I disagree. Property rights were developed long before there was serious consideration into the whys and wherefores of them, thus they appear to be natural rights. However, I think that the same utilitarian model that explicitly serves to justify copyrights and patents works just as well for real and personal property.
I encourage you to consider that analysis, particularly with regards to common property (wherein any owning party may take any action) or jointly (wherein all owning parties must agree to take any action).
I can't wait to see the wooden models involved in biotechnological inventions.
At any rate, there is one large drawback for this system -- much of the value of the invention may simply be in knowing that it is possible to do. Disclosing its existence in order to take bids on it may prompt independent but identical discovery by other parties.
While this is already known in the realm of trade secrets, and there are legal methods of recovering damages from such 'in-the-know' parties, it still might not be enough to deter such activity or recompensate the original inventor for the harm done as a result.
I think that this system, which is very similar-seeming to the Street Performer Protocol, may be better suited for copyright than patents. Reform is needed all across the board, however, don't get me wrong.
So why do they claim that intellectual property is any different?
As a prelude I'd like to point out that writings or inventions simply aren't property. IP -- which is a very misleading term -- actually refers to the copyrights, patents, etc., and not the subject matter they exist in reference to. It's a subtle, but important distinction.
At any rate, two differences present themselves. Firstly, there is frequently a greater public necessity to use writings and inventions that other people have developed as opposed to a need to use other people's real or personal property. Secondly, that that writings and inventions are nonrivalrous. That is, if you have an invention, and I use that invention, I do not preclude your use of it. Whereas if you had a car, and I took the car, you could not use that car at all while I had it.
This is a gross perversion of the term monopoly, as it usually applies to monolithic, stifling state-supported enterprises.
Copyrights and patents are granted by the state, exclusively to particular parties. One needn't be ATT to have a monopoly, and at any rate, the assertion that patents, copyrights, etc. are monopolistic dates back at least over two hundred years (Jefferson was suspicious of permitting them, because they'd create monopolies), and likely even farther back.
Why should they not be rewarded for their investment in research and development? And why should someone who rights software, books, or music not also be rewarded?
Who shall reward them? If you want to reward them, that's fine. But why should I be forced to do so? To compel me to reward them amounts to a gross imposition on my own liberties. Remember the civil society you mentioned? It is fundementally a quid pro quo. People enter into the social contract because they feel they're going to personally benefit more from doing so than they would if they did not.
Thus, while I don't mind necessarily, rewarding authors or inventors, I see no reason to do so unless I benefit more from doing so than I would if I abstained. Certainly the mere assertion that creation 'earns' the ability to curtail my rights is nonsense. Someone could spend millions upon millions of dollars inventing the best buggy-whip in the world, but I won't feel beholden to use it, and a patent with no economic value hurts the inventor just as much, as they still receive no reward or compensation.
Patents, copyrights, marks, and trade secrets all have their place. And I have no problem in respecting them within reason, because it is in my best interests to do so. However, when they become oppressive; that is, more of a burden than a benefit, then they need to be reduced to a more managable level, or abolished outright.
Exclusive rights over something like the text of a particular, source code to a particular program, or a particular performance of a popular song, do not translate into a "monopoly" in the general case: It only forces competitors to produce their own original products, which produces diversity that we as consumers should value anyway.
This is not always true. For example, someone might discover the demonstrably best possible method of doing something. Perhaps the ONLY method of doing something. There will be no substitute of like value. Permitting rights in such a case would harm the public measurably.
At any rate, you're looking at this one-sidedly. Remember, what's going on is fundementally a bargain between creators and the rest of the world (including all the other creators). Prosperity and fairness are fine if both sides get them, but a system that prefers creators is unacceptable to the people being asked to submit to the demands of the creators. Thus, it won't stand. It just isn't worth it.
Thats the entire point of DRM, to give content creators more control over their work.
You failed to explain why that's a terribly good thing. Within limits, I can see it being acceptable. But permanent control, or expansive control -- that doesn't sound too good for the rest of the world. Which begs the question -- why should the rest of the world permit creators to do such things? (especially since there seems to be a lot of creation going on without it)
Depends on the relevant law. In some states, the method by which the secret was discovered has to be proper. Industrial espionage would not be ok -- independent discovery would be.
they can get incredible detail from a blurry photo simply by saying "Enhancing."
