I'm running slackware and think it is a good distro. But next time I install a clean system, it will probably be Debian because slackware installs non-free software by default and I don't want any of that on my system. Plus I'm interested in trying out new distros.
This is great news. The copyright extension act (passed at the behest of Disney and the Gershwin heirs, who cynically manipulated the death of Sonny Bono to their own ends) was a bad law. What's more, I think it is an unconstitutional laws. Whatever you think of copyright, the law in the US is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution provides Congress the power to grant copyright solely for the public benefit. It is part of what has been called the "copyright bargain". The public gives up for limited times the freedom to copy the work, in return for the production of new works as a result of the exclusive copying incentive. Retro-actively extending existing copyrights by definition cannot encourage the production of new works, which is a major justification for copyright law. (The companies will surely argue in friend of the court briefs that giving them additional copyright time will cause them to keep old works in distribution, which is a public benefit. We'll have to see how this plays out).
Companies like Disney don't need gov't subsidies. The Gershwin heirs should go get jobs. Authors already had life+50 years protection before the new law. How much more can you want?
Note that the Supreme Court did not actually agree to hear the case. This is often the case. The court sometimes prefers to let things percolate in lower courts for a while before agreeing to hear a case and render a final decision. This lets the arguments on both sides play themselves out. We can hope for a circuit split, where another appeals district comes to an opposite conclusion. That almost always invites a Supreme Court review. However, since this is a statutory rather than a constitutional question, the court might be saying it thinks this is a minor issue.
Please don't use the term "piracy" to describe copyright infringement. This was a term selected by the major copyright holders because it conjures up images of actual pirates hi-jacking ships at gun point and stealing their cargo. Even if you think unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is wrong, I doubt you think it is as bad as robbing someone of their possessions at gun point. I suggest using a different term.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running slackware and think it is a good distro. But next time I install a clean system, it will probably be Debian because slackware installs non-free software by default and I don't want any of that on my system. Plus I'm interested in trying out new distros.
We don't.
This is great news. The copyright extension act (passed at the behest of Disney and the Gershwin heirs, who cynically manipulated the death of Sonny Bono to their own ends) was a bad law. What's more, I think it is an unconstitutional laws. Whatever you think of copyright, the law in the US is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution provides Congress the power to grant copyright solely for the public benefit. It is part of what has been called the "copyright bargain". The public gives up for limited times the freedom to copy the work, in return for the production of new works as a result of the exclusive copying incentive. Retro-actively extending existing copyrights by definition cannot encourage the production of new works, which is a major justification for copyright law. (The companies will surely argue in friend of the court briefs that giving them additional copyright time will cause them to keep old works in distribution, which is a public benefit. We'll have to see how this plays out).
Companies like Disney don't need gov't subsidies. The Gershwin heirs should go get jobs. Authors already had life+50 years protection before the new law. How much more can you want?
I hope the Supreme Court slaps this one hard.
Note that the Supreme Court did not actually agree to hear the case. This is often the case. The court sometimes prefers to let things percolate in lower courts for a while before agreeing to hear a case and render a final decision. This lets the arguments on both sides play themselves out. We can hope for a circuit split, where another appeals district comes to an opposite conclusion. That almost always invites a Supreme Court review. However, since this is a statutory rather than a constitutional question, the court might be saying it thinks this is a minor issue.
Please don't use the term "piracy" to describe copyright infringement. This was a term selected by the major copyright holders because it conjures up images of actual pirates hi-jacking ships at gun point and stealing their cargo. Even if you think unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is wrong, I doubt you think it is as bad as robbing someone of their possessions at gun point. I suggest using a different term.