I and a computer vendor agree to a contract that says that, for a specified period of time, I pay the vendor for the right to use the computer. After that period of time, the computer becomes mine to do with as I please.
If the vendor then decides to retroactively change the terms of the contract so that I have to go on paying him indefinitely, then I say "Bad luck. Computer's mine."
This is exactly how it is with copyright. It was agreed, long ago, that inventors, artists, etc. could have a monopoly on their creations for a limited time so that they could profit, and go on creating more stuff. As part of that agreement, the content is to enter the public domain once that limited time is over. Copyright is supposed to be a compromise that allows both the individual creators and society as a whole to be enriched.
By extending copyright retroactively and indefinitely, the government has reneged on that deal. They are taking from us something that the terms of the deal explicitly grant us.
Thanks for the info. This seems like a sensible system that can defend itself to some extent against the letter of the law being used to obtain clearly perverse results.
From what I saw on the video, the cops weren't really harassing him at all. They showed up because Blasdell called them, and if coppers didn't turn up to respond to reported disturbances they wouldn't be doing their job. The fact that Blasdell's complaint was petty and without merit doesn't put the cops in the wrong. I thought the cop who talked to Ean was actually pretty polite and restrained, although he could have expressed himself better.
I think once you start doing things like replacing electrons with muons or other particles, it's going to rapidly become hard to think of new names for these things. Better just to describe what it is.
Re: Re: Just So Long As They Don’t Take Away The Second Amendment...
That is probably true in terms of pure material and technological resources, access to weaponry, etc. But I think if America ever had a government corrupt and evil enough for the people to rise up in armed revolution, and the government tried to get the military to open fire on the citizens... well, I think it would go very badly indeed for the government.
This argument between Oswald and the funeral place is going to increase publicity of the auction and potentially boost the price of the coffin. So even if the funeral people have to come to some kind of settlement with Oswald to divvy up the loot, they'll probably still do well out of it.
I don't know about Spanish real estate law, but many countries stipulate that to take possession of a piece of real estate you actually have to set foot there. Perhaps she could go at night.
On the post: NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count
Re: Re: But, um...
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
I and a computer vendor agree to a contract that says that, for a specified period of time, I pay the vendor for the right to use the computer. After that period of time, the computer becomes mine to do with as I please.
If the vendor then decides to retroactively change the terms of the contract so that I have to go on paying him indefinitely, then I say "Bad luck. Computer's mine."
This is exactly how it is with copyright. It was agreed, long ago, that inventors, artists, etc. could have a monopoly on their creations for a limited time so that they could profit, and go on creating more stuff. As part of that agreement, the content is to enter the public domain once that limited time is over. Copyright is supposed to be a compromise that allows both the individual creators and society as a whole to be enriched.
By extending copyright retroactively and indefinitely, the government has reneged on that deal. They are taking from us something that the terms of the deal explicitly grant us.
On the post: Man Claims Apple Investigators Pretended To Be SF Police In Searching For Lost iPhone Prototype [Updated: Or Not]
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doublething
On the post: Swedish Teenager Turned Over To Police By School Headmaster For File Sharing Acquitted By Court
Re: Lay Judges
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Distant Discoveries
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Scientific Measurements
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Scientific Measurements
Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Just So Long As They Don’t Take Away The Second Amendment...
On the post: Sheriff Files Criminal Complaint Against Reporter For Asking Questions He Didn't Like
Re:
On the post: Lee Harvey Oswald's Brother Sues Funeral Home For Selling Oswald's Old Coffin
Hmmm...
On the post: Woman Claims Legal Loophole Means She Now Owns The Sun... And She Wants You To Pay Up
Next >>