Check Arlen Specter - he changed parties to support the bill. So technically you're correct, no standing Republicans supported the bill. His support also prevented a filibuster in 2009.
Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.
When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.
What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.
You keep asserting this - document the lies and misrepresentations.
There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this.
Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.
Let's see, no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good and can be amended. Except no one counted on the party of no (ideas) to act as a block to prevent all fixes that would make ACA better. So yes, I still blame Republicans across the board, and even more so with their lame-ass repeal & replace effort and subsequent sabotaging actions.
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you?
Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.
Successfully, I might add. He appears to have attempted to keep most of those promises. If you'll look, a whole slew of those "failures" were in the Republican controlled congress, even when those measures were to help average people. IOW, he and the democrats tried, but you should lay the blame on the party of NO. Or are you going to claim that he also failed to seat a SC judge and that's also his fault?
So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a compromise with Republicans because Republicans rejected it. And they rejected it because it is a disaster.
I said that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with in congress, with the attempted interference of the Republicans. The Republicans want to create a system where few are covered, and then at great cost.
Don't be obtuse. Insurance rates went up because Trump decided to reduce government subsidies
No, you need to stop being obtuse: if you hand control of healthcare to government, this is the outcome. That is, people become utterly dependent on the good will of government for healthcare. Healthcare become a tool by which politicians can then blackmail the public.
Who's being obtuse? Who stated "I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better that what we have"? More on that comment below.
Did Obama get rid of for-profit insurance? Did Obama get rid of for-profit medical providers? Did Obama rein in drug costs? None of that.
for profit insurance is the biggest issue - the way it's written today it is largely guaranteed to raise all costs 25% (based on the allowed profit, which insurance companies surprisingly always seem to hit/s) Also their interference with medical decisions is absolutely beyond the duties of an insurance company. (see the screw you Aetna articles from this year - mind boggling) For profit medical providers and pharma only bother me in 1 way - the fact that they deal like the shady mob-related car repair businesses of decades ago, where there was a stated price far above the real price you could get if you were "in", "in" meaning that you had insurance or were affiliated somehow with the right billing person.
What he did was give corporations a gigantic handout. That's what the ACA is: cronyism on a massive scale. And you are so "obtuse" that you think that's in your favor.
I don't know where you get that I think anything of the sort. I do believe that ACA made the playing field more fair for all. Insurance companies were starting to kick people out because you inhaled a gnat last year and had to sneeze. (j/k, I think) But here, check out what insurance companies were doing to people that weren't covered by their job. There were multiple drivers for health care / insurance reform, and could you imagine what it would take to go from the current system to single payer? It's got to be a step-wise process. The first is everyone has to be in. My personal second is that pricing should be fair and transparent. (ACA completely failed on this one)
I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better than what we have (though not as good as full privatization). But no Democrat is seriously proposing that or anything like any European si
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you? I see that as better than 50%, on some major promises. Others, like closing Guantanamo are empty sound bites much like any number of other presidents. You cannot change things on a whim, but you can work to minimize them. Others required action by congress, and as we have seen, the opposition party use to be quite influential. At least until Republicans made most things a simple majority vote last session.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
And you really are a black/white situation kind of guy. Has it occurred to you, much like the ACA repeal attempt, that 218 people in the house and 50+1 in the Senate need to support a bill? And that even when those people are from the same party, they may not all agree? And that under such circumstances you wind up with a compromise? (And I feel like I'm talking to an 8th grader?)
You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think?
So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?
I'm saying you should realize that with any universal social contract everyone must participate. And health care is universal, otherwise I'd be happy to let those uninsured young people stay out of the system permanently, and maybe move them south as well, because I'm sure they'll also whine about supporting roadways, subways, railways, airports and ports.
Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free?
Actually, they are nonprofits and mostly financed by donations; they receive little government funding and no insurance reimbursements. In any case, my point is that they are a lot more cost effective than the ACA and if government dollars are going towards providing free preventive care and vaccinations, a system like the free clinics is a lot more efficient than the ACA.
And yet you fail to answer: they're needed because health care is unaffordable for the majority
I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.
Yes, and Obama not only failed to fix that, he arguably made it worse.
I have access to multiple bills from multiple folks over the last 15 years. I can assure you the billing process is the same with the initial bill only slightly increasing while the insurance payouts remained relatively constant. For the slow, that means insurance costs have stayed steady while everyone else pays more. ACA had 0 impact on this process, and it was one of the things ACA would have reduced, since everyone having insurance should reduce costs to the insurance level.
And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.
My car maintenance didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My restaurant bills or grocery bills didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My gas bill didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. So why did your and my healthcare become so much more expensive after Trump took office? Because the rates and conditions are set by government regulators, not the free market.
So, yes, the fact that a change in government can cause health insurance rates to go up is very much the fault
I believe 1 Republican voted for it. But that's irrelevant to the AC's point. The Republican amendments were meant to kill the bill by a thousand cuts. There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this. Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.
I think moving a few hundred thousand soldiers into another country with ordnance and equipment constitutes "war", whether officially declared or not. Especially when everyone calls it a "war". That we've chosen to limit targets is what that comparison is supposed to reveal. We could end the war in short order, should we switch tactics to those used with Germany. There'd be no one left on the other side. That would have its own repercussions on the world stage.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
Apparently you don't. Try here and here and maybe refresh those rose-tinted glasses of yours (/s in case you missed it). In 2000, when Trump stood next to Hillary and said she'd be the first woman president, my response was the only way I'd vote for her was if Trump was her opponent. Little did I know...
Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise. As for health care, the first thing they should have pushed through was posted rates. No special treatment for someone because they're with A or B, but everyone gets charged the same. That would also address transparency.
Yes, and that "de facto emergency coverage" was a better way of covering the uninsured than to force healthy, young people to subsidize unhealthy old people, which is what the ACA does.
You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think? And if he really hates us, you'll live 100+ years? And that being part of society is that when everyone pays in, everyone benefits. Or should we just dump those young freeloaders down Sweeney Todd's chute?
Preventive care visit once a year costs less than a tank of gas; ditto for vaccinations. They are also provided for free at free clinics, something the US government could have expanded.
