"Petitioners also urge that the Government's position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive“limited” terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case."
How can the Supreme Court say that with a straight face?
The content gatekeepers feel that, once they shovel over some "campaign contributions", the politicians they bought will belong to them forever. What a pity they don't feel the same way about the music and movies we buy.
How does a creator benefit from copyright that extends beyond their death? Do you believe the deceased write books, code software or compose music? These indefinite copyright extensions only benefit people who want to be paid for other peoples' work.
A limited copyright, so that the artist can make a living by creating works, is fair. But if the artist wants to keep getting paid, they have to keep working. Limiting copyright impels them to keep creating, as well as eventually opening up their work for others to build on and create from.
Creative projects are of little value if others can't be inspired by them, build on them, improve on them and incorporate them into new and bigger things. Infinite copyright effectively forbids that, so it actually reduces the value of everything that is created.
Face it. The conclusion is inescapable. Infinite copyright suppresses creativity and benefits only middlemen and gatekeepers who contribute nothing. Everything that is created needs to eventually enter the public domain so that it becomes the property of everyone everywhere.
It's possible, but unlikely. Why spend so much time and effort? They would have had to set up the racist witch doctor in advance, implying they'd planned this for quite a while, and the bogus C & D demand was risky. What if the institute had folded? All that effort, time and risk just to make themselves look good? Seems awfully elaborate for something so petty. Are these people Scooby Doo villains?
They could have just given the MAI a bunch of money in the first place.
Re: "this kind of story becoming a lot more common if"
"Thankfully the situation was resolved when Wright reached out to the person sending the letter, who apologized and withdrew the claim."
That's kind of the point. If the person making the false claim had maintained it, Wright would have had no recourse. If a system can only NOT persecute the innocent if you naively assume it will never be abused, and that all disagreements will be settled with smiles and handshakes, then it is a bad system. Do you really not see that?
Australia already has laws in place to deal with assault and threats, and ones which deal with obstruction of officials in their duties. But insults? No public figure is, or should be, immune from criticism or ridicule.
Michael O'Brien is a precious, wall-eyed little git.
How do we actually know what the King of Thailand thinks of this whole thing? According to the BBC article he is pretty sick and has been in hospital for a while, so he may not have even known about it. For all we know this is just an overzealous overreaction from some idiot bureaucrats, without to do with the King.