I agree. We've lost our focus if this is what the next important thing is.
Voice recognition is what comes to mind but some will say it's not private enough and they are right.
Holograms appear to be something coming down (although I'm not clear how) but is that going to be input friendly since there will be no feedback while typing mid air?
The there's those slim LCDs that can be rolled out, maybe a few years down the road we can make it work reliably.
kids are present, the speed limit should be 40" comment. So much for the science eh? Speed laws are mostly emotive and political.
It's based on statistics I presented in earlier comments but I guess you already forgot because you have no faith in anybody else than yourself. I would suggest you start working on your campaign since your government obviously suck and you have so much to offer (I'm not being offensive but rather honest. You should if it's that bad where you live)!
Never did. Speed laws are mostly emotive and political, not science.
Prove it. I sent you many links showing the studies made to assess speed limit requirements. You're assuming your peers (other human beings) aren't doing their due diligence and that's a very poor argument. Just to recap 2 of the many metrics used: 1. The 85th percentile is one of the metrics used to assess compliance 2. Fatalities and injuries are used for assessing if the change is effective
Depends what you do. Office 97 was horrible by today's standard as it didn't deal with many content types which made creating marketing documents a nightmare. Open Office is fine but it too has it's limitations. As I stated in an earlier post, you can't put all users in the same basket, if you could then MS wouldn't sell any office software.
Buying software is like buying a car. You buy it for your needs. Open office and equivalent are great and they offer a basic feature set that suits most users at home and many users in business like environments. Last I checked it has macro support and many other minor extensions to expand it's feature set.
Then you have those who need to extend the basic functionality or integrate it with their services. MS Office offers a huge lineup of integration with its own product as well as products developed by 3rd parties. If that's what you business needs then the cost is just a minor bump in the road that usually is justified with efficiency gains, reductions in errors, redundancy and better organization. For those who don't understand how MS office can help you achieve the aforementioned you can go read the feature list.
You can calm down bud. It's a forum and we both are speaking our opinions. You have your opinion and that fine but that doesn't mean most agree with you.
You suggest the survey is flawed but you have no proof of this. In my business circle most feel the same way I do especially after I put the arguments on the table. Putting aside intellectual property and sales leads, you still can't control your customer's opinion of Snowden. If you own a McDonald, your customers don't give a crap about who works there but if you are a security consultant with potential access to company information that is a different story.
A company like Google could potentially twist it in their favour but not everybody has a strong position in the business world like they do.
You can choose to disagree for yourself but keep in mind that not everybody agrees with you.
It doesn't stifle creative output if you look at the true definition of creativity but that's aside the point. My point is that copyright didn't prevent people from coming up with new content. I'm sure it slowed it down but what do we care, we have enough to go around ten times. Let the dicks be dicks about their copyrights.
There cannot be a baseline to compare with. People create plenty of content regardless of these copyright laws. It's only a problem when it makes it big and when it does there's enough money for all to share regardless of it being right to have to share. The bigger problem is how broad the copyright is, not the length. If I release work containing ABBBB AA BB today and a year from now you release work containing AA BB in it, I can potentially go after you for copyright infringement.
Please delete all your accounts, format your computer, and sell it to a homeless Frenchman as a broken etch-a-sketch. You are to dim to be allowed to have an opinion anymore. Please report to the nearest construction site and volunteer as landfill, for which you are actually qualified/quote
And that 40km/h zone suddenly gets applied outside of school hours too without warning, at 3am at night and on weekends. Yet strangely in wealthy suburbs with lots of lawyers their schools are somehow exempt. I'd love to hear your scientific theory for why that is?
Maybe you live in a mythical world where your imagination allows you to create arguments using rare occurrences. I mean if we are going to use exceptions to asses the situation then I don't know what to tell you. BTW, not only school zones require 40km/h zones. There are plenty of residential areas where kids are present in numbers that justify 40km/h as a deterrent for speeding since the fines are high.
Earth was supposed to be flat,
That's a well worn myth.
Yes it was but some did believe and push that agenda. Regardless there are other examples like earth being the center of the universe...
we weren't supposed to go on the moon
Says who?
There are some today that still push the idea that we never landed on the moon.
and flight was never going to become an important method of transportation.
Says who?