In fact, it looks like the ACA has reduced preventive care and office visits, because it has forced many people to go onto high deductible plans.
Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free? And why did they have to exist in the first place? Is it because health care was unaffordable? BTW, I have paid for my own healthcare, out of pocket. It's not a fun thing to pay for. I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.
And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited etc.
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.
You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it. Democrats in congress were, but he was definitely a force in getting it done. I believe what he said was something along the lines of the status quo can't continue. He said other things to get people to see it in a better light, for something that wasn't perfect but was better than what was there.
TBH, I'm not a fan of ACA, but I agree with at least 1 of its principles: get everyone covered. Why? Because today you're helped if you need it. And if you can't pay, someone has to pick up the bill, and that invariably falls on those of us that do carry insurance and do pay taxes. I hold that everyone has de facto emergency coverage, so everyone should be covered. I also believe that everyone should have basic coverage for basic things, like preventative care visits once a year, vaccinations, and perhaps 3 or 4 office visits per year per individual.
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited. Targeted killings are the best option out of the crap shoot of terrible options in war. See Dresden Bombing or the Battle of Verdun for examples of what all out war is about. Then come back and complain about targeted killings.
Obama... massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations
You do realize that was only completing what was started under Bush and Republicans, right? And started because Bush and Republicans deregulated wall st to the point that they needed the bailout.
, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,
Again, Bush and Republicans. You do recall how much Bush was considered the worst president ever? How I miss those times.
and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.
... was simply a narcissistic blowhard who said whatever it took to get elected...
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
I disagree. It doesn't show that. "more than one" clause can be considered to cover aggregation of work, not reuse of universe setting. Adaptation can be rewrite of a story in another medium but stretching it to any work in same universe is taking it too far.
You're free to disagree, however you have failed to provide any convincing arguments to support your view. You are arbitrarily restricting the generally understood meanings of 2 words with no supporting basis to fit your narrow interpretation.
Then who should should police it?
That depends on situation. This area changes too fast atm for written law to keep up and people will come up with own arrangements eventually. Only then they can be codified.
I disagree. This area hasn't really changed at all. People that think it does attempt to artificially restrict words like you did above.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you repeat something that someone else said or wrote it's still speech. "Distribution" here is red herring.
Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you don't want it to. "Distribution" is the issue. You can speak about a work but you can't create a derivative work without authorization. You first have to recognize and understand what distribution and derivative works are, then you'll understand why this position makes sense.
People didn't boycott Axanar but supported it via kickstarter instead. Interfering with its production isn't productive use of court's time. Only a censorship institution will be concerned with "unauthorized" works.
You have some warped sense of entitlement. I'm guessing you're on the younger side of 25, haven't held a job, and think the world owes you all sorts of stuff, just because. There's a saying: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You should apply that to your activities, because if your stance in this thread is any indication, you'll be served with either a cease and desist notice or warrant sooner than later. And when you are, don't send them the tripe you have here, because it will not help you.
High levels of corruption in government: check.
Massive poverty: check.
Massive wealth inequality: check.
Didn't realize the US was third-world, though. Have we really gotten that bad?
We do have corruption. Is it high? I'll need a citation. Do we seem to be jailing corrupt politicians? Given the number of republicans being indicted lately, yes. And it does seem odd to me that more republicans are being indicted under a republican congress and executive controlled branches.
Massive poverty? We don't have massive poverty. You'll need to check countries like Brazil, Mexico, India, or any of the many other 3rd world countries to see what massive poverty looks like. Here's a hint, it's not a bunch of people running around in brand name clothes with cellphones eating McDs because they can't afford organic groceries.
We have wealth inequality, it's true. It's not massive like it is in those other countries listed above, because you have to truly have massive poverty to have the type of wealth inequality that leads to a 3rd world country.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
According to definition of derivative work in the law it must be some kind of adaptation of existing work, for example a movie or a novel. No such work in Star Trek universe exist which Axanar is adaptation of. The definition in the law clearly talks about particular works, not entire universes. And it gives very limited scope of what "is derivative work of" relation entails. All examples given are a lot stricter in scope than merely existing in same universe. And once again individual elements are not copyrightable.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
The thing is the government shouldn't really police this.
Then who should should police it?
Even if you just repeat some copyrighted work or your own adaptation of one you still are engaging in speech. And there need to be really good reason to block this. Protecting existing providers from competition isn't good reason.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
People wanted Axanar to be made and court interfered with this.
People want to drive Ferraris too, courts interfere with this. What's your point? The claim you had above was that the Government was interfering with the people's will when they boycott something. At least that's how that sentence reads.
Court is a branch of government. Whenever it makes a decision based on law it's performing state function. Excessive copyright term merely exists because whole logical structure of copyright law is so contradictory it's really hard to argue against term extensions and very few of people who can organize their government presence have an incentive of arguing against long copyright and in favor of short copyright. Situation with any sort of copyright abuses will get worse with time, no work on the law was made with any purpose other than making terms higher. If you want to counteract this then the best platform would be abolition. Any other platform will be really hard to agree on due to too many variables in which ways to "improve" copyright causing a combinatorial explosion and no objective principle cutting off extra options.
The abolition of copyright will occur right after universal income and the subsequent removal of money from society. So you might as well go tilt against those windmills first.
Now, we've already successfully shortened patent terms, so there's precedent in the area of getting IP terms reduced. I personally believe that will happen long before any sort of abolition gains more than token support.
Exactly, think about this: this very definition you cited doesn't include works merely made in same universe. And examples it gives all are solely some transformations of existing works, not from scratch new storylines at all.
"based upon one or more preexisting works"
So this definition tells me loud and clear that that star trek film doesn't really belong among derivative works.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
And once again I reiterate that courts or government shouldn't be involved in determining what works should be made and how they should be distributed, because it's more or less essence of censorship.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
And I simply don't see a rational reason for government to decide which start trek movies get to be made and which do not. And for any other people that aren't Gene Roddenberry for that matter.
The government doesn't decide. The courts do when people file lawsuits, because we live in a civil society where we don't go out and have mob justice when someone feels aggrieved. They only decide based on laws that, for the most part, people have agreed to. Although I'll admit the length of term of current copyright law is ridiculous and goes against the intent of the original clause.
