If you read any of my posts you would see that I think it is ridiculous that copyrights extend past death or even close to what they are now.
I will say one thing, though. I don't think copyright should end with the death of the artist if it is still within the regular term. So let's say an artist writes a great novel after years of his wife supporting him and dies the next day. I think it is reasonable that his wife receive the benefit of his work.
You know I think it's wrong to demonize George Zimmerman but people need to be held accountable for their actions. Neighborhood watch doesn't make you a mini-cop. He felt that Trayvon wasn't suspicious looking and called 911. He should have gone home and been done with it. Unfortunately, he felt that the police weren't doing their job and that he needed to take the law into his own hands. Even without any other details he is already in the wrong.
After that we have no real evidence of what happened. We know he sustained injuries but we don't know exactly what lead up to them. That is why it would have been very hard to get a conviction in a criminal court.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that George Zimmerman made some very bad choices that led to an innocent young man dying.
I think it's more complicated than that, though. It could take years to see a shift in production and even then measuring it would be incredibly difficult. Even if people start producing more would you really want to cut the term? I don't think there is such a thing as too much creative production.
How does an artist get a paid concert gig they can live off of if they aren't already famous? They maybe spend years getting paid in food at a local bar.
And I hate the record labels. Definitely not defending them. You can have copyrights without labels.
I would say that probably only 1% of artists live a life even close to "easy". Go into Barnes and Noble and look at all the books in there. Stay away from the Stephen Kings and John Grishams but look at the thousands of other authors who may be much better authors but just don't get the right publicity or who can't afford to write full time.
There is a reason they say "starving artist" and not "starving accountant".
Well I think some reasonable analysis needs to be done to figure out what is fair compensation. For example:
Let's say author A spends 3 years writing a novel while his wife supports him. In those 3 years, a college educated individual could have earned say $300K (just picking round numbers). Then let's assume that an average novel produces $30K per year in royalties for its author. That means he would need 10 years to break even. Now if his novel is a huge success he's likely to make back far more than that - which is only fair.
Of course, those are bullshit numbers and only one example. Some calculation could be done based on the last 10 years and updated every 10 years as the market changes. Maybe after the calculation is done the copyright term should be 30 years or maybe 5 but it definitely won't be life plus 30.
Of course they do. Very rarely is an artist going to make one work and retire. Of course, being that they have to keep producing for a living they continually run the risk of producing a flop.
If you think that being an artist is such a cozy easy life then why don't you do it?
If an artist worked for a company that paid him a fixed hourly/annual wage for the work he does - whether he completes anything or not - then I am sure he would be fine with not getting paid when his work is viewed.
There aren't many companies that pay artists that way, though. Not to mention that the artist would then be stuck producing only what the company wants which leads to the crap Hollywood produces.
If you don't have a compensation model for artists outside of corporations then you aren't going to get good creative artists.
Except that to earn a living then they would have to write a new song every day. Copyrights makes sense on a much more limited basis. An artist could literally spend years working on something without any benefit. It is not unreasonable to expect some term that allows them to benefit exclusively for their work. Otherwise there would be no incentive to create in the first place.
The problem is that the laws have changed to the point where it is almost infinite thanks to the lobbying of the big entertainment companies.
Why should the president be silent during the Queen's Anthem? She is a worthless figurehead. Let the brits laugh at him with their ridiculous attachment to the old bird.
And oh please - there are volumes of books filled with Bush quotes. Is there even enough to fill one with Obama's gaffs? And do you really believe that Benghazi and Snowden would haven't happened under Romney? Seriously? You think those had anything to do with the President?
You keep saying it is not constitutional but are you a constitutional lawyer?
And if all three say it isn't unconstitutional then it isn't unconstitutional. You disagreeing with it (and I actually disagree with it, too) doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I am sure that is the reason they dropped it and not because they were throwing dollars at lawyers for a case they couldn't possibly win. They found a way to back out gracefully.
Actually no. It is NOT his responsibility to make determinations on the Constitutionality of a law. That is the judicial branch of the government. His job is to enforce the laws put forth by the legislative branch - whether he agrees with them or not. Then it is up to somebody to contest those laws through the courts and eventually up to the Supreme Court who can then strike it down as unconstitutional.
You totally were not paying attention in your social studies classes.
The laws that allow surveillance of individuals were laws put in place by Congress and started under Bush - not Obama. So strike 1 on that.
Anwar al-Awlaki is definitely something that can be debated. The legality of it has been debated to death and both sides have their different precedents to pull from. It isn't definitely not a clear cut case.
Do you not understand statistics? Your sample size is too small to make any valid conclusions. It's also like saying there were more car crashes in the 20th century than in every year prior to that.
