a disadvantage if other countries were not subject to the same restrictions
Envy. Doesn't it ever work?
It's the reason Switzerland has a patent-law. Because Swiss companies had to pay patent royalties to French companies, and they thought it unfair, so they wanted the French companies make them pay as well.
Despite of just about every economist (including the president of the Swiss Industrial Union "Vorort") in Switzerland decrying patents as useless and harmful.
This was in the 1880ies, we and the rest of the world are still suffering.
Re: Terrorists already won the war, unless we get rid of these laws.
Yeah, funny how difficult it is for citizens to change laws, while some madman running around with a towel on his head and a bomb in his underpants immediately gets any repressive law he wants inflicted on the people.
And actually, as far as I can see, there's nothing in the original text that stipulates a certain duration of copyright (apart from a 10 year right to translations).
1896 added this: "Posthumous works shall be included among those to be protected."
and this is from 1908: "The term of protection granted by the present Convention shall include the life of the author and fifty years after his death."
So quite clearly, what we have here is a land grab by the copyright maximalists. And of course, as is usually the case, these laws and treaties were born relatively benign, and got more and more obnoxious with each amendment.
You did not include one defining element of terrorism: It's directed against civilians. It explicitly does not include attacks against any member of any armed forces.
And yes, this means armies can (and do) conduct terrorist attacks, but actions taken by civilians against armed forces are never terrorism.
And this is precisely what separates rebels, freedom fighters and guerillas from terrorists. Yes, all of those can become terrorists too, but only if they target civilians (or intentionally tolerate collateral civilian casualties).
The purpose of patents is to SHARE trade secrets. It is NOT to squirrel away technology nor to charge people who did not use YOUR PARTICULAR trade secret.
No. That's the IDEA of patents. However, they DON'T work this way, apart from the field of chemistry/pharmaceuticals.
Please go read up http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm particularly chapters 8+, where the authors detail that in EVERY FIELD except chemistry/pharmaceuticals, legal costs are always higher than license income. Which makes it quite clear the patent system does not work according to how its supposed to work.
(It can be argued that the patent system is detrimental to the interests of society regarding chemistry/pharmaceuticals, but within itself, it's working as expected.).
That's when you'll find out that Bud and Coors really are completely the same. Total confusion.
Or the opposite. That "Highway to Helles" might sound somehow like a "Helles" (which would be a lager). But after using the product and expecting a lager, you'd be so baffled that it's actually an indian pale ale, you won't ever confuse it with a lager.
This allows the FBI to go jurisdiction-shopping within the USA itself, just by claiming they don't know where the computer is. "Oh, it turned out it was in NY, and we've got a warrant from Ohio. That's ok".
Works you have a copyright in get published on the internet without your consent?
Send a mail to the ISP, he'll tell the culprit who will either a) remove it or b) not.
About 90% of the people that actually _really_ do illegal publishing will take it down immediately.
For the rest, open a civil suit. The content will vanish very fast, UNLESS your claim of copyright is bogus.
You can even streamline this by DEMANDING copyright does not last beyond the death of the artist, and any "orphan" works are immediately turned into public domain. Because then, a lot of the insecurity about whose work it might be and who might be the copyright holder vanishes, leading to a much more clear-cut copyright and to people giving more respect to copyright.
He does have one good point: one of the best parts of TV is talking about TV.
Totally. I like talking about TV: Like how full of ads it is, furthers blatantly some agendas, doesn't show content its bosses don't agree with, fucking beeps over things people say, how it tends to gravitate to the lowest common denominator and so on. There's plenty to talk about TV.