According to that list, you're still needing to rethink your position. While UK copyright was the longer of either the author's life plus 7 years or 42 years at the time Doyle wrote the first Sherlock Holmes story, his copyright was limited to England and expired in 1937. The 1912 stories written in Greece appear to be the only ones that were written during the period of UK copyright. However, Greece appears to have had no international agreements regarding copyright, not having signed the Berne Convention yet. In fact, even though the UK was a signer, they didn't really implement the Berne Convention until the late 1900s. So I submit that the Greek pastiches were legal at the time. And, given the times, it's highly unlikely Doyle was even aware of this publication, being that international travel was something not many did at that time.
I believe everything else was written after the expiration of his UK copyright in 1937. So your bar to make a point here is far higher than you apparently thought.
As for a pastiche counting as a derivative work, it absolutely does today:
Note that that is from the late 1900s, and whatever rulings applied back in 1912 I leave up to you to figure out. Note that the Berne Convention of 1886 already included the phrase "the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work," which has long been regarded as the protection of derivative works, but that didn't apply to Greece at the time.
So please explain how using Enterprise makes it a derivative work while using entire Sherlock Holmes character doesn't? Derivative work clearly covers only transformation of existing work, rather than entirely new work in same universe. If third party authors are allowed to write own Sherlock Holmes stories then third party movie makers are allowed to make their own star trek episodes or entire movies set in the universe. If authors of Sherlock Holmes pastiches weren't forced to rename Holmes then why star trek pastiche authors should rename ships and characters? Using copyright to block third parties like this is definitely yet another abuse. Also since Gene Roddenberry is dead there's no reason to even consider Paramount's own works to be more deserving to reuse those characters than team Axanar's.
I like that you ramble on. It should be noted that the earliest pastiche was written by Holmes close friend and probably had both his permission and blessing. The rest are all long long after his copyright ran out, so you might want to rethink your position.
Your definition of spying could use some work, as could your reading comprehension. Take off your "I hate everyone that doesn't outright agree with me" glasses and reread what I wrote.
I'm not sure how Axanar even remotely relates to a pastiche. It wholly appropriated the Star Trek Universe, down to even using the same ship (Enterprise) from the series. I'd say that's a clear textbook definition of a derivative work. The only way it could have been more derivative is if 1 or more of the original series actors reprised their original roles.
For clarity, this is no different than some of the early derivative works done in the Star Wars universe, such as Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Except Foster was granted license to do so. If you want to see an appropriation done the legally correct way, see Galaxy Quest or The Orville. Both borrowed story structures very similar to Star Trek with lots of common elements, yet none of those are copyright infringing because significant (maybe) effort was put into creating something new and wholesale quite different from the original.
Now regarding Axanar, I grant you that I feel JJ was right, and Paramount was wrong - they should have leveraged this interest in their property and had a mutual beneficial relationship. There are other ways to deal with this, Paramount did the knee-jerk no one gets a slice of my pie. Also the Axanar folks should have known and dealt with the copyright issues before even starting this project, considering the level of effort they were going to put into it.
It's apparent you're not someone with a 8-15 year old in the house with a cellphone. It isn't so much spying as the wish to keep them out of certain areas of the web and to not do stupid shit with their "personal" take anywhere record anything web sharing enabled cameras. Keeping them somewhat restricted to phones in common areas only and lots and lots of discussion about what not to do is a good start. But at that age in today's world, keeping them away from slimy creeps is a whole lot harder than it used to be.
A label exists because of copyright. Otherwise it has no purpose.
Sherlock Holmes came about in 1887, well after the initial iteration of copyright. Hell, after several iterations.
While the family of Marvin Gaye may have corrupted copyright for their own personal lawsuits IMNSHO, I am unaware of large slates of frivolous lawsuits over copyrighted materials.
Personally I think holding anything on faith is wrong and many aspects of copyright are in practice are held on basis of faith.
I hate to break it to you, but all laws are based on faith. We have faith they apply to all equally, or close enough. When they do not, that's when civil unrest occurs.
This became possible because art is not necessary for survival of society, instead it's side effect of its existence. So any suboptimal decisions won't have too much noticeable societal harm and you can afford to be lazier in all aspects of managing it. But I'm opposed to nonsensical laws and institutions on principle.
Well then, I suppose you're opposed to a lot of laws and institutions in modern society, because the case can be made that a good percentage are exactly that: nonsensical.
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies.
No, it's not utopia. It's current status quo.
Not on this planet. status quo is copyright relatively often being enforced. Whether you like it or not.
Relative increase of creative works over centuries exists solely due to improving technology like printing press, radio, personal computing, internet, etc. And also by insanely increased human population that has more time for creative endeavours due to increased efficiency brought by industrialization. Copyright actually slows things down, if people(try to) respect it. Any more or less vigorous copyright enforcement affecting individuals will be extremely unpopular and logistically unimplementable. So I'd say copyright itself is actually an utopia, not its abolition.
How does copyright slow things down? Would people miraculously plop down 100M to make a movie that will be ripped off after the first showing and widely distributed? Would authors work for years writing books to only have $0 at the end of the effort? None of these things happen today without the effects of copyright, which make investing such sums and payment ahead of time for authors (and musicians) possible to give them the leeway needed to create works. And to kill your KickStarter/Patreon example - remove all currently successful creators that benefited from the copyright system and see what's left. It won't be much.
Finally, as the ultimate counter example look at the well-documented case of Trent Reznor. He went outside the establishment for 1 or 2 albums and a tour. He signed with a label before releasing his next album, stating something loosely along the lines of the label does add value and is worth it. I'm 99% sure that given his track record and outspoken criticism of the industry, he's slightly more knowledgable than either of us about copyright and the system and how it works for artists considering he's tried all sides of it and even with his heavy skepticism has concluded it is better to have it than not. BTW, "skepticism" is a truly understated polite term about how he felt about the industry, read up if you're truly interested. I mention it to indicate how wrong your view is, as detailed by someone that has tried everything you propose and was relatively successful but still finds the current flawed system preferable to your proposed alternatives.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , also I remember reading many blog articles by artists detailing how they had trouble to make any profit. Lesser known artists are especially vulnerable because they're in very poor bargaining position and can be easily replaced. Then same practices are slowly extended to more important artists, because doing otherwise would be unfair, no? This exists only due to this nonsensical idea of art as "industry".