Well, it's a little more complex than that in reality. For example, remember the blurry photo that's processed to recover detail in "The Replacement Killers?" It's not terribly difficult to do that, but it does require a good working knowledge of the Chow Yun Fat filter in Photoshop.
That's a glyph, sure, but it does not have an actual key. (unless perhaps the poster is using some weird foreign keyboard)
And since the poster is using a Mac, it's improbable that he will never use the Command Key. Not that the glyph on that looks anything like a double-s shape.
I hear that. I had to buy an ADB/USB converter just to get my Apple Extended II Keyboard to keep working on modern hardware. And I made my boss pay for one that was still in-box as a condition of my employment, which I'm sure he thought was nuts too.
At present I have about a half-dozen of them stacked up in case of failure, and I plan to get some more the next time I find some inexpensive ones.
Well... do you mean to say that the only thing that makes OS X stable is a different set of keyboard shorcuts in the Finder?
If not, then presumably, OS X _could have_ had the exact same user interface as MacOS did, while nevertheless being stable.
Now, in truth, I don't believe that OS X could've had the MacOS UI precisely. Firstly, it would be a bad idea, since the MacOS UI has been needing to be replaced by something better since around 1990 or so when it got about as good as it was going to get. And secondly, because aspects of its shameful Unix past would show through anyway, e.g. with the file structure, or the security model.
Personally, my problem is that the OS X UI is worse than the MacOS UI, which I had really wanted to be able to retire for over ten years anyway. Coupled with Apple's continuing craptastic hardware specs and prices compared with x86, and given that WinXP is about as crappy as OS X is, IMO, switching away wasn't that tough a thing to do.
Hopefully, someday, something better will come along, and I'll finally be happy. Right now, I could be on pretty much any platform and the best I'd feel would be lousy.
Of course, I do often find myself reaching for Cmd-N to make a new folder.... (If you think I'd get rid of my Extended II keyboard, you're nuts)
Crosslinking and procedural history is easy enough, as long as there are citations to work from.
I'm more worried about headnotes, summaries, and shepardization (of disposition -- again, the cite alone is easy).
Still, I think that providing extremely easy, free, access to law should be provided by the government. The cost would likely hardly even register to them!
Who needs a scanner? The documents are not copyrighted in their digital forms either, at least for the portions that consist of the actual governmental content. (commentaries, etc. added by others are potentially copyrighted, however)
Law students get basically free, unlimited access over the web to these things. The idea is not dissimilar to drug dealers giving the first sample for free. I'm sure that with appropriate software to filter out the copyrighted parts, index, cross-reference, and download materials, as well as whatever shepardization could be done automatically, a free archive could be created.
Well that's just because I try to be accurate -- you think that they wear pants on TV if the picture only goes down to their waist? Think again, pal.;)
Depends on your definition of 'fetish.' Basically it's just dressing up in costume, like some character. Sort of like how some Trekkies dress up as Vulcans for conventions.
There are of course some people who take it a little far.
Re:There are people AGAINST this, and not spammers
on
Do-Not-Email Registries?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Labeling is serving as a proxy for content. I for one am objecting to ads not because of any specific product that they're trying to sell me, but because they bear advertising content of any kind. There is a common message to buy goods or services, and that's your content. You may be thinking of the slightly different matter of viewpoint discrimination.
Since the intended effect of the labeling is to get rid of spam altogether by means of everyone filtering the spam, the true intent of labeling provisions is to silence both a wide class of speakers (commercial speakers) and content (commercial messages), such that they will no longer even be sent.
And of course, the means are so crudely tailored to the intent that I think there's even a question per a rational basis analysis, much less the no-brainer against regulation under a strict scrutiny test.
The registry is pretty similar... it might be equated to a 'no tresspassing' sign on one's door (which is allowed), but OTOH mailboxes are IIRC held to be inherently somewhat open to the public regardless of the recipient's wishes, because it's so trivial a matter to get rid of mail that is unwanted, and the burdens to speech would be so high.
