(no title)
TheAmazingIdiot | 13 years ago
The social contract in the constitution was to grant people with limited exclusivity for works they created. Patents have roughly stayed within that parameter (with exception to patent abuses on design and software).
For copyright, it was originally 17 years, extendable another 17 years. Works released in 1981 (my date of birth) will expire in 120 years. I will be dead before they are in public domain.
The social contract was 'reneogiated' by campaign donations, without input from the people. The supreme court found that forever extensions the way congress is implementing them as 'constitutional' and it was Congress's problem.
So yes, I believe that should open up the debate on piracy as a legitimate solution.
waterlesscloud|13 years ago
The reality is that most of "the people" just don't care about this issue. But they've had their input.
TheCapn|13 years ago
Would you honestly say that you would vote for a representative who agreed with you on copyright agenda but disagreed on all other aspects (or at the very least, most of the categories that are directly important to you)? That's the choice we're asked to make. Should I re-elect Senator Y if he is copyright lobbyist's bitch? He does however take strong stances on the issues A, B and C which I do like though.
CodeMage|13 years ago
I'll never understand why people think this is a valid argument. We're being asked to conflate topics that are not closely related and, by voting, make unnecessary compromises. An overhaul of democracy is pretty much overdue.