Yeah, that's basically to screw people out of royalties by whomever owns the right using company. That's also mostly the fault of those selling the rights, no one else. Get your money up front, be happy.
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
You failed to conclusively show any holes. And historical precedents either. There's this one book studying (lack of) copyright effects on availability of works: http://www.dklevine.com/genera... . Do you know any others studying same question?
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies. I have approximately 7000 years of history on my side. Outside the last 200 or so with active copyright, creative works were few and far between, and mostly made to please someone that wanted a specific thing. Charts, maps, books, music - all were relatively poor in comparison to what came after copyright. We can also see the results of your particular track on sites like YouTube and those served by the Creative Commons. While the creators of one hope to be discovered while the other appears to do it purely out of their own nobility, not much of worth has come from either.
But how would you actually convince lawmakers to ease copyright excesses without having abolition as a fallback solution rather than status quo? So far extending copyright terms were seen by them as safer options.
It's not lawmakers that should lead it here, but the courts. The SC specifically should throw out the current law as unconstitutional, that they haven't shows either that they have a different interpretation than either of us and we haven't made a sufficient legal challenge to successfully contest the law, or that potentially they're at least partially corrupt. I would have wavered on the second suggestion except for the last 20 years have shown me that at least 1 group only cares about a small set of goals, laws be damned.
Did you know that artists now are ripped off even more than before copyright? There is a lot of cases when their total income from their work is 0 or even negative, due to clever accounting practices and non-negotiable contracts from publishers. At least if only patronage exists their independently wealthy patrons don't have particular reason to rip them off. They just make art and get paid for making art and what is done with it after is irrelevant.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
I'm guessing because that wasn't my position nor intent? To be clear, my intent was to show the holes in your position of "no copyright".
You didn't show any holes. Most of your responses are based on this connection existing. Since I question exactly this, they become circular reasoning aka begging the question.
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
I don't see how could you ever argue for reducing copyright, say, from 75 years to 70 years without getting accused of being enemy of authors and progress.
I don't care about whether I am labeled an enemy of authors. It is irrelevant and nothing more than a smear campaign catering to a specific special interest group. I am concerned about constitutionality and the intent of the clause in the Constitution. That clause was not written to promote the welfare of authors et al, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. And don't begin by citing SC decisions over time that slowly warped the original intent, as the SC has been provably wrong in the past by their own contradictory rulings and nothing prevents them from reversing course on copyright and returning some semblance of constitutional intent to copyright law.
You could say the same about badly engineered bridges. How much damage will they cause in the process of falling apart?
There's lots of badly engineered bridges. Fortunately for us, most are designed with factors of safety and conservative enough assumptions that make them unlikely to fail during their intended lifespans. The problem occurs when someone stretches those numbers to achieve something for aesthetics or to go slightly further than before and slashes the factor of safety to something that can be corroded away with poor maintenance.
We know that people have been jailed/fined excessively for copyright infringement of audio/video. To be fair, there was a jail sentence for computer program infringement but there's a few things to be noted there - he was selling copies, and he was doing so on a massive scale. Exactly what copyright law is designed to prevent. It was not a case of sharing something with 10 of your friends, online.
I've found the exact opposite. People with degrees not only are faster at picking up new things, they have more exposure to different paradigms and can adapt more easily, their critical thinking skills are better...
It depends upon the degree. CS? Complete and total waste of time, generally. Some engineering degree where rational logical thought and problem solving are required to succeed that also utilize coding to solve problems? Absolutely, and those generally also tend to have learned a few best practices (see below)
And most importantly, they learn best practices that help them avoid pitfalls down the road.
Maybe 30+ years ago. The last 10-15 years worth of graduates appear to have only learned Java/JavaScript and HTML syntax. Critical thinking skills are on the level of an 8th grader, at best.
In fact, an 8th grader might be the better hire, they have less ego and are willing to learn instead of saying the latest gee whiz language or framework is the solution to all your problems. I mean, I'll have to train in any case, so why not go with the willing candidate?/s
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you are hallucinating.
House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)
Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla...
Check Arlen Specter - he changed parties to support the bill. So technically you're correct, no standing Republicans supported the bill. His support also prevented a filibuster in 2009.
When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.
What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.
You keep asserting this - document the lies and misrepresentations.
Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.
Let's see, no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good and can be amended. Except no one counted on the party of no (ideas) to act as a block to prevent all fixes that would make ACA better. So yes, I still blame Republicans across the board, and even more so with their lame-ass repeal & replace effort and subsequent sabotaging actions.
Look, I told you that I voted for Obama and was dissatisifed with all his broken promises. You absurdly somehow tried to prove me "wrong" by pointing at the WaPo.
Successfully, I might add. He appears to have attempted to keep most of those promises. If you'll look, a whole slew of those "failures" were in the Republican controlled congress, even when those measures were to help average people. IOW, he and the democrats tried, but you should lay the blame on the party of NO. Or are you going to claim that he also failed to seat a SC judge and that's also his fault?
So you're saying that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with among themselves. I agree. It is factually wrong to say that the ACA is as crappy as it is because of a compromise with Republicans because Republicans rejected it. And they rejected it because it is a disaster.
I said that the ACA is the best compromise Democrats could come up with in congress, with the attempted interference of the Republicans. The Republicans want to create a system where few are covered, and then at great cost.
No, you need to stop being obtuse: if you hand control of healthcare to government, this is the outcome. That is, people become utterly dependent on the good will of government for healthcare. Healthcare become a tool by which politicians can then blackmail the public.
Who's being obtuse? Who stated "I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better that what we have"? More on that comment below.