As for the unsolicited nature of the communication, I would regard it as being insufficient to hang one's hat on. All discussions HAVE to begin with an unsolicited comment.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, commerical free speech has grown to be nearly the equal of private free speech. Labeling requirements, truth requirements, and TPM restrictions are about all that's left of note. False headers, content, or addresses might be something you could try to ban, but again it's almost entirely unenforcible.
Private filters are the way to go -- it may be a little bit more burdensome, but it's better than the relatively short trip junk mail takes from mailbox to trash can.
Well, I'm against it, but not because I feel that a different type of legislation would be appropriate, as CAUCE does. Rather, I think that banning or mandating labels on spam violates the First Amendment for a trivial reason and would fail to actually accomplish anything in any event. That said, I hate all advertising everywhere, I just don't see that it's appropriate to actually ban speech.
Do we really want our machines forming unions, striking, having feeling etc. etc..
Yes, absolutely. Why, by automating strikes, unions might be dramatically more efficient. Similarly robots programmed to exhibit emotions could probably do so much better, more predictably, and more cheaply (if you consider long term costs) than human labor could, especially in the first world.
Yup. Sure does. Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.
Copying CDs is not necessarily illegal. It depends on the circumstances. Your blanket statement is wrong.
Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None. If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right. If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.
This is arguably a violation of the Copyright Clause, however since the DRM will effect public domain works. At the very least it is inappropriate for government to grant copyrights to such works, if not simply unconstitutional.
(and of course, the exercise of fair use, and use of public domain works is protected by the First Amendment -- again making government-endorsed as it were interference impermissible)
They don't give a damn about analog copies
Well, first, they used to. Second, it's likely, considering the analog hole and the possibility of a shift towards analog again, that they will eventually attack it again.
The culture of entitlement isn't satisfied with this arrangement, though. The culture of entitlement says that it's every American's God-given right to play CD's on his computer, and that it's every American's God-given right to make MP3's. The culture of entitlement can get stuffed.
Given that copyright is intended to promote public aims and goals, if there is a culture of entitlement, then it has a lot going for it, and its wishes should be seriously taken into consideration in crafting copyright law, if not followed wholeheartedly. Copyright is supposed to work for people, not artists. Thus 'get stuffed' is wrong. A better answer would be 'we'll change things so that you are entitled as much as you want and practically can be.'
Really? The Communists did for over a hundred years. Are you a kid?
And besides which, there have been plenty of fervent capitalists who were opposed to personal freedoms -- the ones that they couldn't make money off of, and other people's that interfered with their own profits. See for example the attacks on unions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Capitalism is not any good at protecting liberty, and that's not what it's for. It's a decently good economic system, but that doesn't make it the best possible or anything. Swearing allegience to capitalism is like swearing allegience to your car. It's just a tool, not an end all by itself.
Two Jedi get involved with trying to stop a takeover of Naboo. Along the way they stop at Tatooine and Coruscant. Eventually they help repel the invaders, though one dies in the process. Jar Jar Binks is nowhere to be seen, and Anakin never says 'Yippee.'
Who needs to be well-educated, literate, well-funded, or idle? Songs, plays, and oral stories are creative works as well, and need not be written down. Run around today performing songs, and singing lyrics that others hold the copyrights too, and I guarantee that there'll be trouble if you haven't paid for the privilege. Other small amounts of art flourished -- lots of people can paint a little, or carve, etc. We don't all have to be Michaelangelo.
As for the costs of works, that has always been true, and it is true even today. The costs of burning a CDR of music are greater than the cost of pressing the real CD would've been. Virtually no individual has easy access to the technology needed to make good posters or prints. And dual layer DVDRs haven't hit the market yet. Large publishers retain considerable advantages, even today.
And besides which, I fail to see that even as barriers to entry are being torn down that this is necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure that the mail coaches didn't like the newfangled telegraphs, but the superior technology made life better. If it harmed an entrenched industry, I'll play the world's smallest accordian for them, but that's about the limit of my sympathy.
As for the Library of Alexandria, IIRC, they actually required that all scrolls brought into the city that were of interest be lent to them long enough for copies to be made. These were people with some good ideas.
Anyway, unauthorized copying for profit's been around for a while. Shakespeare, in the 16th century, copied from numerous other sources, and other people copied from him. (sometimes to hilarious effect, if they didn't do so accurately; there's a good pirate edition of Hamlet along those lines)
0) No! That's far too long for natural persons. The term should be a fixed term of years for everyone, as well as short.