History of the Wright brothers. And it wasn't the first time they were told this. Wilbur told Orville on the train ride back to Dayton, "Not within a thousand years would man ever fly."
A flying car would be extremely convenient
Explain because as far as I recall it cost a lot more energy to keep the vehicle above ground than it does to power a 1000 HP truck engine and that doesn't include the thrust you need to go forward, turn and stop.
Here's a link to an actual survey that said only 19% would hire him. This is a poll done with employers that would be the most interested in his skillset based on the industry they serve. http://www.bizjournals.com/was...
Unless of course they were corrupt. Are you telling me then that not only is our government corrupt but so are most business owners.
I am a business man and I wouldn't hire him. Why? Because I can't trust he won't leak intellectual properly or customer list to my competitors. If a man can leak information about his country and be willing to face death, what is he willing to do to get rich where the risk is much less? What about my company's reputation should my customers find out he works for me? After all, I don't control their opinion of Snowden and I may lose their trust in the process.
Because a honest man would hire him in a heart beat
Funny, he lied on his application regarding his education. Although I wouldn't condemn him for doing so it is still a great argument against your statement.
100 times much? I wonder how much entertainment we can fit in our days considering how unsuccessful entertainment is currently supported by successful entertainment.
And I guess in you world growth means nothing. In my world growth is a sign of progress and clearly the copyright law haven't stopped the progress in the entertainment industry.
I at least provided numbers that point towards progression, you showed no number to indicate regression.
Yeah but since that applies to all speeds greater than zero, why is one number chosen over another? This is the point you keep avoiding. Speed kills, yeah so why not reduce the limit even further? I'm still waiting for an answer to this one
There more science to it then you think. See this link. It's just one example of many available for the different states and jurisdictions. http://www.wceo.us/pages/How-S...
Pay attention to this part: 85th percentile speed The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists drive on a given road when unaffected by slower traffic or poor weather. This speed indicates the speed that most motorists on that road consider safe and reasonable under ideal conditions. This used as an aid to set the appropriate speed limit for that road.
How do you measure how many people are drunk/on drugs/fatigued/playing with their phone/radio/eating etc?
Look at this part in the link I sent you: Correlation between speed limits and crashes
There seems to be very little effort to enlighten drivers of this, instead focusing on easy enforcement and revenue collection.
I'll tell you what. The day we manage to enlighten people to not use cell phones while driving (hands on obviously!!), then screw the speed limits but until then, let the authorities assist these people through signage.
IMO you have too much faith in drivers around you and too little in the people making decisions based on need.
We have some roads with unlimited speed zones and contrary to popular belief, people aren't dying by the dozen because of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Really? They actually set limits in 2007 due to safety reasons. They are just looking at opening up the limits on highways. They currently are trialing and it appears successful for this perfect highway. All the ingredients are in place for success in this case. Similar to the autobahn but as you can imagine you can't plaster the same logic across all roads. Keep in mind that the autobahn does have speed limits for bad weather conditions. Why do you think?
Yeah and flying cars too eh? Don't believe the hype. Robot cars will never be mainstream, when a robot bus is far more efficient.
Earth was supposed to be flat, we weren't supposed to go on the moon and flight was never going to become an important method of transportation. Yet here we are and none of those statements are true anymore. Flying cars aren't convenient so its no wonder nobody researched it. As for self driving cars, they are already here. There are already plenty of working prototypes and legislation is in the process of being adjusted for the future. Most people just want a means to get to destination so mainstream isn't you and me who love driving. It's the other people that will decide for us.
The wiki pretty much points in the direction that more speed = more injuries and fatalities. I didn't need the wiki to tell me that since it's just common sense (Stopping distance is greater at higher speed hence the reduced time available to react).
As any first year stats student will tell you, stats are easily manipulated for any agenda
And is big foot real too? Conspiracy theories are great for discovery channel but in the real world real people like me and you make decisions based on information available. Accident stats combined with speed monitor stats are the best tools they have access to at the moment.
The only logical conclusion to this line of thinking is speed limits of zero.
There's nothing logical about that statement. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know why.
There also new research showing too low speed limits increase the risk of fatigue related accidents. so yeah, not that simple
I won't argue that some roads aren't marked properly (after all humans make mistakes) and I won't argue that lower speeds can result in boredom (although I get the same boredom at 120km/h when driving straight for a long time). I'd like to see a link to that study as I've never heard of it.