Did Obama get rid of for-profit insurance? Did Obama get rid of for-profit medical providers? Did Obama rein in drug costs? None of that.
for profit insurance is the biggest issue - the way it's written today it is largely guaranteed to raise all costs 25% (based on the allowed profit, which insurance companies surprisingly always seem to hit /s) Also their interference with medical decisions is absolutely beyond the duties of an insurance company. (see the screw you Aetna articles from this year - mind boggling) For profit medical providers and pharma only bother me in 1 way - the fact that they deal like the shady mob-related car repair businesses of decades ago, where there was a stated price far above the real price you could get if you were "in", "in" meaning that you had insurance or were affiliated somehow with the right billing person.
What he did was give corporations a gigantic handout. That's what the ACA is: cronyism on a massive scale. And you are so "obtuse" that you think that's in your favor.
I don't know where you get that I think anything of the sort. I do believe that ACA made the playing field more fair for all. Insurance companies were starting to kick people out because you inhaled a gnat last year and had to sneeze. (j/k, I think) But here, check out what insurance companies were doing to people that weren't covered by their job. There were multiple drivers for health care / insurance reform, and could you imagine what it would take to go from the current system to single payer? It's got to be a step-wise process. The first is everyone has to be in. My personal second is that pricing should be fair and transparent. (ACA completely failed on this one)
I completely agree that a single payer system like the UK or France would be better than what we have (though not as good as full privatization). But no Democrat is seriously proposing that or anything like any European si
Gosh, even the WaPo lists only about 1/4 of Obama's promises kept.
You're a glass is quarter full when it's half empty kind of guy, aren't you? I see that as better than 50%, on some major promises. Others, like closing Guantanamo are empty sound bites much like any number of other presidents. You cannot change things on a whim, but you can work to minimize them. Others required action by congress, and as we have seen, the opposition party use to be quite influential. At least until Republicans made most things a simple majority vote last session.
Compromise? Republicans universally rejected it. The ACA was a Democratic construct.
And you really are a black/white situation kind of guy. Has it occurred to you, much like the ACA repeal attempt, that 218 people in the house and 50+1 in the Senate need to support a bill? And that even when those people are from the same party, they may not all agree? And that under such circumstances you wind up with a compromise? (And I feel like I'm talking to an 8th grader?)
So you are saying that I should just shut up and vote for robbing young health people because it's in my narrow economic interest?
I'm saying you should realize that with any universal social contract everyone must participate. And health care is universal, otherwise I'd be happy to let those uninsured young people stay out of the system permanently, and maybe move them south as well, because I'm sure they'll also whine about supporting roadways, subways, railways, airports and ports.
Actually, they are nonprofits and mostly financed by donations; they receive little government funding and no insurance reimbursements. In any case, my point is that they are a lot more cost effective than the ACA and if government dollars are going towards providing free preventive care and vaccinations, a system like the free clinics is a lot more efficient than the ACA.
And yet you fail to answer: they're needed because health care is unaffordable for the majority
Yes, and Obama not only failed to fix that, he arguably made it worse.
I have access to multiple bills from multiple folks over the last 15 years. I can assure you the billing process is the same with the initial bill only slightly increasing while the insurance payouts remained relatively constant. For the slow, that means insurance costs have stayed steady while everyone else pays more. ACA had 0 impact on this process, and it was one of the things ACA would have reduced, since everyone having insurance should reduce costs to the insurance level.
My car maintenance didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My restaurant bills or grocery bills didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. My gas bill didn't go up 30% after Trump took office. So why did your and my healthcare become so much more expensive after Trump took office? Because the rates and conditions are set by government regulators, not the free market.
So, yes, the fact that a change in government can cause health insurance rates to go up is very much the fault
I believe 1 Republican voted for it. But that's irrelevant to the AC's point. The Republican amendments were meant to kill the bill by a thousand cuts. There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this. Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.
I think moving a few hundred thousand soldiers into another country with ordnance and equipment constitutes "war", whether officially declared or not. Especially when everyone calls it a "war". That we've chosen to limit targets is what that comparison is supposed to reveal. We could end the war in short order, should we switch tactics to those used with Germany. There'd be no one left on the other side. That would have its own repercussions on the world stage.
I voted for Obama in 2008. I know what he promised and I know what he delivered. As far as I'm concerned, he lied. With Hillary, her lies were even more transparent and obvious.
Apparently you don't. Try here and here and maybe refresh those rose-tinted glasses of yours (/s in case you missed it). In 2000, when Trump stood next to Hillary and said she'd be the first woman president, my response was the only way I'd vote for her was if Trump was her opponent. Little did I know...
Obama fully approved of the ACA and took credit for it. And it's nothing more than a massive handout to corporations that does nothing to address the unsustainable cost spiral of health care.
Everyone involved knew ACA was a compromise. As for health care, the first thing they should have pushed through was posted rates. No special treatment for someone because they're with A or B, but everyone gets charged the same. That would also address transparency.
Yes, and that "de facto emergency coverage" was a better way of covering the uninsured than to force healthy, young people to subsidize unhealthy old people, which is what the ACA does.
You do realize, if god hates us, you'll be one of those old people sooner than you think? And if he really hates us, you'll live 100+ years? And that being part of society is that when everyone pays in, everyone benefits. Or should we just dump those young freeloaders down Sweeney Todd's chute?
Preventive care visit once a year costs less than a tank of gas; ditto for vaccinations. They are also provided for free at free clinics, something the US government could have expanded.
In fact, it looks like the ACA has reduced preventive care and office visits, because it has forced many people to go onto high deductible plans.
Who do you think pays for free clinics, because they're certainly not free? And why did they have to exist in the first place? Is it because health care was unaffordable? BTW, I have paid for my own healthcare, out of pocket. It's not a fun thing to pay for. I've also seen what happens when you have to hit the ER for a relatively minor emergency that turns into a $50K bill. Oh, but they'll settle it for $5K. If you have insurance. Cash? $20K. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the US health insurance industry right there.
And I did check out those ACA plans, after Trump took office. Amazing how they went up 30% and offered less. But I'm sure that's Obama's fault too.
It actually started under Reagan, but I didn't want to go into that much detail.
So, what all of that amounts to is that Obama lied in order to be elected.
What it really amounts to is that you were mistaken. So we'll start with that.
