I'd like to see John Oliver do a followup segment on how Tom Wheeler is clearly still a dingo; but in having ripped the pant legs off Pai and O'Reilly and taken a few chunks out of their buttocks, has shown that dingos can in fact make very good pets. Good boy, Tom!
Lawsuits over speech are a bad idea. I'm hopeful though, that if FOX continues on its current trajectory they'll ultimately be forced to hand over their choice seating at press events to Comedy Central. Sorry, Heraldo, real reporters coming through, . .
Off on a tangent, my ultimate fantasy would be to witness John Oliver get SCOTUS press credentials. --
I hope this doesn't break the internet, but I'm going to give credit where credit is due; antidirt, you're a trooper. Why, I have no idea, and I won't go there; that's between you and your professional psychiatric caregiver.
I'm going to simply provide an observation which I won't spend further time arguing about; take it FWIW. In all your attempts at rebuttals, and efforts to support your points, you have cited past law and legal opinions numerous times. Law is of course built (some might say arguably) on great ideas, and the thinking of others. I'd like to point out that great works of intellect are not exclusive to the legal profession. Obviously, this leads us right back to the original post this train wreck of a dialog should have been about- what gets lost when the thinking of others is sequestered.
If you have any kind of an imagination, you can understand that just as with law, great works in all the intellectual and creative disciplines of mankind have immeasurable value when others can access them, modify them, build upon them. No need for me to go further; you either get it or you don't. See you around.
'A' for effort, One Guy. Too bad there isn't an honest dialog taking place that would make your effort worthwhile.
As antidirt wrote, "It seems everyone here can form an opinion."
I'd like to point out that it seems everyone but him. If this were an honest discussion, he might eventually get around to providing specifics and a clear rationale to support his unstated, though implied, opinion that current copyright term length is just peachy (and perhaps should last forever?)
The original post was about illustrating the COST of extended copyright terms by listing works that would have entered the public domain but for term extensions. Quantifying that cost comes down to subjective measurement, a matter of imagining what would be the result of people being able to share the wit, wisdom, and science contained in the works, rather than having them lay dormant. Funny that; not something antidirt cared to tackle. See, if this were an honest dialog, antidirt would have done that, given us his opinion on what those costs are, and then what benefit to society he sees in a copyright term of life + time until our sun runs out of hydrogen; finally, he'd elaborate on why he feels the benefits outweigh the costs.
But nope, Rule #1 of engaging in a BS adversarial dialog is, don't volunteer anything that's not absolutely necessary. So fat chance you'll squeeze anything out of him that can be held up for examination.
Obviously there's no reasonable dialog happening here, there's only just a troll picking at whatever loose threads he can in other's statements, and I don't see any purpose in point-by-point exchanges. Go enjoy a cold one, or whatever. antidirt's lawyerly response of "life + 70 is a limited time" is too asinine for words. We're all well aware who's the jerk sitting in his own steaming pile.
I'd bet all my Quatloos that we'd do better by looking at more sterile environments where next-gen life would probably want to be. Suppose for a minute you could do a 100% redesign of all your bodily systems, live comfortably in a far wider range of environments than your current meat suits; would you really want a high oxygen atmosphere that corrodes your gizmos, the risk of having some biologic screw with your circuits, or have any desire to physically depend on the drippy, oozy life systems of a planet such as Earth? Probably not. FYI- you Earthlings would be shocked to know just how many shots are needed to come here.
I agree, art is not created in a vacuum; in fact, I've made that exact same argument to lots of would-be artists I've encountered in my twenty-plus years as a professional illustrator. I'd even go so far as to agree that life experience is probably the single most essential ingredient to creating anything worthwhile.
But there's this multiplier of talent, called "craft." Few masterpieces ever spring forth from a virgin birth without lots of sweat, failure, and more sweat in the beginning. On top of that, there are some art forms in which it's absolutely critical for an artist to have a deep reservoir of experience as a craftsman, someone who can combine technical know-how with a trained eye or ear, to have any hope of success. This more often than not is acquired from being in the trenches a while; whether behind a stage, in an orchestra, or in a studio. As you've noted, there are exceptions; in particular, in disciplines where one's craftsmanship can be honed outside of an industry setting.
I can't begin to tell you how many young artists I've encountered who have natural talent, but lack the skills to be more than just another amateur who's waiting tables. That's a different kind of vacuum- an ignorance of the tools and techniques that are needed for success, and another place where art goes to die.
"Artists are incentivized to create works because it's in their nature to do so."
Not necessarily untrue. However, modern civilization depends on people being physically/financially able to specialize in what they're good at. We get better art, literature, science, music, and everything else when people are able to do that.
Too bad copyright doesn't serve this purpose quite so much anymore (if it ever did), now that it's been re-tasked as a tool for corporations seeking profits from ownership and rent, rather than creation. --
Let's be really, really accurate for once. The entities crying "piracy!" have zero incentive to refrain from going way over the line and turning what they're selling as benevolent "protection" into commercial weaponry. Wholesale removal of democratic constraints, the ability to suppress competition without that bothersome due-process nonsense, maybe even achieving that holy grail of modern capitalism, getting money for nothing, via Investor State Dispute Resolution? It's all good to them, baby.
I'm thinking the COMCAST VIP cards are no more significant than any other bit of gold-foiled ephemera handed out to the pampered ones. What class of human beings responds more to meaningless trinkets and shiny baubles than the political class?
Of greater importance IMO is an omission in the Hill's article on COMCAST's lobbying- one of my favorite D.C. critters was not mentioned, long-time COMCAST lobbyist former Sen. Don Nickles and his firm, the Nickles Group LLC. While the Nickles Group is only middle of the pack in terms of COMCAST's lobbying dollars (OpenSecrets.org) The New York Times mentions that Sen. Nickles is one of the hotshots on Comcast's Time Warner merger strategy team (NYT- Comcast’s Web of Lobbying and Philanthropy) And just this past week, one of Don Nickles' right-hand lobbyists, and dedicated servant of COMCAST, Hazen Marshall, was named Mitch McConnell's policy director. (POLITICO- GOP goes on K Street hiring spree).
May you continue to enjoy your fine COMCAST customer service in the coming new year, with help from the U.S. Senate leadership. --
If you stop to think about it, a BJ in a stall indicates a politician who's motivated by something other than money, has impulse control issues, and maybe can be turned or compromised by a competitor on the cheap.
The moneyed interests naturally would like their political purchases to be predictable; simple creatures that respond to money only.