? And why does, and copyright law for digital services, in general, seem so much more impotent seems to be less effective than it'sfor physical counterpartproducts. KeepPlease keep in mind, I am not from a legal background. Just and am simply curious, that's all about this.

Why is digital copyright seemingly impotent compared to its physical counterpart?

I often hear on the news about patent infringements being enforced on physical products - such as different types of wrenches, machinery, and toys.

However, I cannot recall an instance where an online business has been sued after creating a pretty much identical product. For instance, a particularly gregarious example of this (in my opinion), is the video game app offerings for phones. Whenever a new trend is found, a wave of seemingly endless copycats always follow.

At first, I thought it was just due to the rate of the ripoffs (e.g. the copyright holder/original creator of the genre being unable to file claims as fast as new ones pop up). However, I also see huge corporate groups such as "Ketchapp" and "Voodoo" whose entire portfolios more or less consist of slightly altered versions of popular competitors.

How is this feasible? And why does copyright law for digital services, in general, seem so much more impotent than it's physical counterpart. Keep in mind, I am not from a legal background. Just curious, that's all.

Why does digital copyright appear to be less effective than physical copyright?

I frequently hear on the news about enforcement of patent infringements on physical products, such as various types of wrenches, machinery, and toys.

However, I cannot recall a situation where an online business has been sued for creating a product that is almost identical to another product. For example, in the case of video game app offerings for phones, whenever a new trend emerges, a multitude of copycat products seem to follow.

Initially, I thought this was because the rate of ripoffs is so high that the original creators are unable to file claims as quickly as new copies appear. However, I have also observed that large corporate groups, such as Ketchapp and Voodoo, often have entire portfolios consisting of slightly modified versions of popular products created by competitors.

It is difficult to understand how this is feasible, and copyright law for digital services seems to be less effective than for physical products. Please keep in mind, I am not from a legal background and am simply curious about this.

Source Link
AlanSTACK
AlanSTACK
  • 2.1k
  • 3
  • 11
  • 26

Why is digital copyright seemingly impotent compared to its physical counterpart?

I often hear on the news about patent infringements being enforced on physical products - such as different types of wrenches, machinery, and toys.

However, I cannot recall an instance where an online business has been sued after creating a pretty much identical product. For instance, a particularly gregarious example of this (in my opinion), is the video game app offerings for phones. Whenever a new trend is found, a wave of seemingly endless copycats always follow.

At first, I thought it was just due to the rate of the ripoffs (e.g. the copyright holder/original creator of the genre being unable to file claims as fast as new ones pop up). However, I also see huge corporate groups such as "Ketchapp" and "Voodoo" whose entire portfolios more or less consist of slightly altered versions of popular competitors.

How is this feasible? And why does copyright law for digital services, in general, seem so much more impotent than it's physical counterpart. Keep in mind, I am not from a legal background. Just curious, that's all.