That's not what Obama said ACA would bring. So, again, he lied, and the people who advocated for ACA lied. And, of course, "single payer" without nationalization of the health care system isn't workable either, it's just an even bigger crony capitalist handout to corporations. If you want a public single payer solution, you must nationalize health care providers as well.
You are mistaken again: Obama didn't author the ACA, and wasn't even responsible for most of what was in it. Democrats in congress were, but he was definitely a force in getting it done. I believe what he said was something along the lines of the status quo can't continue. He said other things to get people to see it in a better light, for something that wasn't perfect but was better than what was there.
TBH, I'm not a fan of ACA, but I agree with at least 1 of its principles: get everyone covered. Why? Because today you're helped if you need it. And if you can't pay, someone has to pick up the bill, and that invariably falls on those of us that do carry insurance and do pay taxes. I hold that everyone has de facto emergency coverage, so everyone should be covered. I also believe that everyone should have basic coverage for basic things, like preventative care visits once a year, vaccinations, and perhaps 3 or 4 office visits per year per individual.
Obama was an inexperienced community organizer who got elected because he promised to end America's wars, targeted killings, and NSA spying, and because his opponents were war mongers and imbeciles.
He was a senator, he was working towards getting out of 2 major wars he inherited. Targeted killings are the best option out of the crap shoot of terrible options in war. See Dresden Bombing or the Battle of Verdun for examples of what all out war is about. Then come back and complain about targeted killings.
Obama ... massively added to the federal debt, handed vast amounts of money to Wall St and corporations
You do realize that was only completing what was started under Bush and Republicans, right? And started because Bush and Republicans deregulated wall st to the point that they needed the bailout.
, caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs,
Again, Bush and Republicans. You do recall how much Bush was considered the worst president ever? How I miss those times.
and saddled us with healthcare reform that by its own architects was unworkable.
Actually, it is workable, if you take it to its conclusion: single payer. I'm not sure any of the architects were forward thinking enough to realize the end game though, so I'll give you this one.
Are you describing Trump?
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
I disagree. It doesn't show that. "more than one" clause can be considered to cover aggregation of work, not reuse of universe setting. Adaptation can be rewrite of a story in another medium but stretching it to any work in same universe is taking it too far.
You're free to disagree, however you have failed to provide any convincing arguments to support your view. You are arbitrarily restricting the generally understood meanings of 2 words with no supporting basis to fit your narrow interpretation.
Then who should should police it?
That depends on situation. This area changes too fast atm for written law to keep up and people will come up with own arrangements eventually. Only then they can be codified.
I disagree. This area hasn't really changed at all. People that think it does attempt to artificially restrict words like you did above.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
This doesn't make sense to me. If you repeat something that someone else said or wrote it's still speech. "Distribution" here is red herring.
Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you don't want it to. "Distribution" is the issue. You can speak about a work but you can't create a derivative work without authorization. You first have to recognize and understand what distribution and derivative works are, then you'll understand why this position makes sense.
People didn't boycott Axanar but supported it via kickstarter instead. Interfering with its production isn't productive use of court's time. Only a censorship institution will be concerned with "unauthorized" works.
You have some warped sense of entitlement. I'm guessing you're on the younger side of 25, haven't held a job, and think the world owes you all sorts of stuff, just because. There's a saying: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. You should apply that to your activities, because if your stance in this thread is any indication, you'll be served with either a cease and desist notice or warrant sooner than later. And when you are, don't send them the tripe you have here, because it will not help you.
High levels of corruption in government: check.
Massive poverty: check.
Massive wealth inequality: check.
Didn't realize the US was third-world, though. Have we really gotten that bad?
We do have corruption. Is it high? I'll need a citation. Do we seem to be jailing corrupt politicians? Given the number of republicans being indicted lately, yes. And it does seem odd to me that more republicans are being indicted under a republican congress and executive controlled branches.
Massive poverty? We don't have massive poverty. You'll need to check countries like Brazil, Mexico, India, or any of the many other 3rd world countries to see what massive poverty looks like. Here's a hint, it's not a bunch of people running around in brand name clothes with cellphones eating McDs because they can't afford organic groceries.
We have wealth inequality, it's true. It's not massive like it is in those other countries listed above, because you have to truly have massive poverty to have the type of wealth inequality that leads to a 3rd world country.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
According to definition of derivative work in the law it must be some kind of adaptation of existing work, for example a movie or a novel. No such work in Star Trek universe exist which Axanar is adaptation of. The definition in the law clearly talks about particular works, not entire universes. And it gives very limited scope of what "is derivative work of" relation entails. All examples given are a lot stricter in scope than merely existing in same universe. And once again individual elements are not copyrightable.
You're misunderstanding the concept of derivative works. "based upon one or more preexisting works" immediately shows you that your limited definition is incorrect. Your definition of adaptation is similarly incorrect.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
The thing is the government shouldn't really police this.
Then who should should police it?
Even if you just repeat some copyrighted work or your own adaptation of one you still are engaging in speech. And there need to be really good reason to block this. Protecting existing providers from competition isn't good reason.
If you're rebroadcasting, you're distributing. Distribution is not free speech. That's a good enough reason.
If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
People wanted Axanar to be made and court interfered with this.
People want to drive Ferraris too, courts interfere with this. What's your point? The claim you had above was that the Government was interfering with the people's will when they boycott something. At least that's how that sentence reads.
Court is a branch of government. Whenever it makes a decision based on law it's performing state function. Excessive copyright term merely exists because whole logical structure of copyright law is so contradictory it's really hard to argue against term extensions and very few of people who can organize their government presence have an incentive of arguing against long copyright and in favor of short copyright. Situation with any sort of copyright abuses will get worse with time, no work on the law was made with any purpose other than making terms higher. If you want to counteract this then the best platform would be abolition. Any other platform will be really hard to agree on due to too many variables in which ways to "improve" copyright causing a combinatorial explosion and no objective principle cutting off extra options.
The abolition of copyright will occur right after universal income and the subsequent removal of money from society. So you might as well go tilt against those windmills first.
Now, we've already successfully shortened patent terms, so there's precedent in the area of getting IP terms reduced. I personally believe that will happen long before any sort of abolition gains more than token support.
