Uji lidah mu...

When you write copy you have the right to copyright the copy you write.

You can write good and copyright but copyright doesn't mean copy good

 it might not be right good copy, right?

Now, writers of religious services write rite, and thus have the right to copyright the rite they write.

Conservatives write right copy, and have the right to copyright the right copy they write.

A right wing cleric might write right rite,

and have the right to copyright the right rite he has the right to write.

Her editor has the job of making the right rite copy right before the copyright would be right.

Then it might be copy good copyright.

Should me decide to write, then Mumtaz might write right rite,

which Mumtaz has a right to copyright.

Copying that rite would copy Mumtaz’s right rite, and thus violate copyright,

so Mumtaz would have the legal right to right the wrong. Right?

Legals write writs which is a right or not write writs right but all writs,

copied or not, are writs that are copyright.

Judges make writers write writs right.

Advertisers write copy which is copyright the copy writer's company,

not the right of the writer to copyright.

But the copy written is copyrighted as written, right?

Wrongfully copying a right writ, a right rite or copy is not right.

♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ 

teacher miera