Lol you are arguing it went from 3 to 6? Seriously? Obviously there is a greater wave of leaks (which you call whistleblowing) because of the progress of technology. With a usb drive the size of a nickle you can copy thousands of document and securely transmit them around the world in seconds. Before you actually had to get access to physical documents, make copies, and risk being caught during the exchange. We live in a totally different world.
Let's talk about impeachment. There was a lot of debate around what a president could do that would allow for impeachment but let's narrow it down to the 3 main categories that have been used over American history:
1 - Using an office for improper personal gains. This hasn't even been brought against a president but this was more common about elected judges who took bribes. I don't think there is anything here you can hold Obama on.
2- Behaving in a manner that is grossly incompatible with the office. The obvious example here is Bill Clinton. If nothing else Obama is as clean cut a president as we've ever had. You can't have a more model American family than the Obamas.
Which gets us to the tricky one: 3 - Exceed the powers of the office to the degradation of the other branches of government. This is the only one a conservative could really work with since there is no doubt that Obama has stretched the executive branch to its fullest in the face of an incompetent "do nothing" Congress. If you look at history, however, he is nowhere near what Lincoln did during his presidency. He used the excuse of civil war to browbeat a belligerent congress. Obviously Obama isn't facing a civil war (although it seems damn near it some times) but he is facing a lot of challenges both domestically and internationally and in many ways is handcuffed by Congress.
Curious to get your opinion of his impeachable crimes.
What a ridiculous argument. How many whistleblowers were there before? Besides the wikileaks kid and Snowden what whistleblowers has he charged with espionage?
To be fair, I get my salary from the rest of the population, too. If people didn't purchase my companies products I assure you I wouldn't get paid once the cash reserves dried up.
Every American is the beneficiary of the government in some way or form so we all have conflicts of interest. It's not like these workers can somehow vote in a way that impacts their compensation or that they are all that well paid compared to the private sector in the first place.
Most people I know work far more than 40 hours a week because of all the cuts to make the workforce more "efficient". Temps are hired to fill in during especially rough times.
I'll never forget the time my father came off the Alpine slide and literally melted his pants to his legs. Nobody ever paid attention to the "slow" signs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read any of my posts you would see that I think it is ridiculous that copyrights extend past death or even close to what they are now.
I will say one thing, though. I don't think copyright should end with the death of the artist if it is still within the regular term. So let's say an artist writes a great novel after years of his wife supporting him and dies the next day. I think it is reasonable that his wife receive the benefit of his work.
You know I think it's wrong to demonize George Zimmerman but people need to be held accountable for their actions. Neighborhood watch doesn't make you a mini-cop. He felt that Trayvon wasn't suspicious looking and called 911. He should have gone home and been done with it. Unfortunately, he felt that the police weren't doing their job and that he needed to take the law into his own hands. Even without any other details he is already in the wrong.
After that we have no real evidence of what happened. We know he sustained injuries but we don't know exactly what lead up to them. That is why it would have been very hard to get a conviction in a criminal court.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that George Zimmerman made some very bad choices that led to an innocent young man dying.
You have little sympathy for artists so I assume you don't read books or listen to music.
I think it's more complicated than that, though. It could take years to see a shift in production and even then measuring it would be incredibly difficult. Even if people start producing more would you really want to cut the term? I don't think there is such a thing as too much creative production.
How does an artist get a paid concert gig they can live off of if they aren't already famous? They maybe spend years getting paid in food at a local bar.
And I hate the record labels. Definitely not defending them. You can have copyrights without labels.
I would say that probably only 1% of artists live a life even close to "easy". Go into Barnes and Noble and look at all the books in there. Stay away from the Stephen Kings and John Grishams but look at the thousands of other authors who may be much better authors but just don't get the right publicity or who can't afford to write full time.
There is a reason they say "starving artist" and not "starving accountant".
Well I think some reasonable analysis needs to be done to figure out what is fair compensation. For example:
Let's say author A spends 3 years writing a novel while his wife supports him. In those 3 years, a college educated individual could have earned say $300K (just picking round numbers). Then let's assume that an average novel produces $30K per year in royalties for its author. That means he would need 10 years to break even. Now if his novel is a huge success he's likely to make back far more than that - which is only fair.
Of course, those are bullshit numbers and only one example. Some calculation could be done based on the last 10 years and updated every 10 years as the market changes. Maybe after the calculation is done the copyright term should be 30 years or maybe 5 but it definitely won't be life plus 30.
Of course they do. Very rarely is an artist going to make one work and retire. Of course, being that they have to keep producing for a living they continually run the risk of producing a flop.