Exactly, think about this: this very definition you cited doesn't include works merely made in same universe. And examples it gives all are solely some transformations of existing works, not from scratch new storylines at all.
"based upon one or more preexisting works"
So this definition tells me loud and clear that that star trek film doesn't really belong among derivative works.
How is that Star Trek Axanar effort not based upon preexisting works?
And once again I reiterate that courts or government shouldn't be involved in determining what works should be made and how they should be distributed, because it's more or less essence of censorship.
You're seriously twisting in the wind on that one. There's no censorship. Works can be published at will. What cannot be done is someone ripping off what you've created. See Pepe the Frog for a case of this happening despite copyright. I'm sure the original creator is loving that his frog creation is so popular. Wait, no he doesn't.
If people don't want some work to be made they'll simply boycott it, and government only ever gets involved when it wants to override what people would have decided.
That's no different that reality today. People boycott stuff they don't like. Government doesn't override the people's will when they boycott something.
And I simply don't see a rational reason for government to decide which start trek movies get to be made and which do not. And for any other people that aren't Gene Roddenberry for that matter.
The government doesn't decide. The courts do when people file lawsuits, because we live in a civil society where we don't go out and have mob justice when someone feels aggrieved. They only decide based on laws that, for the most part, people have agreed to. Although I'll admit the length of term of current copyright law is ridiculous and goes against the intent of the original clause.
According to that list, you're still needing to rethink your position. While UK copyright was the longer of either the author's life plus 7 years or 42 years at the time Doyle wrote the first Sherlock Holmes story, his copyright was limited to England and expired in 1937. The 1912 stories written in Greece appear to be the only ones that were written during the period of UK copyright. However, Greece appears to have had no international agreements regarding copyright, not having signed the Berne Convention yet. In fact, even though the UK was a signer, they didn't really implement the Berne Convention until the late 1900s. So I submit that the Greek pastiches were legal at the time. And, given the times, it's highly unlikely Doyle was even aware of this publication, being that international travel was something not many did at that time.
I believe everything else was written after the expiration of his UK copyright in 1937. So your bar to make a point here is far higher than you apparently thought.
As for a pastiche counting as a derivative work, it absolutely does today:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Note that that is from the late 1900s, and whatever rulings applied back in 1912 I leave up to you to figure out. Note that the Berne Convention of 1886 already included the phrase "the right to make adaptations and arrangements of the work," which has long been regarded as the protection of derivative works, but that didn't apply to Greece at the time.
So please explain how using Enterprise makes it a derivative work while using entire Sherlock Holmes character doesn't? Derivative work clearly covers only transformation of existing work, rather than entirely new work in same universe. If third party authors are allowed to write own Sherlock Holmes stories then third party movie makers are allowed to make their own star trek episodes or entire movies set in the universe. If authors of Sherlock Holmes pastiches weren't forced to rename Holmes then why star trek pastiche authors should rename ships and characters? Using copyright to block third parties like this is definitely yet another abuse. Also since Gene Roddenberry is dead there's no reason to even consider Paramount's own works to be more deserving to reuse those characters than team Axanar's.
I like that you ramble on. It should be noted that the earliest pastiche was written by Holmes close friend and probably had both his permission and blessing. The rest are all long long after his copyright ran out, so you might want to rethink your position.
Your definition of spying could use some work, as could your reading comprehension. Take off your "I hate everyone that doesn't outright agree with me" glasses and reread what I wrote.
I'm not sure how Axanar even remotely relates to a pastiche. It wholly appropriated the Star Trek Universe, down to even using the same ship (Enterprise) from the series. I'd say that's a clear textbook definition of a derivative work. The only way it could have been more derivative is if 1 or more of the original series actors reprised their original roles.
For clarity, this is no different than some of the early derivative works done in the Star Wars universe, such as Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Except Foster was granted license to do so. If you want to see an appropriation done the legally correct way, see Galaxy Quest or The Orville. Both borrowed story structures very similar to Star Trek with lots of common elements, yet none of those are copyright infringing because significant (maybe) effort was put into creating something new and wholesale quite different from the original.
Now regarding Axanar, I grant you that I feel JJ was right, and Paramount was wrong - they should have leveraged this interest in their property and had a mutual beneficial relationship. There are other ways to deal with this, Paramount did the knee-jerk no one gets a slice of my pie. Also the Axanar folks should have known and dealt with the copyright issues before even starting this project, considering the level of effort they were going to put into it.
It's apparent you're not someone with a 8-15 year old in the house with a cellphone. It isn't so much spying as the wish to keep them out of certain areas of the web and to not do stupid shit with their "personal" take anywhere record anything web sharing enabled cameras. Keeping them somewhat restricted to phones in common areas only and lots and lots of discussion about what not to do is a good start. But at that age in today's world, keeping them away from slimy creeps is a whole lot harder than it used to be.
A label exists because of copyright. Otherwise it has no purpose.
Sherlock Holmes came about in 1887, well after the initial iteration of copyright. Hell, after several iterations.
While the family of Marvin Gaye may have corrupted copyright for their own personal lawsuits IMNSHO, I am unaware of large slates of frivolous lawsuits over copyrighted materials.
Personally I think holding anything on faith is wrong and many aspects of copyright are in practice are held on basis of faith.
I hate to break it to you, but all laws are based on faith. We have faith they apply to all equally, or close enough. When they do not, that's when civil unrest occurs.
This became possible because art is not necessary for survival of society, instead it's side effect of its existence. So any suboptimal decisions won't have too much noticeable societal harm and you can afford to be lazier in all aspects of managing it. But I'm opposed to nonsensical laws and institutions on principle.
Well then, I suppose you're opposed to a lot of laws and institutions in modern society, because the case can be made that a good percentage are exactly that: nonsensical.
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies.
No, it's not utopia. It's current status quo.
Not on this planet. status quo is copyright relatively often being enforced. Whether you like it or not.