Considering how most countries have the same strategy towards speed limits I'd say things are probably in better shape than you think they are.
Fact is that in 30 years this will no longer be a topic of discussion as self driving cars will dictate the speed, not the driver.
Exactly, which is why "Speed is bad mmkay" is vastly oversimplified strategy for road safety.
Do you believe in factual numbers?
If so, don't take my word for it. In some countries they tried to apply higher limits and even unlimited speeds (such as the autobahn) and ended up reversing their decision. Look at the effectiveness section of this wiki. It paints a pretty clear picture of the direct impact of increase speed limits.
The film makers thought it would be even better with other characters, such as Popeye, but they couldn't get a license.
I agree that its not ideal but I don't see as an issue with the length of the copyright but rather how strict it is. I'm always going back to the time issue because everybody seems to get hung on the time constraints when I believe the problem is somewhere else. Let artists keep copyrights for their "actual work" for as along as deemed reasonable (100 years for all I care).
expiry acts as a check on the application of overly broad copyright
So why aren't we fixing the real issue of overly broad copyrights? Is that not more sound than saying a mans work isn't his to decide on anymore? (speaking of actual work here)
Sure I can't prove what there isn't a guideline to compare with but the shear fact that 10 times more entertainment material is released yearly compared with 20 years ago is a pretty good indicator.
Maybe instead of teaching people to behave like robots we could teach them some real skills?
This is much more complicated than finding a middle ground that is considered reasonable such as putting speed limits and signage for many other purposes. Maybe you are young or haven't had to deal with people much but not everybody has the same capabilities. Someone that learns to drive at the age of 35 won't have the same aptitudes on the roads as the one that started at the age of 16. Same goes for experience on the road. If you drive 3000 miles per year versus one that drives 30 000 miles, you clearly won't have the same confidence behind the wheel. Drivers under the age of 25 are statistically more dangerous due to their lack of experience. It's also the reason why their insurance is more than 2 times one of an adult aged 25-35.
You know the Internet is bigger than just your town/state/country right?
Yes but I can only speak of my experience and it spans over half of North America (Yes, I drive a lot)
I'm guessing "math" (or logic which is what you meant) isn't your strong suit
Go ahead and be childish, just shows me your level of maturity.
and what are those parameters? Can you cite them? It may be different in your area, but I've had some experience in this field and can assure it's not as scientific as you think.
Good for you having experience in the field. Where I live I can see the speed limits are fairly consistent with the level of danger applicable to the roads in question.
What you said is very true. Local demand is a great motivator but like anything you start by sorting it and eventually demand arises. There are many construction material companies that have designed products based on recycled materials. The companies usually come to life because of the low cost for the primary materials they require. The processes are expensive but with time they become more affordable as proper techniques and the right expertise becomes available.
I know where I live that a % of recycled materials goes back in the landfill but the bulk of the volume is saved. Metal, paper, cardboard and some plastics are sent to different locations for reprocessing.
Metal is the easiest of all recycled products to reuse. Cardboard is probably second on the list with Plastic being the most difficult one which in many cases is just discarded to the landfill. The amount of plastic recycled has increased but the process hasn't changed much in the last 10 years.
Most non techies wouldn't go and do that but even my mother who now hates Apple products was able to get all her music off iTunes and move it to her Android device. Sure it took her over 3 hours to figure it all out but she managed to do.
She was so proud of her technical achievements. Lol!!
may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright
And that's the key component which most cases are settled on. Do I agree with all verdicts? No. Do I agree with some of them, Yes. Smith vs Petty, BAD CASE. Lower time constraints would have prevented the verdict BUT it may also not have and it still would not have been a fair verdict.
Re-defining what copyrights cover is far more important than the period of time it covers it for. My 2 cents.
I'm confused by why people are hung up on the time constraints. The expiry isn't the issue, its the definition surround what is copyright that's an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. We've lost our focus if this is what the next important thing is.
Voice recognition is what comes to mind but some will say it's not private enough and they are right.
Holograms appear to be something coming down (although I'm not clear how) but is that going to be input friendly since there will be no feedback while typing mid air?
The there's those slim LCDs that can be rolled out, maybe a few years down the road we can make it work reliably.
