Gotta disagree here. Parents have a huge effect on who their children become. The issue is that most of the direct conscious decisions parents make only have a small effect. Yes, much of the behavior kids learn is from their environment and community - but remember that the people those kids are around the most during their development are their parents.
It's not that your kid turned out ok *because* you took him to a museum or helped him with his homework - but that *you're the type of person* that would want to take your kid to a museum and help him with his homework that matters more, because its the type that impacts all the things you do.
Do you have a perfectly objective system for copyright that you think would work better?
No copyright for anything, for anyone, would be a perfectly objective system. Anything that anyone creates would be fair game without any restrictions for everyone else to use/change/profit from however they could manage.
A completely even playing field in terms of the law. What's not to love about that?
but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for?
I'll raise my hand to that.
I think every single person on this planet should have unrestricted access to the sum total of human knowledge, ideas, and culture. That is the ultimate goal.
I think intentional restriction of that goal of sharing is the immoral act.
Now, I live in the real world, so I understand that there will be some barriers based on economic scarcities (real scarcities, not made up ones), so I'm not saying that Hollywood *has to* buy every kid in underdeveloped countries an iPod and build their internet infrastructure so they can listen to American pop music. However once that infrastructure exists, why *shouldn't* those kids have access to all of those ideas when the real marginal costs to provide it is vanishingly close to zero?
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.