No, you're really not. You're still resorting to your utterly boring attacks on Mike for the delusions in your head that tell you he hasn't shared his opinions on copyright in the nearly daily posts on the subject for more than a decade.
That is not rational.
If you want to be taken seriously, ever again, you will never once in the future ever ask Mike what his opinions are, or try to bait him into a corner for expressing them in the articles he writes. As soon as you do, you are either back to intentionally trolling, or being completely delusional.
I still think Google is playing the long game and giving them enough rope to hang themselves (much like what they did with the newspapers in Europe).
In a few months, or whenever the next thing with copyright big enough to get mass media coverage happens, Google will be able to say "we did everything you wanted, there has been no drop in piracy, so it's not our fault, your business model is just broken."
There is no scientific way to determine the "optimal" length
Sure there is. So long as you adequately define what the goal of copyright is, it's dead simple to determine some tests that can be performed, or data that can be examined to determine the optimal length of the copyright term.
If the goal is to incentivize new works being created, then examine the number of works being created versus the length of copyright (and for all these examples, as in all well performed scientific studies, control for external factors). If the goal is to allow for greater access to the works that have been created, then we can examine what works are in print or otherwise available, as discussed here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141229/10521029540/how-copyright-makes-culture-disappear.shtml
My understanding of ex post facto is that it applies to criminal law: If something is legal when you do it, it can't be made illegal if the law is changed later.
While I'm not a lawyer, I don't see any reasons that the principle does not apply to civil law.
I guess the same holds true for civil law, but I've not seen it in that context.
Then let me put it into context for you. The "deal" the creator of a work agreed to when given an exclusive right to their idea or expression was that after a limited period of x years, it would then be legal for the public (everyone) to then use that creation in any possible way, regardless of the creators permission or wishes.
If I were to share one of the works in the article, wouldn't I, as a member of the public, be upholding that original deal?
Eldrad/Golan - since I'm not a lawyer, I don't really care about nitpicky details of whether an argument was made. I care about overall principles and whether or not the law in question is good for the public.
As to Congress, if you think Congress speaks for the public, then you're more deluded than you accuse me of being for having anti-copyright views.
What is your opinion on retroactive copyright length extension? I've read all your posts on this page and you've never stated specifically your opinion on retroactive extension. Please do so.
I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
The arrival of commercial versions of VoIP in 1995 created a policy crisis. Did VoIP fall under Title II like all other voice services or remain an non-regulated information service like all other data/computing services. Keep in mind VoIP/Internet were born entirely from non-regulated information services parents.
I find that argument disingenuous. While VoIP and the information services were not regulated, the infrastructure was regulated - the phone lines that most people used to connect to their dial-up modems. All of the non-regulated services would never have been possible without the regulation, going all the way back to the Carterphone regulatory decision.
Can't they just get a subpoena for the person's information followed by a court order?
Yes, of course they can. However, the courts have been pushing back on the bulk fishing expeditions based on nothing more than "we saw these IPs in a bittorrent cloud" bullshit. Which means that the copyright holders have to both do a something more than minimal investigation and cover initial court and legal fees - which is costly upfront and doesn't come remotely close to covering even in the event of a judgement.
The short answer is that the copyright holders want to enforce their rights by pushing all theirs costs onto other services.