American slavery literally bore zero resemblance to Biblical indentured servitude.
Yeah, no, it was absolutely slavery, you were very much allowed to split families up and use them as 'hostages' in order to force a man to choose between slavery with his family and freedom without them, and the book only said you weren't allowed to beat them to death, you could absolutely beat them as long as they died later from your actions.
The trick I see attempted often is that the bible mentions two types of slavery, the enslavement of Hebrews, which get the 'nice' treatment(but are still property), and the enslavement of non-Hebrews, which are absolutely considered property, and can be dealt with as such.
Exodus 21:2-6 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
(Want to stay with your wife and kids? No problem, all it will cost is your freedom for the rest of your life)
Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
(You can beat your property, as long as they don't die immediately from it. If they last a week and then die, you're fine.)
Leviticus 25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
(As long as the people you enslave are from another tribe, if they're living in your area, they're fair game, whether adult of child. And once enslaved, they are to be treated as just another piece of property, and can be passed down to your children or sold as such.)
So you don't 'attack' him with the hose, just tell him if he's not gone in 2 minutes you'll be turning the sprinklers on. Somehow I doubt 'He attacked me with the sprinklers when I wouldn't leave his property!' would go over very well in court.
You can practically taste the desperation they have got to be feeling over the idea of some real competition entering the market.
"You don't need gig connections, no-one needs gig connections! And who would want those anyway, that's way more than you could possibly use! And even if you did want it, we've already got the connections needed, you just need to pay us approximately all your money and we'll consider maybe hooking you up!"
And yet, amazingly, the USTR's Special 301 report says nothing about this abuse of copyright law in a manner that clearly impacts human rights and civil liberties (not to mention the chilling effects on education and research).
They say nothing about those things because to them, and the ones adding entries to the list, they are inconsequential at best, if not desired. I have no doubt at all that if a country eliminated even the idea of Fair Use in their laws, the USTR would be holding them up as an example of how other countries should act, and praising them for their 'dedication to protecting the IP of companies and creators'.
This is not a a free market. A free market wouldn't include laws paid for by the major ISP's to make sure that states and local communities aren't allowed to create competing networks such that the major ISP's might actually have to give a damn how they treat their customers.
It's not 'my idea', it's the stated purpose and justification of copyright in the US.
'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'
Pay close attention to those bolded words, as they define what parts are the goal, versus what parts are the means to reach that goal. The 'exclusive rights' granted by copyright are not the former, but clearly fall under the latter category.
I assume you are referencing the Constitution, a document that also protected slavery and defined black people as 3/fifths of a person?
And freedom of speech, ending slavery, various other rights, and oh yes, providing the legal justification for US copyright in the first place. Yeah, that's the one I'm referring to all right.
The evolution of the artist from being a back door servant dependent on the whims of the rich to being able to take his art directly to the public and so being self sufficient without the patronage of lords and kings is a social phenomenon that developed over the course of the 19th century.
Say instead 'the last couple of decades', and you'd be more accurate. The difference between rich patrons, and major labels was primarily a matter of clothing, how they treated artists was pretty much the same. In either case, if you wanted to be known, or have any chance at all of becoming famous, you had to go through them, both sides knew it, and the 'patrons' used this fact to make the 'terms' be completely in their favor.
It's only as new services have shown up that have allowed creator to connect directly with fans and would-be-fans, rather than having to go through a parasitic middleman(labels rather than rich patrons), that musicians and other types of creators have begun to truly be able to offer their works directly, and maintain control and ownership over their creations.
I don’t understand your outrage that a creative person is allowed to share in the profit from his work.
My 'outrage' stems from the fact that copyright was meant to be a deal between the public and creators, wherein the public would give up certain rights for a limited time period in order to incentivise the creation of more works, and in exchange those works would, after the limited time period was over, pass into the public domain, so that the next 'branch' of creativity could grow from those works.
My 'outrage' stems from the fact that the 'deal' has been completely broken, such that the public gets nothing out of it, leaving the 'deal' utterly one-sided.
My 'outrage' stems from the fact that copyright has been 'amended' several times, every single time in a manner not in the public's favor, and always retroactively and thanks to rich parasites who abhor the idea that the public domain might actually grow, ever.
I don't have any problem with the idea that a creator be rewarded for their creation, so long as that 'reward', and the means to it, are within reason. Durations that are for all intents and purposes eternal, the ability for copyright owners to threaten people with absolutely obscene amounts over minor infractions, the constant and unrelenting pushing to have third parties do all the work and foot all the bills in order to 'protect' the 'poor artists'... none of that is within reason.
The public benefits from artists being able to sustain their careers .
Just because something is good for the copyright owner(rarely the actual creator until very recently), does not automatically make it good for the public. The public is best served by creations moving into the public domain, so that they can build upon them and make even more stuff, yet copyright law has been twisted to such an extent that that pretty much never happens in the US anymore.
The careers and works of these creators was only made possible by the control , security and freedom that they derived from owning their compositions.
(Ignoring for the moment I'm almost dead certain that very few, if any of those artists actually owned any of the rights to 'their' music...)
Or it could have been because they all had hair, or spoke languages understood by their fans, or made music that people wanted to listen to and were willing to buy so they could support the musicians and listen more.
A good number(the majority I would guess) of other musicians also had that 'control, security, and freedom...' and never struck it big, never got famous, never got rich, and were forgotten, their music ignored or gathering dust, with the musicians themselves stuck looking for other work.
Why, it's almost as though copyright wasn't the thing that made them rich and famous... /s
As opposed to the monetization of music as practiced by Google, Pandora and Spottily where the money just gets recirculated in world of venture capital, thus reinforcing the current dilemma of the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer.
