And it wouldn't just be an individual asserting rights, it would be a bunch of greedy corporations.
The guy who proposes infinite copyright is also advocating stricter copyright laws. I can only assume this would include the expansion of what is eligible for copyright. How about things that are presently patentable like ideas? Or rectangles with rounded corners. Or colors. Clothing cut patterns. Clothing colors.
Just think what the world looks like only 200 years down the road. It is impossible to express any idea. Any tune. Any kind of text of speech whatsoever. Somewhere in history, that combination of words, chords, colors, etc will have been used. And stricter copyright means that ever smaller and smaller elements should be protectable. Forget Rigthhaven's copyright on words, how about copyrighted letters of the alphabet. Or simply combinations of digrams or trigrams of letters strung together. I, for one, claim copyright on the letters "T" and "H" consecutively put together.
There could be no two maps that are of the same place. I'm sure copyright owning corporations would work out which map makers get the 'copyright' over maps for certain geographical regions like states, or even counties.
Let's do it. Ever stronger copyright. Ever expanding copyright rights. And infinite copyright. Pass the popcorn. This is going to be fun to watch the economic havoc.
The best way to get rid of an unjust law is to enforce it.
The copyright office has been promising for years to digitize their catalog and make it searchable.
But searchable would mean it is like . . . (gasp!) Google!
And digitizing anything to make it searchable is even more unspeakably similar to Google's diabolical efforts to make books searchable and knowledge more generally available!
And that must, um, somehow, mean . . . infringement!
Is making a public catalog searchable really the kind of thing that we want our government to be doing? Doing something like that would have been previously unthinkable. Now we mention it like it's no big deal. What is the world coming to.
I was just going to write something similar. But you expressed it for me.
On the bright side: none of this really matters longer term. Neither incompetent regulators nor terrified legacy giants can stop the Internet video revolution from threatening traditional cable television.
Eventually, they can have total control over no customers.
DRM is worse than simple encryption, because I must be able to control (eg, trust) YOUR computer to do MY will. That is, to decrypt something, but make the crypto keys inaccessible to you. It's all an exercise in obfuscation to make the barrier so high that few or no crackers will discover how to crack the encryption.
Now what arguments could be made that DRM could be used to commit crimes? If I must be able to control your computer in order for you to receive my encrypted message (or music or movie) then imagine the position that puts three letter agency snoopers in?
As long as the encryption has magical golden keys sprinkled with the pure dust of genuine unicorns. The number of golden keys that should unlock the encryption is left unspecified until all interested government parties have put in their requests for copies of the golden keys.
Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
> Oh, and just note what corporation is being defended!
Google is being defended because stupid governments are as fixated on Google, as if it were the only search engine, as much as TechDirt Trolls and Hollywood Dinosaurs are fixated on Google, as if it were the only search engine.