Different Functions of Imitations

No agreement at all, truly. But some people often ask for it and I have no clue why they insist on it. I used to be the one like that. Studies make me change, perhaps. I will not blame the one I used to be but leave them something to them to ponder if they wish to. At this current time, we are not to discuss the specialties in animal area but the common situation based on the world most people live. How can I say about animals or other species? Lots of them have specialties and potentials, however this doesn't mean they live with human lives as well. As human, we certainly do not impose our law, produced by human, to any living individuals. As one might ask, "what if those animals can talk like human and claim their copyright for their works?" First of all, make sure the animals can "really" talk like human, otherwise it is nothing to discuss on it. Next, copyright roughly means that you merely take someone's words, artworks or other things created by the author for making known to the public without the authors' permission and notification. Such idea of copyright, or the making of copyright, is based upon the deeds and lawsuits from human beings only. Aside from other living individuals, most animals and insects barely have the SAME common sense of the copyright than that of the human. It is not only the distinct from communication but also the natural difference from one another. As we know that animals or insects literally follow the law of nature/jungle, while human beings are living with the law we make by ourselves. Some animals or insects, for instance, might attempt to imitate some other conditions such as colors for vision-like, sounds in similarity or fake death in its body appearances as a means to show their domination or disguise in some particular areas if facing the predicament of being preyed on. Such imitation or mimics of animals or insects will surely not be considered as mere the intrusion of privacy from something original for copyright's sake but cunningly unfolds the materials expressed as a meaning or event taking place. With their talent to copying other resources, they transform the environment into the territory of their own, which they reveal the different function from the human being totally.

Creatures beyond human beings evolve themselves especially aligned with the wheel of nature, while human seems to live in the ivory towers carrying on the law produced by themselves. I put this as my third argument for the asking, one remains unnoticeable, that human are inclined to view any kind of fact "in human way," not to mention the one in asking: "what if those animals can talk like human and claim their copyright for their works?" Creatures beyond human call on nothing about the law of copyright, which they does not ask for it! Based on the jungle rule, they definitely have no need of the law of copyright in human's opinion though we keenly pay special attention to them if lacking it. Here I am not saying the unbalancing or unfair condition between human and animals or insects but the requirement of recognizing essential differences in between. Different functions of imitations play different role in human and the creatures beyond human. Not all of the creatures can become human-like. World involves everything pertaining to a great many dimensions to which human scarcely deeply perceive and then effortlessly attain. Having understood the difference between each, one will no longer impose those creatures on living as well as human and furthermore, one will embrace such difference and clearly distinct what we really can give aids to them properly in other aspects related to the environment or ecological preservation.