So why are we building devices that aren't
kids are present, the speed limit should be 40" comment. So much for the science eh? Speed laws are mostly emotive and political.
It's based on statistics I presented in earlier comments but I guess you already forgot because you have no faith in anybody else than yourself. I would suggest you start working on your campaign since your government obviously suck and you have so much to offer (I'm not being offensive but rather honest. You should if it's that bad where you live)!
Never did. Speed laws are mostly emotive and political, not science.
Prove it. I sent you many links showing the studies made to assess speed limit requirements. You're assuming your peers (other human beings) aren't doing their due diligence and that's a very poor argument. Just to recap 2 of the many metrics used:
1. The 85th percentile is one of the metrics used to assess compliance
2. Fatalities and injuries are used for assessing if the change is effective
Depends what you do. Office 97 was horrible by today's standard as it didn't deal with many content types which made creating marketing documents a nightmare. Open Office is fine but it too has it's limitations. As I stated in an earlier post, you can't put all users in the same basket, if you could then MS wouldn't sell any office software.
Buying software is like buying a car. You buy it for your needs. Open office and equivalent are great and they offer a basic feature set that suits most users at home and many users in business like environments. Last I checked it has macro support and many other minor extensions to expand it's feature set.
Then you have those who need to extend the basic functionality or integrate it with their services. MS Office offers a huge lineup of integration with its own product as well as products developed by 3rd parties. If that's what you business needs then the cost is just a minor bump in the road that usually is justified with efficiency gains, reductions in errors, redundancy and better organization. For those who don't understand how MS office can help you achieve the aforementioned you can go read the feature list.
You can calm down bud. It's a forum and we both are speaking our opinions. You have your opinion and that fine but that doesn't mean most agree with you.
You suggest the survey is flawed but you have no proof of this. In my business circle most feel the same way I do especially after I put the arguments on the table. Putting aside intellectual property and sales leads, you still can't control your customer's opinion of Snowden. If you own a McDonald, your customers don't give a crap about who works there but if you are a security consultant with potential access to company information that is a different story.
A company like Google could potentially twist it in their favour but not everybody has a strong position in the business world like they do.
You can choose to disagree for yourself but keep in mind that not everybody agrees with you.
It doesn't stifle creative output if you look at the true definition of creativity but that's aside the point. My point is that copyright didn't prevent people from coming up with new content. I'm sure it slowed it down but what do we care, we have enough to go around ten times. Let the dicks be dicks about their copyrights.
There cannot be a baseline to compare with. People create plenty of content regardless of these copyright laws. It's only a problem when it makes it big and when it does there's enough money for all to share regardless of it being right to have to share. The bigger problem is how broad the copyright is, not the length. If I release work containing ABBBB AA BB today and a year from now you release work containing AA BB in it, I can potentially go after you for copyright infringement.
Please delete all your accounts, format your computer, and sell it to a homeless Frenchman as a broken etch-a-sketch. You are to dim to be allowed to have an opinion anymore. Please report to the nearest construction site and volunteer as landfill, for which you are actually qualified/quote
I knew I could make you break. :)
And that 40km/h zone suddenly gets applied outside of school hours too without warning, at 3am at night and on weekends. Yet strangely in wealthy suburbs with lots of lawyers their schools are somehow exempt. I'd love to hear your scientific theory for why that is?
Maybe you live in a mythical world where your imagination allows you to create arguments using rare occurrences. I mean if we are going to use exceptions to asses the situation then I don't know what to tell you. BTW, not only school zones require 40km/h zones. There are plenty of residential areas where kids are present in numbers that justify 40km/h as a deterrent for speeding since the fines are high.
Earth was supposed to be flat,
That's a well worn myth.
Yes it was but some did believe and push that agenda. Regardless there are other examples like earth being the center of the universe...
we weren't supposed to go on the moon
Says who?
There are some today that still push the idea that we never landed on the moon.
and flight was never going to become an important method of transportation.
Says who?
History of the Wright brothers. And it wasn't the first time they were told this.
Wilbur told Orville on the train ride back to Dayton, "Not within a thousand years would man ever fly."
A flying car would be extremely convenient
Explain because as far as I recall it cost a lot more energy to keep the vehicle above ground than it does to power a 1000 HP truck engine and that doesn't include the thrust you need to go forward, turn and stop.
