Re:A little off target though...
on
Lessig @ OSCON
·
· Score: 1
I think the case itself is more focused on the term of the copyright laws rather than on the good vs. bad arguments about copyrights.
An interesting editorial linked off of the Edlred case site has a good explanation of how this has worked through the judicial system. Two lower courts have rebuffed the plaintiff's argument, saying that the term of the copyright is up to Congress and the courts can't judge that. But one dissenting opinion in a lower court argued that Congress's actions (extending the copyright term, even for existing works, every few years as the deadline approaches for major companies such as Disney), amounts to a perpetual copyright, which is unconsitutional.
I tend to think that having a fixed term copyright, regardless of length, is better than having a copyright that just keeps growing and growing.
(4) And once again - WHY AREN'T THESE FSCKING IDIOTS IN JAIL? If I bounce a check for 100 bucks I'm sure to face the consequences - yet if they "steal" 7 billion dollars its okay?
They did not "steal" 7 billion dollars. They just didn't report it properly as operating expenses, meaning that they inflated their overall profit. However, that money wasn't taken from anyone, as would be the case in stealing. The $7 billion was spent, and it bought real things. This is the difference between an income statement and a cash flow statement.
To answer your question, if you bounce a check for $100, you're depriving someone of the $100 you promised. In the case of WorldCom, this is not what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the case itself is more focused on the term of the copyright laws rather than on the good vs. bad arguments about copyrights.
An interesting editorial linked off of the Edlred case site has a good explanation of how this has worked through the judicial system. Two lower courts have rebuffed the plaintiff's argument, saying that the term of the copyright is up to Congress and the courts can't judge that. But one dissenting opinion in a lower court argued that Congress's actions (extending the copyright term, even for existing works, every few years as the deadline approaches for major companies such as Disney), amounts to a perpetual copyright, which is unconsitutional.
I tend to think that having a fixed term copyright, regardless of length, is better than having a copyright that just keeps growing and growing.
(4) And once again - WHY AREN'T THESE FSCKING IDIOTS IN JAIL? If I bounce a check for 100 bucks I'm sure to face the consequences - yet if they "steal" 7 billion dollars its okay?
They did not "steal" 7 billion dollars. They just didn't report it properly as operating expenses, meaning that they inflated their overall profit. However, that money wasn't taken from anyone, as would be the case in stealing. The $7 billion was spent, and it bought real things. This is the difference between an income statement and a cash flow statement.
To answer your question, if you bounce a check for $100, you're depriving someone of the $100 you promised. In the case of WorldCom, this is not what happened.