All the way back to the Statute of St Anne and before this term was for publishing rights, it was never really even about authors. anything beyond dead is pointless if tits for the author. The US constitution seems to be a high point in terms of sensible copyright law, but it's been all downhill since.
If these people can't make their money off 14 years they will never make it. I believe for transient stuff like software and so on, the limit is substantially less. 14 years or the death of the author would make a lot more sense, if its the author we are worrying about.
And the crazy thing is that it won't be long till obtaining a tele without these "features" will be more expensive. Me? All I need my TV to do today is be a monitor. It does not need to: - listen to me - talk to me - be connected to the internet I'll stick to the remote for the timebeing...
You have it arse backwards. Torture is pretty useless at extracting accurate information (intel). It is effective at extracting confessions - they will confess to ANYTHING. You can get a hardened criminal to confess to being the father of Mickey Mouse if you want. If you want genuine intel, you don't torture people. If you want someone to say things you want them to say torturing them might work.
Now, there were those in the bush administration that had an agenda - war in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They were never going to get intel for this attack - the actual intel operatives were pulled off and the torture began - and those tortured started saying things the torturers wanted them to say. Tell me now, how did 9/11 make this desirable or necessary?
A lot of people died in Iraq. Torturing people instead of gathering intelligence costs lives.
Moral posturing isn't even necessary to debunk your argument.
As far as I can tell, the apparent concern for their own IP is driven entirely by their demands for money, and that they seem to see every conceivable use of IP in their purview as a demand money or deny use. In many cases, the demand for money will be as a 'look how effective we are' to a rightsholder, with no value to anyone. MPAA practices this hard...
As far as I am aware, all of these organisations (MPAA, RIAA and evil clones, IP scrapers, IP protection 'societies') have two things in common: - they really do not care at all about intellectual properties - they all want money, lots of it, and any old reason will do
The disconnect in the Sony case is not so much the network, but the network management team who appear to think its cheaper to insure against the loss than prevent the loss. The lax network structure and security is the product of uncritical doublethink in the boardroom. Unlikely that they'll revisit that once they have put out all the fires...
So given how substantial the problems are with ISDS, and how questionable the benefits, who are the people (other than large corporates) that are actually pursuing these? Of course the corporates like them, it transfers risk from their business to a country's public... but that would seem to be an extremely good reason in and of itself to reject ISDS. I'd have to applaud Indonesia's decision to dissolve these ASAP and hope other countries follow suit. With any luck, in 10 years time these things will be so poisonous that even the USTR will stop banging its drum for them.