No they aren't.
Re: self driving cars:
http://www.bloomberg.com/slide...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
As I said in my first post, road safety is not as simple as speed bad, slow good.
Neither did I but you can't deny the need for speed limits.
Really? How do you know? Have you taken a poll?
Here's a link to an actual survey that said only 19% would hire him. This is a poll done with employers that would be the most interested in his skillset based on the industry they serve.
http://www.bizjournals.com/was...
Unless of course they were corrupt. Are you telling me then that not only is our government corrupt but so are most business owners.
I am a business man and I wouldn't hire him. Why? Because I can't trust he won't leak intellectual properly or customer list to my competitors. If a man can leak information about his country and be willing to face death, what is he willing to do to get rich where the risk is much less? What about my company's reputation should my customers find out he works for me? After all, I don't control their opinion of Snowden and I may lose their trust in the process.
Because a honest man would hire him in a heart beat
Funny, he lied on his application regarding his education. Although I wouldn't condemn him for doing so it is still a great argument against your statement.
100 times much? I wonder how much entertainment we can fit in our days considering how unsuccessful entertainment is currently supported by successful entertainment.
And I guess in you world growth means nothing. In my world growth is a sign of progress and clearly the copyright law haven't stopped the progress in the entertainment industry.
I at least provided numbers that point towards progression, you showed no number to indicate regression.
Yeah but since that applies to all speeds greater than zero, why is one number chosen over another? This is the point you keep avoiding. Speed kills, yeah so why not reduce the limit even further? I'm still waiting for an answer to this one
There more science to it then you think. See this link. It's just one example of many available for the different states and jurisdictions. http://www.wceo.us/pages/How-S...
Pay attention to this part:
85th percentile speed
The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists drive on a given road when unaffected by slower traffic or poor weather. This speed indicates the speed that most motorists on that road consider safe and reasonable under ideal conditions. This used as an aid to set the appropriate speed limit for that road.
How do you measure how many people are drunk/on drugs/fatigued/playing with their phone/radio/eating etc?
Look at this part in the link I sent you: Correlation between speed limits and crashes
There seems to be very little effort to enlighten drivers of this, instead focusing on easy enforcement and revenue collection.
I'll tell you what. The day we manage to enlighten people to not use cell phones while driving (hands on obviously!!), then screw the speed limits but until then, let the authorities assist these people through signage.
IMO you have too much faith in drivers around you and too little in the people making decisions based on need.
We have some roads with unlimited speed zones and contrary to popular belief, people aren't dying by the dozen because of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Really? They actually set limits in 2007 due to safety reasons. They are just looking at opening up the limits on highways. They currently are trialing and it appears successful for this perfect highway. All the ingredients are in place for success in this case. Similar to the autobahn but as you can imagine you can't plaster the same logic across all roads. Keep in mind that the autobahn does have speed limits for bad weather conditions. Why do you think?
Yeah and flying cars too eh? Don't believe the hype. Robot cars will never be mainstream, when a robot bus is far more efficient.
Earth was supposed to be flat, we weren't supposed to go on the moon and flight was never going to become an important method of transportation. Yet here we are and none of those statements are true anymore. Flying cars aren't convenient so its no wonder nobody researched it. As for self driving cars, they are already here. There are already plenty of working prototypes and legislation is in the process of being adjusted for the future. Most people just want a means to get to destination so mainstream isn't you and me who love driving. It's the other people that will decide for us.
The wiki pretty much points in the direction that more speed = more injuries and fatalities. I didn't need the wiki to tell me that since it's just common sense (Stopping distance is greater at higher speed hence the reduced time available to react).
As any first year stats student will tell you, stats are easily manipulated for any agenda
And is big foot real too? Conspiracy theories are great for discovery channel but in the real world real people like me and you make decisions based on information available. Accident stats combined with speed monitor stats are the best tools they have access to at the moment.
The only logical conclusion to this line of thinking is speed limits of zero.
There's nothing logical about that statement. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know why.
There also new research showing too low speed limits increase the risk of fatigue related accidents. so yeah, not that simple
I won't argue that some roads aren't marked properly (after all humans make mistakes) and I won't argue that lower speeds can result in boredom (although I get the same boredom at 120km/h when driving straight for a long time). I'd like to see a link to that study as I've never heard of it.