Relative increase of creative works over centuries exists solely due to improving technology like printing press, radio, personal computing, internet, etc. And also by insanely increased human population that has more time for creative endeavours due to increased efficiency brought by industrialization. Copyright actually slows things down, if people(try to) respect it. Any more or less vigorous copyright enforcement affecting individuals will be extremely unpopular and logistically unimplementable. So I'd say copyright itself is actually an utopia, not its abolition.
How does copyright slow things down? Would people miraculously plop down 100M to make a movie that will be ripped off after the first showing and widely distributed? Would authors work for years writing books to only have $0 at the end of the effort? None of these things happen today without the effects of copyright, which make investing such sums and payment ahead of time for authors (and musicians) possible to give them the leeway needed to create works. And to kill your KickStarter/Patreon example - remove all currently successful creators that benefited from the copyright system and see what's left. It won't be much.
Finally, as the ultimate counter example look at the well-documented case of Trent Reznor. He went outside the establishment for 1 or 2 albums and a tour. He signed with a label before releasing his next album, stating something loosely along the lines of the label does add value and is worth it. I'm 99% sure that given his track record and outspoken criticism of the industry, he's slightly more knowledgable than either of us about copyright and the system and how it works for artists considering he's tried all sides of it and even with his heavy skepticism has concluded it is better to have it than not. BTW, "skepticism" is a truly understated polite term about how he felt about the industry, read up if you're truly interested. I mention it to indicate how wrong your view is, as detailed by someone that has tried everything you propose and was relatively successful but still finds the current flawed system preferable to your proposed alternatives.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , also I remember reading many blog articles by artists detailing how they had trouble to make any profit. Lesser known artists are especially vulnerable because they're in very poor bargaining position and can be easily replaced. Then same practices are slowly extended to more important artists, because doing otherwise would be unfair, no? This exists only due to this nonsensical idea of art as "industry".
Yeah, that's basically to screw people out of royalties by whomever owns the right using company. That's also mostly the fault of those selling the rights, no one else. Get your money up front, be happy.
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
You failed to conclusively show any holes. And historical precedents either. There's this one book studying (lack of) copyright effects on availability of works: http://www.dklevine.com/genera... . Do you know any others studying same question?
I'm not pushing an idealogical utopia that depends upon people willingly supporting artists just because, and that completely neglects others stealing the results of their creativity so I don't need supporting studies. I have approximately 7000 years of history on my side. Outside the last 200 or so with active copyright, creative works were few and far between, and mostly made to please someone that wanted a specific thing. Charts, maps, books, music - all were relatively poor in comparison to what came after copyright. We can also see the results of your particular track on sites like YouTube and those served by the Creative Commons. While the creators of one hope to be discovered while the other appears to do it purely out of their own nobility, not much of worth has come from either.
But how would you actually convince lawmakers to ease copyright excesses without having abolition as a fallback solution rather than status quo? So far extending copyright terms were seen by them as safer options.
It's not lawmakers that should lead it here, but the courts. The SC specifically should throw out the current law as unconstitutional, that they haven't shows either that they have a different interpretation than either of us and we haven't made a sufficient legal challenge to successfully contest the law, or that potentially they're at least partially corrupt. I would have wavered on the second suggestion except for the last 20 years have shown me that at least 1 group only cares about a small set of goals, laws be damned.
Did you know that artists now are ripped off even more than before copyright? There is a lot of cases when their total income from their work is 0 or even negative, due to clever accounting practices and non-negotiable contracts from publishers. At least if only patronage exists their independently wealthy patrons don't have particular reason to rip them off. They just make art and get paid for making art and what is done with it after is irrelevant.
I would like to see actual details. You also realize there are farmers paying to grow their crops, and that coders are working for less than $1 a day?
I'm guessing because that wasn't my position nor intent? To be clear, my intent was to show the holes in your position of "no copyright".
You didn't show any holes. Most of your responses are based on this connection existing. Since I question exactly this, they become circular reasoning aka begging the question.
There are holes all over. You just refuse to see them. That doesn't make them any less present. My position, based on historical evidence is that with no copyright, there are no protections, and everything is a free for all. We've been there. It results in less works available and certainly nothing that has significant costs associated with it.
I don't see how could you ever argue for reducing copyright, say, from 75 years to 70 years without getting accused of being enemy of authors and progress.
I don't care about whether I am labeled an enemy of authors. It is irrelevant and nothing more than a smear campaign catering to a specific special interest group. I am concerned about constitutionality and the intent of the clause in the Constitution. That clause was not written to promote the welfare of authors et al, but to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. And don't begin by citing SC decisions over time that slowly warped the original intent, as the SC has been provably wrong in the past by their own contradictory rulings and nothing prevents them from reversing course on copyright and returning some semblance of constitutional intent to copyright law.
You could say the same about badly engineered bridges. How much damage will they cause in the process of falling apart?
There's lots of badly engineered bridges. Fortunately for us, most are designed with factors of safety and conservative enough assumptions that make them unlikely to fail during their intended lifespans. The problem occurs when someone stretches those numbers to achieve something for aesthetics or to go slightly further than before and slashes the factor of safety to something that can be corroded away with poor maintenance.
We know that people have been jailed/fined excessively for copyright infringement of audio/video. To be fair, there was a jail sentence for computer program infringement but there's a few things to be noted there - he was selling copies, and he was doing so on a massive scale. Exactly what copyright law is designed to prevent. It was not a case of sharing something with 10 of your friends, online.
I've found the exact opposite. People with degrees not only are faster at picking up new things, they have more exposure to different paradigms and can adapt more easily, their critical thinking skills are better...
It depends upon the degree. CS? Complete and total waste of time, generally. Some engineering degree where rational logical thought and problem solving are required to succeed that also utilize coding to solve problems? Absolutely, and those generally also tend to have learned a few best practices (see below)
And most importantly, they learn best practices that help them avoid pitfalls down the road.
Maybe 30+ years ago. The last 10-15 years worth of graduates appear to have only learned Java/JavaScript and HTML syntax. Critical thinking skills are on the level of an 8th grader, at best.
In fact, an 8th grader might be the better hire, they have less ego and are willing to learn instead of saying the latest gee whiz language or framework is the solution to all your problems. I mean, I'll have to train in any case, so why not go with the willing candidate? /s