1) Too easy to skirt around this.
2) No! The copyright has to apply to the work generally; the second edition is only protected insofar as original material has been added. Anything that is unoriginal is still tied to the prior term. (which is actually how it is now)
3) Pft. This is unenforcable. Plus permitting copy protection cheats the public domain because of that, as well as fair use and first sale prior. I would instead propose that the use of any technique or mechanism in any edition worldwide, intended to impair copying of the work be grounds for immediate expiration of copyright. Unavoidable, inherent impairments (e.g. the situation with perfect copies of CDs prior to the development of CD burners) would be allowed. Additionally, patents could not be misused as a copy protection technique. (e.g. patenting CD burners and then not making any)
4) Fair use is inherently undefinable. Plus two uses that are functionally identical may not be fair due to entirely external circumstances. (e.g. it's fair to rip mp3's, it's not fair to give them to people, but it's okay to give some mp3's to people -- no mere mechanism could ever distinguish these things. It takes a court!) To avoid harming fair use, again, we must destroy copy protection altogether.
5) This, I can agree with -- except that it imperils some tolerable licensure, e.g. site licensing. In the ordinary consumer situation though, I would deny licensure.
6) I'd expand the patent discussion to abolishing method patents altogether. Additionally, the source should be deposited in useful form (heavily commented, etc.) with the Library of Congress as a prerequisite for copyright. Access to the public of the deposited copies is permitted from day one. Thus, there can be no trade secrets in software. Copyright protections alone are sufficient, and copyright's public mission demands access to source from the beginning anyway.
7) No way to prevent future retroactivity w/o better S.Ct. decisions, or an amendment, I'm afraid.
8) Ditto. Congress cannot effectively bind itself through law.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Property rights were developed long before there was serious consideration into the whys and wherefores of them, thus they appear to be natural rights. However, I think that the same utilitarian model that explicitly serves to justify copyrights and patents works just as well for real and personal property.
I encourage you to consider that analysis, particularly with regards to common property (wherein any owning party may take any action) or jointly (wherein all owning parties must agree to take any action).
I can't wait to see the wooden models involved in biotechnological inventions.
At any rate, there is one large drawback for this system -- much of the value of the invention may simply be in knowing that it is possible to do. Disclosing its existence in order to take bids on it may prompt independent but identical discovery by other parties.
While this is already known in the realm of trade secrets, and there are legal methods of recovering damages from such 'in-the-know' parties, it still might not be enough to deter such activity or recompensate the original inventor for the harm done as a result.
I think that this system, which is very similar-seeming to the Street Performer Protocol, may be better suited for copyright than patents. Reform is needed all across the board, however, don't get me wrong.
As a prelude I'd like to point out that writings or inventions simply aren't property. IP -- which is a very misleading term -- actually refers to the copyrights, patents, etc., and not the subject matter they exist in reference to. It's a subtle, but important distinction.
At any rate, two differences present themselves. Firstly, there is frequently a greater public necessity to use writings and inventions that other people have developed as opposed to a need to use other people's real or personal property. Secondly, that that writings and inventions are nonrivalrous. That is, if you have an invention, and I use that invention, I do not preclude your use of it. Whereas if you had a car, and I took the car, you could not use that car at all while I had it.
This is a gross perversion of the term monopoly, as it usually applies to monolithic, stifling state-supported enterprises.
Copyrights and patents are granted by the state, exclusively to particular parties. One needn't be ATT to have a monopoly, and at any rate, the assertion that patents, copyrights, etc. are monopolistic dates back at least over two hundred years (Jefferson was suspicious of permitting them, because they'd create monopolies), and likely even farther back.
Why should they not be rewarded for their investment in research and development? And why should someone who rights software, books, or music not also be rewarded?
Who shall reward them? If you want to reward them, that's fine. But why should I be forced to do so? To compel me to reward them amounts to a gross imposition on my own liberties. Remember the civil society you mentioned? It is fundementally a quid pro quo. People enter into the social contract because they feel they're going to personally benefit more from doing so than they would if they did not.