Please, you want to talk about the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer with regards to music, look no farther than the recording industry, where they've honed fleecing artists to a form of art. Whether it's completely one sided 'take it or get out' contracts, 'advances' that get re-paid several times over by the time the band makes any money at all, being forced to sign over the rights to their own music, and various other tricks, no one screws artists over like a major label.
Why do you feel a sense of injustice if some retired bluesman is able to use his royalties to buy an oxygen tank? Should the music of the past only fill the tank of Daniel Ek’s private jet? Or buy Pandora’s Tim Westerberg another yacht?
...Or pay for a record labels exec's multi-million dollar 'bonus'?
Funny thing about using an appeal to emotion based upon royalties, as example after example after example after example after example after example after example show, record labels and 'collection' agencies hate actually paying those out, and that poor retired bluesman is probably completely out of luck, unless he was smart enough to save up some money to cover his retirement, because he's not likely to get anything from his music a couple of decades past.
I like how you seem to think he has nothing better to do than obsessively browse through all the articles on the site in order to spot any comments that may be directed his way, as though his not 'answering' you promptly would in any way mean anything other than he has other things to do or that he never saw your comment.
I may not know how to fix a car, but if I see one stalling out every two blocks, I would still be justified in pointing out that it's clearly broken, and someone should look into finding out the problem and fixing it.
Just because you don't have an answer on how to fix something, does not make pointing out that it's broken and in need of fixing any less important. It's a rare problem that gets solved without enough people admitting that it is a problem after all.
Interesting, so it's 'childish' to point out when a government agency screws up and provide evidence to support your claim as such, but being as your yourself state 'petty' in ignoring filings by someone who made you look like a fool isn't? Nice standards there.
If a mechanic fixes up a car that's used in a business(perhaps delivery of some sort), does he deserve a cut of all the profits made from it?
If an architect designs a building that a company then uses, does he get a cut of their profits?
Does someone who builds and sells a chair get paid each time someone sits down on it?
In pretty much every other field of business, the creator gets paid once for their creation, when they sell it, rather than creating one thing and then getting paid for it for the rest of their lives(plus several decades after).
You'd better be careful there, pointing out when and where the USPTO has screwed up is now considered an 'improper protest' if you do so using examples.
If you want to say that they made a mistake, you have to use broad, general language, like 'they may have made a mistake granting a patent at some point, though unfortunately I can't give you any examples'.
The best counter to the idea that copyright should be treated as just another form of property takes the form of a single word:
People pay taxes on their houses, their cars, and other forms of 'property'. If copyright is to be seen, and treated as, property, then it should be taxed just the same. And much like other taxes, not paying would lead to it being seized. Don't pay the taxes on your house? You lose it. Don't pay the taxes on your car? You lose it. Don't pay the taxes on your copyright? You lose it.
Not to mention, taxes are based upon the value of the property in question, and if simply infringing on a copyright is worth tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, then the value of a given copyright, and the taxes based upon it, are likely to be immense.
Suddenly that idea of 'copyright is property' isn't looking so great, is it?
copyright ownership should be for the life of the creator. not a day less, not a day more.
Why? Benefiting creators is the side-effect of copyright, not the goal. The goal of copyright is to benefit the public, by incentivising creators to make more stuff, and have that stuff enter into the public domain so other people can use it to build their own creations.
And I don't know about you, but locking a creation up past the lifespan of pretty much anyone living when it was created, and allowing someone to coast by on one creation for their entire life doesn't seem to be incentivising more creations, or serving the public by enriching the public domain.
it’s probably a good idea to add 10 years so distributors aren’t tempted to murder artists so they don’t have to pay them.
This is hardly the first time I've seen this particular argument, but honestly, it never gets any less stupid. Murder is already illegal, very much so.
Make other arguments for why copyright should be a certain duration, or not tied to the lifespan of the creator, but leave the completely ridiculous 'We can't make it last the lifespan of the creator, because someone might murder them so they don't have to pay licensing fees' argument at home.
So the labels and recording industry know how valuable radio-play is, to the point where they go out of their way to pay(first directly, now indirectly) to get their music played, and yet 'collection' agencies seem to be determined to crush any way for people to actually listen to the radio.
Yet more evidence that it has nothing to do with 'protecting the artist', and everything to do with the middle-men getting paid.
Don't think they haven't tried, at least one group tried to shake down a library for having the gall to read stories to children, and more than a few maximalists have bemoaned how libraries are 'stealing' from them due to the fact that multiple people are able to read a book that was only purchased once.
When you think about it, I just cannot see why any of them would use that argument in favor of women being forced to cover their whole bodies, as it's seems to be horribly demeaning and humiliating... for the men.
That's basically admitting that the men over there have less self-control than children in other countries, who seem to be able to restrain themselves just fine. That just does not seem to be something you'd want to admit to, and yet there there are, doing just that, claiming that large numbers of men in their areas lack an ability that children elsewhere manage just fine.
Apple and Google are using an unreasonable, hypothetical narrative of government intrusion as the rationale for the new encryption software, ignoring altogether the facts as I’ve just explained them.
Maybe that's because his 'facts' are wrong and the 'hypotheticals' aren't?
The government absolutely is involved in massive intrusive spying on the public, and it wasn't too long ago that a case made it before the Supreme Court, where they had to explain to police that yes, rummaging around through someone's phone or electronic device was indeed a 'search', and required a warrant as a result. There is nothing 'hypothetical' about those situations, they have happened, and continue to happen.
If the government and police don't like the thought of losing one of their favorite toys, then maybe they should have acted responsibly with it in the first place.