Considering how most countries have the same strategy towards speed limits I'd say things are probably in better shape than you think they are.
Fact is that in 30 years this will no longer be a topic of discussion as self driving cars will dictate the speed, not the driver.
NAILED IT!
IMO you should just avoid both.
Although aspartame can provide benefits to those with diabetes since it increases the production of insulin.
Exactly, which is why "Speed is bad mmkay" is vastly oversimplified strategy for road safety.
Do you believe in factual numbers?
If so, don't take my word for it. In some countries they tried to apply higher limits and even unlimited speeds (such as the autobahn) and ended up reversing their decision. Look at the effectiveness section of this wiki. It paints a pretty clear picture of the direct impact of increase speed limits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That's incorrect. That are plenty of disputes on copyrights less than 30 years old.
If I still had my ISP service I'd hire him today
Good for you for being trusting but I can assure you that many business owners don't feel the same.
The film makers thought it would be even better with other characters, such as Popeye, but they couldn't get a license.
I agree that its not ideal but I don't see as an issue with the length of the copyright but rather how strict it is. I'm always going back to the time issue because everybody seems to get hung on the time constraints when I believe the problem is somewhere else. Let artists keep copyrights for their "actual work" for as along as deemed reasonable (100 years for all I care).
So copyrights are too broad is what your saying?
expiry acts as a check on the application of overly broad copyright
So why aren't we fixing the real issue of overly broad copyrights? Is that not more sound than saying a mans work isn't his to decide on anymore? (speaking of actual work here)
Sure I can't prove what there isn't a guideline to compare with but the shear fact that 10 times more entertainment material is released yearly compared with 20 years ago is a pretty good indicator.
Maybe instead of teaching people to behave like robots we could teach them some real skills?
This is much more complicated than finding a middle ground that is considered reasonable such as putting speed limits and signage for many other purposes. Maybe you are young or haven't had to deal with people much but not everybody has the same capabilities. Someone that learns to drive at the age of 35 won't have the same aptitudes on the roads as the one that started at the age of 16. Same goes for experience on the road. If you drive 3000 miles per year versus one that drives 30 000 miles, you clearly won't have the same confidence behind the wheel. Drivers under the age of 25 are statistically more dangerous due to their lack of experience. It's also the reason why their insurance is more than 2 times one of an adult aged 25-35.
You know the Internet is bigger than just your town/state/country right?
Yes but I can only speak of my experience and it spans over half of North America (Yes, I drive a lot)
I'm guessing "math" (or logic which is what you meant) isn't your strong suit
Go ahead and be childish, just shows me your level of maturity.
and what are those parameters? Can you cite them? It may be different in your area, but I've had some experience in this field and can assure it's not as scientific as you think.
Good for you having experience in the field. Where I live I can see the speed limits are fairly consistent with the level of danger applicable to the roads in question.
What you said is very true. Local demand is a great motivator but like anything you start by sorting it and eventually demand arises. There are many construction material companies that have designed products based on recycled materials. The companies usually come to life because of the low cost for the primary materials they require. The processes are expensive but with time they become more affordable as proper techniques and the right expertise becomes available.
I know where I live that a % of recycled materials goes back in the landfill but the bulk of the volume is saved. Metal, paper, cardboard and some plastics are sent to different locations for reprocessing.
Metal is the easiest of all recycled products to reuse. Cardboard is probably second on the list with Plastic being the most difficult one which in many cases is just discarded to the landfill. The amount of plastic recycled has increased but the process hasn't changed much in the last 10 years.
Most non techies wouldn't go and do that but even my mother who now hates Apple products was able to get all her music off iTunes and move it to her Android device. Sure it took her over 3 hours to figure it all out but she managed to do.
She was so proud of her technical achievements. Lol!!
may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright
And that's the key component which most cases are settled on. Do I agree with all verdicts? No. Do I agree with some of them, Yes. Smith vs Petty, BAD CASE. Lower time constraints would have prevented the verdict BUT it may also not have and it still would not have been a fair verdict.
Re-defining what copyrights cover is far more important than the period of time it covers it for. My 2 cents.
I'm confused by why people are hung up on the time constraints. The expiry isn't the issue, its the definition surround what is copyright that's an issue.