Thus, while I don't mind necessarily, rewarding authors or inventors, I see no reason to do so unless I benefit more from doing so than I would if I abstained. Certainly the mere assertion that creation 'earns' the ability to curtail my rights is nonsense. Someone could spend millions upon millions of dollars inventing the best buggy-whip in the world, but I won't feel beholden to use it, and a patent with no economic value hurts the inventor just as much, as they still receive no reward or compensation.
Patents, copyrights, marks, and trade secrets all have their place. And I have no problem in respecting them within reason, because it is in my best interests to do so. However, when they become oppressive; that is, more of a burden than a benefit, then they need to be reduced to a more managable level, or abolished outright.
Exclusive rights over something like the text of a particular, source code to a particular program, or a particular performance of a popular song, do not translate into a "monopoly" in the general case: It only forces competitors to produce their own original products, which produces diversity that we as consumers should value anyway.
This is not always true. For example, someone might discover the demonstrably best possible method of doing something. Perhaps the ONLY method of doing something. There will be no substitute of like value. Permitting rights in such a case would harm the public measurably.
At any rate, you're looking at this one-sidedly. Remember, what's going on is fundementally a bargain between creators and the rest of the world (including all the other creators). Prosperity and fairness are fine if both sides get them, but a system that prefers creators is unacceptable to the people being asked to submit to the demands of the creators. Thus, it won't stand. It just isn't worth it.
You failed to explain why that's a terribly good thing. Within limits, I can see it being acceptable. But permanent control, or expansive control -- that doesn't sound too good for the rest of the world. Which begs the question -- why should the rest of the world permit creators to do such things? (especially since there seems to be a lot of creation going on without it)
Depends on the relevant law. In some states, the method by which the secret was discovered has to be proper. Industrial espionage would not be ok -- independent discovery would be.
Well, it's a little more complex than that in reality. For example, remember the blurry photo that's processed to recover detail in "The Replacement Killers?" It's not terribly difficult to do that, but it does require a good working knowledge of the Chow Yun Fat filter in Photoshop.
I know what it is. And I use an Apple keyboard, so I'm looking at one right now. It just doesn't look like a double-s shape.
That's a glyph, sure, but it does not have an actual key. (unless perhaps the poster is using some weird foreign keyboard)
And since the poster is using a Mac, it's improbable that he will never use the Command Key. Not that the glyph on that looks anything like a double-s shape.
Maybe he means the ampersand? I have no idea.
I hear that. I had to buy an ADB/USB converter just to get my Apple Extended II Keyboard to keep working on modern hardware. And I made my boss pay for one that was still in-box as a condition of my employment, which I'm sure he thought was nuts too.
At present I have about a half-dozen of them stacked up in case of failure, and I plan to get some more the next time I find some inexpensive ones.
What 'double-s shape' is this? Can you provide some sort of picture?
Well... do you mean to say that the only thing that makes OS X stable is a different set of keyboard shorcuts in the Finder?
If not, then presumably, OS X _could have_ had the exact same user interface as MacOS did, while nevertheless being stable.
Now, in truth, I don't believe that OS X could've had the MacOS UI precisely. Firstly, it would be a bad idea, since the MacOS UI has been needing to be replaced by something better since around 1990 or so when it got about as good as it was going to get. And secondly, because aspects of its shameful Unix past would show through anyway, e.g. with the file structure, or the security model.
Personally, my problem is that the OS X UI is worse than the MacOS UI, which I had really wanted to be able to retire for over ten years anyway. Coupled with Apple's continuing craptastic hardware specs and prices compared with x86, and given that WinXP is about as crappy as OS X is, IMO, switching away wasn't that tough a thing to do.
Hopefully, someday, something better will come along, and I'll finally be happy. Right now, I could be on pretty much any platform and the best I'd feel would be lousy.
Of course, I do often find myself reaching for Cmd-N to make a new folder.... (If you think I'd get rid of my Extended II keyboard, you're nuts)
Crosslinking and procedural history is easy enough, as long as there are citations to work from.
I'm more worried about headnotes, summaries, and shepardization (of disposition -- again, the cite alone is easy).
Still, I think that providing extremely easy, free, access to law should be provided by the government. The cost would likely hardly even register to them!
