There is a fine distinction here that people need to realize: copyrights and the rules created by these organizations are actually critically important to help artists retain at least some chance of making money off their work in the world we live in today. The ability to reproduce and sell someone else's hard work is easier today than ever before.

That being said, there needs to be a distinction about what exactly is protect-able. The original post had a VERY good point to make: that most Pop Art isn't even the work of the artist showcasing it. It is mostly the appropriation of copywritten material or simply other people's work, often times without permission.

Participating in this form of expression is fine and dandy, but to then try and subject it to the same rules and standards that were tossed out the window to make the work in the first place is downright stupid. Don't attack the rules: they are becoming increasingly important for modern artists (who do NOT "appropriate" other peoples' work). Attack the idiots who think that Pop Art, the very form that ignored those rules in the first place, deserves that very protection.