If you think that being an artist is such a cozy easy life then why don't you do it?
If an artist worked for a company that paid him a fixed hourly/annual wage for the work he does - whether he completes anything or not - then I am sure he would be fine with not getting paid when his work is viewed.
There aren't many companies that pay artists that way, though. Not to mention that the artist would then be stuck producing only what the company wants which leads to the crap Hollywood produces.
If you don't have a compensation model for artists outside of corporations then you aren't going to get good creative artists.
Except that to earn a living then they would have to write a new song every day. Copyrights makes sense on a much more limited basis. An artist could literally spend years working on something without any benefit. It is not unreasonable to expect some term that allows them to benefit exclusively for their work. Otherwise there would be no incentive to create in the first place.
The problem is that the laws have changed to the point where it is almost infinite thanks to the lobbying of the big entertainment companies.
You have no evidence to support who started the fight. All we know is that George was losing.
Why should the president be silent during the Queen's Anthem? She is a worthless figurehead. Let the brits laugh at him with their ridiculous attachment to the old bird.
And oh please - there are volumes of books filled with Bush quotes. Is there even enough to fill one with Obama's gaffs? And do you really believe that Benghazi and Snowden would haven't happened under Romney? Seriously? You think those had anything to do with the President?
You keep saying it is not constitutional but are you a constitutional lawyer?
And if all three say it isn't unconstitutional then it isn't unconstitutional. You disagreeing with it (and I actually disagree with it, too) doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I am sure that is the reason they dropped it and not because they were throwing dollars at lawyers for a case they couldn't possibly win. They found a way to back out gracefully.
Actually no. It is NOT his responsibility to make determinations on the Constitutionality of a law. That is the judicial branch of the government. His job is to enforce the laws put forth by the legislative branch - whether he agrees with them or not. Then it is up to somebody to contest those laws through the courts and eventually up to the Supreme Court who can then strike it down as unconstitutional.
You totally were not paying attention in your social studies classes.
The laws that allow surveillance of individuals were laws put in place by Congress and started under Bush - not Obama. So strike 1 on that.
Anwar al-Awlaki is definitely something that can be debated. The legality of it has been debated to death and both sides have their different precedents to pull from. It isn't definitely not a clear cut case.
Do you not understand statistics? Your sample size is too small to make any valid conclusions. It's also like saying there were more car crashes in the 20th century than in every year prior to that.
Lol you are arguing it went from 3 to 6? Seriously? Obviously there is a greater wave of leaks (which you call whistleblowing) because of the progress of technology. With a usb drive the size of a nickle you can copy thousands of document and securely transmit them around the world in seconds. Before you actually had to get access to physical documents, make copies, and risk being caught during the exchange. We live in a totally different world.
Let's talk about impeachment. There was a lot of debate around what a president could do that would allow for impeachment but let's narrow it down to the 3 main categories that have been used over American history:
1 - Using an office for improper personal gains. This hasn't even been brought against a president but this was more common about elected judges who took bribes. I don't think there is anything here you can hold Obama on.
2- Behaving in a manner that is grossly incompatible with the office. The obvious example here is Bill Clinton. If nothing else Obama is as clean cut a president as we've ever had. You can't have a more model American family than the Obamas.
Which gets us to the tricky one:
3 - Exceed the powers of the office to the degradation of the other branches of government. This is the only one a conservative could really work with since there is no doubt that Obama has stretched the executive branch to its fullest in the face of an incompetent "do nothing" Congress. If you look at history, however, he is nowhere near what Lincoln did during his presidency. He used the excuse of civil war to browbeat a belligerent congress. Obviously Obama isn't facing a civil war (although it seems damn near it some times) but he is facing a lot of challenges both domestically and internationally and in many ways is handcuffed by Congress.
Curious to get your opinion of his impeachable crimes.
What a ridiculous argument. How many whistleblowers were there before? Besides the wikileaks kid and Snowden what whistleblowers has he charged with espionage?
To be fair, I get my salary from the rest of the population, too. If people didn't purchase my companies products I assure you I wouldn't get paid once the cash reserves dried up.
Every American is the beneficiary of the government in some way or form so we all have conflicts of interest. It's not like these workers can somehow vote in a way that impacts their compensation or that they are all that well paid compared to the private sector in the first place.
Most people I know work far more than 40 hours a week because of all the cuts to make the workforce more "efficient". Temps are hired to fill in during especially rough times.
I'll never forget the time my father came off the Alpine slide and literally melted his pants to his legs. Nobody ever paid attention to the "slow" signs.
That was exactly the first thing that came to mind for me. I loved that place, though.