Who needs a scanner? The documents are not copyrighted in their digital forms either, at least for the portions that consist of the actual governmental content. (commentaries, etc. added by others are potentially copyrighted, however)
;)
Law students get basically free, unlimited access over the web to these things. The idea is not dissimilar to drug dealers giving the first sample for free. I'm sure that with appropriate software to filter out the copyrighted parts, index, cross-reference, and download materials, as well as whatever shepardization could be done automatically, a free archive could be created.
Now, I too will let you guys do it.
No, it's a typewriter blog. Having to type and mimeograph all that data is one of the things keeping him from writing more books.
Well that's just because I try to be accurate -- you think that they wear pants on TV if the picture only goes down to their waist? Think again, pal. ;)
Depends on your definition of 'fetish.' Basically it's just dressing up in costume, like some character. Sort of like how some Trekkies dress up as Vulcans for conventions.
There are of course some people who take it a little far.
Labeling is serving as a proxy for content. I for one am objecting to ads not because of any specific product that they're trying to sell me, but because they bear advertising content of any kind. There is a common message to buy goods or services, and that's your content. You may be thinking of the slightly different matter of viewpoint discrimination.
Since the intended effect of the labeling is to get rid of spam altogether by means of everyone filtering the spam, the true intent of labeling provisions is to silence both a wide class of speakers (commercial speakers) and content (commercial messages), such that they will no longer even be sent.
And of course, the means are so crudely tailored to the intent that I think there's even a question per a rational basis analysis, much less the no-brainer against regulation under a strict scrutiny test.
The registry is pretty similar... it might be equated to a 'no tresspassing' sign on one's door (which is allowed), but OTOH mailboxes are IIRC held to be inherently somewhat open to the public regardless of the recipient's wishes, because it's so trivial a matter to get rid of mail that is unwanted, and the burdens to speech would be so high.
As for the unsolicited nature of the communication, I would regard it as being insufficient to hang one's hat on. All discussions HAVE to begin with an unsolicited comment.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, commerical free speech has grown to be nearly the equal of private free speech. Labeling requirements, truth requirements, and TPM restrictions are about all that's left of note. False headers, content, or addresses might be something you could try to ban, but again it's almost entirely unenforcible.
Private filters are the way to go -- it may be a little bit more burdensome, but it's better than the relatively short trip junk mail takes from mailbox to trash can.
Well, I'm against it, but not because I feel that a different type of legislation would be appropriate, as CAUCE does. Rather, I think that banning or mandating labels on spam violates the First Amendment for a trivial reason and would fail to actually accomplish anything in any event. That said, I hate all advertising everywhere, I just don't see that it's appropriate to actually ban speech.
Do we really want our machines forming unions, striking, having feeling etc. etc..
Yes, absolutely. Why, by automating strikes, unions might be dramatically more efficient. Similarly robots programmed to exhibit emotions could probably do so much better, more predictably, and more cheaply (if you consider long term costs) than human labor could, especially in the first world.
You had zeros? Boy, you were spoiled rotten. We had to use the letter 'O' instead.
Yup. Sure does. Seeing as how actually copying the CD's is illegal anyway, this is not a problem.
Copying CDs is not necessarily illegal. It depends on the circumstances. Your blanket statement is wrong.
Oh, you say, but this is infringing on my fair use rights! Guess what? You have no fair use rights. None. If you make certain uses of a work, those uses are defined by the law as being non-infringing. But that's an exception, not a right. If the copyright holder wants to use technological means to prevent you from exercising that exception, they're free to do so. And the law says you have to respect their wishes on that matter.
This is arguably a violation of the Copyright Clause, however since the DRM will effect public domain works. At the very least it is inappropriate for government to grant copyrights to such works, if not simply unconstitutional.
(and of course, the exercise of fair use, and use of public domain works is protected by the First Amendment -- again making government-endorsed as it were interference impermissible)
They don't give a damn about analog copies
Well, first, they used to. Second, it's likely, considering the analog hole and the possibility of a shift towards analog again, that they will eventually attack it again.
The culture of entitlement isn't satisfied with this arrangement, though. The culture of entitlement says that it's every American's God-given right to play CD's on his computer, and that it's every American's God-given right to make MP3's. The culture of entitlement can get stuffed.
