Seems to me to be a great way of punishing people who are not jerks at all, just unpopular through no real fault of their own. These would include young people, people who do not have English as their first language, people with unfashionable political or religious opinions, etc. That is, the same kinds of people who get rubbished unfairly on every other internet community in the world. What will inevitably happen is the development of a powerful clique of high profile users who will enforce conformity through financial disincentives.
When you consider the copyright maximalist position of the German government, an amalgam of the words "verbatim" and "verboten" seems somehow appropriate.
Oh, I agree. Some of the GMO producers (eg. Monsanto) aren't doing themselves any favours with their unscrupulous behaviour. But this is part of the problem. If you're justified in attacking a company over its unethical business practices you feel more able to attack it over other things as well- such as the science, where your justification may not be as strong.
Look at the case of "big pharma" for example. People have a go at them for their greed and shameless profiteering, and rightly so. But then some turn around and say that if "big pharma" are willing to do this then obviously all their drugs are going to just make people sick and keep them sick rather than healing them because all they care about is money and not about people. And so you get dangerous idiots like the antivax movement, faith healers, and homeopaths cashing in on people's ill-informed mistrust of the evil scary corporations. I don't really see the fear of GMO food as being any different.
I can dislike a company's practices without being paranoid of the science.
"Petitioners also urge that the Government's position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive“limited” terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case."
How can the Supreme Court say that with a straight face?
The content gatekeepers feel that, once they shovel over some "campaign contributions", the politicians they bought will belong to them forever. What a pity they don't feel the same way about the music and movies we buy.
How does a creator benefit from copyright that extends beyond their death? Do you believe the deceased write books, code software or compose music? These indefinite copyright extensions only benefit people who want to be paid for other peoples' work.
A limited copyright, so that the artist can make a living by creating works, is fair. But if the artist wants to keep getting paid, they have to keep working. Limiting copyright impels them to keep creating, as well as eventually opening up their work for others to build on and create from.
Creative projects are of little value if others can't be inspired by them, build on them, improve on them and incorporate them into new and bigger things. Infinite copyright effectively forbids that, so it actually reduces the value of everything that is created.
Face it. The conclusion is inescapable. Infinite copyright suppresses creativity and benefits only middlemen and gatekeepers who contribute nothing. Everything that is created needs to eventually enter the public domain so that it becomes the property of everyone everywhere.
Re: Here's a better amendment!
...and 4) No riders!
No more bills like "Fight pedophilia (and extend copyright terms until the heat death of the universe)"
(untitled comment)
Seems to me to be a great way of punishing people who are not jerks at all, just unpopular through no real fault of their own. These would include young people, people who do not have English as their first language, people with unfashionable political or religious opinions, etc. That is, the same kinds of people who get rubbished unfairly on every other internet community in the world. What will inevitably happen is the development of a powerful clique of high profile users who will enforce conformity through financial disincentives.
(untitled comment)
what dafuq did I just watch?
Re: Re: Re:
When you consider the copyright maximalist position of the German government, an amalgam of the words "verbatim" and "verboten" seems somehow appropriate.
(untitled comment)
If the facts don't agree with your political ideology, then too bad for your political ideology.
Re: Re:
Insightful times Aleph-Zero.
Re:
Yes, well, didn't the guy who killed Michael Jackson get a lesser sentence than someone who downloaded some of his music?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I agree. Some of the GMO producers (eg. Monsanto) aren't doing themselves any favours with their unscrupulous behaviour. But this is part of the problem. If you're justified in attacking a company over its unethical business practices you feel more able to attack it over other things as well- such as the science, where your justification may not be as strong.
Look at the case of "big pharma" for example. People have a go at them for their greed and shameless profiteering, and rightly so. But then some turn around and say that if "big pharma" are willing to do this then obviously all their drugs are going to just make people sick and keep them sick rather than healing them because all they care about is money and not about people. And so you get dangerous idiots like the antivax movement, faith healers, and homeopaths cashing in on people's ill-informed mistrust of the evil scary corporations. I don't really see the fear of GMO food as being any different.
I can dislike a company's practices without being paranoid of the science.
Re: Re:
"In fact, if GMOs are so great, presumably you'd be proud to sell labeled GMO foodstuffs."
That's difficult, considering the amount of fearmongering and misinformation spread by the opponents of GMO food.
Re:
Doesn't this petition go some way towards doing that?
(untitled comment)
"Petitioners also urge that the Government's position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive“limited” terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case."
How can the Supreme Court say that with a straight face?
Re: Re: Re: ?
You forgot
4. Taking your business away from a company that supports things you don't like is a violation of the company's right of free speech.
Re: Honest Politician
The content gatekeepers feel that, once they shovel over some "campaign contributions", the politicians they bought will belong to them forever. What a pity they don't feel the same way about the music and movies we buy.
Re: Re: Re:
Bucketloads of cash.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two words: entitlement culture.
"This is mine, I have the right to keep it forever! Nobody else is allowed to use it! Pay me!"
Re: Re: Re:
How does a creator benefit from copyright that extends beyond their death? Do you believe the deceased write books, code software or compose music? These indefinite copyright extensions only benefit people who want to be paid for other peoples' work.
A limited copyright, so that the artist can make a living by creating works, is fair. But if the artist wants to keep getting paid, they have to keep working. Limiting copyright impels them to keep creating, as well as eventually opening up their work for others to build on and create from.
Creative projects are of little value if others can't be inspired by them, build on them, improve on them and incorporate them into new and bigger things. Infinite copyright effectively forbids that, so it actually reduces the value of everything that is created.
Face it. The conclusion is inescapable. Infinite copyright suppresses creativity and benefits only middlemen and gatekeepers who contribute nothing. Everything that is created needs to eventually enter the public domain so that it becomes the property of everyone everywhere.
Re:
You'd think a total wanker like him would have an effective stress relief method close at hand.
Re:
Your fear and desparation are amusing.
Re:
Your fear and desparation are amusing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The lesson of the day...
"Have any real proof? Other than all the proof you've already shown?"
FTFY.