Given that copyright is intended to promote public aims and goals, if there is a culture of entitlement, then it has a lot going for it, and its wishes should be seriously taken into consideration in crafting copyright law, if not followed wholeheartedly. Copyright is supposed to work for people, not artists. Thus 'get stuffed' is wrong. A better answer would be 'we'll change things so that you are entitled as much as you want and practically can be.'
Really? The Communists did for over a hundred years. Are you a kid?
And besides which, there have been plenty of fervent capitalists who were opposed to personal freedoms -- the ones that they couldn't make money off of, and other people's that interfered with their own profits. See for example the attacks on unions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Capitalism is not any good at protecting liberty, and that's not what it's for. It's a decently good economic system, but that doesn't make it the best possible or anything. Swearing allegience to capitalism is like swearing allegience to your car. It's just a tool, not an end all by itself.
The Phantom Menace:
Two Jedi get involved with trying to stop a takeover of Naboo. Along the way they stop at Tatooine and Coruscant. Eventually they help repel the invaders, though one dies in the process. Jar Jar Binks is nowhere to be seen, and Anakin never says 'Yippee.'
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Who needs to be well-educated, literate, well-funded, or idle? Songs, plays, and oral stories are creative works as well, and need not be written down. Run around today performing songs, and singing lyrics that others hold the copyrights too, and I guarantee that there'll be trouble if you haven't paid for the privilege. Other small amounts of art flourished -- lots of people can paint a little, or carve, etc. We don't all have to be Michaelangelo.
As for the costs of works, that has always been true, and it is true even today. The costs of burning a CDR of music are greater than the cost of pressing the real CD would've been. Virtually no individual has easy access to the technology needed to make good posters or prints. And dual layer DVDRs haven't hit the market yet. Large publishers retain considerable advantages, even today.
And besides which, I fail to see that even as barriers to entry are being torn down that this is necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure that the mail coaches didn't like the newfangled telegraphs, but the superior technology made life better. If it harmed an entrenched industry, I'll play the world's smallest accordian for them, but that's about the limit of my sympathy.
As for the Library of Alexandria, IIRC, they actually required that all scrolls brought into the city that were of interest be lent to them long enough for copies to be made. These were people with some good ideas.
Anyway, unauthorized copying for profit's been around for a while. Shakespeare, in the 16th century, copied from numerous other sources, and other people copied from him. (sometimes to hilarious effect, if they didn't do so accurately; there's a good pirate edition of Hamlet along those lines)
0) No! That's far too long for natural persons. The term should be a fixed term of years for everyone, as well as short.
1) Too easy to skirt around this.
2) No! The copyright has to apply to the work generally; the second edition is only protected insofar as original material has been added. Anything that is unoriginal is still tied to the prior term. (which is actually how it is now)
3) Pft. This is unenforcable. Plus permitting copy protection cheats the public domain because of that, as well as fair use and first sale prior. I would instead propose that the use of any technique or mechanism in any edition worldwide, intended to impair copying of the work be grounds for immediate expiration of copyright. Unavoidable, inherent impairments (e.g. the situation with perfect copies of CDs prior to the development of CD burners) would be allowed. Additionally, patents could not be misused as a copy protection technique. (e.g. patenting CD burners and then not making any)
4) Fair use is inherently undefinable. Plus two uses that are functionally identical may not be fair due to entirely external circumstances. (e.g. it's fair to rip mp3's, it's not fair to give them to people, but it's okay to give some mp3's to people -- no mere mechanism could ever distinguish these things. It takes a court!) To avoid harming fair use, again, we must destroy copy protection altogether.
5) This, I can agree with -- except that it imperils some tolerable licensure, e.g. site licensing. In the ordinary consumer situation though, I would deny licensure.
6) I'd expand the patent discussion to abolishing method patents altogether. Additionally, the source should be deposited in useful form (heavily commented, etc.) with the Library of Congress as a prerequisite for copyright. Access to the public of the deposited copies is permitted from day one. Thus, there can be no trade secrets in software. Copyright protections alone are sufficient, and copyright's public mission demands access to source from the beginning anyway.
7) No way to prevent future retroactivity w/o better S.Ct. decisions, or an amendment, I'm afraid.
8) Ditto. Congress cannot effectively bind itself through law.