It's to your credit to resist the urge to be sarcastic, because you're wrong. In Europe, countries are not economies. The poster to whom I was responding said that the uneployment rate of the United States approximated half that of the major European economies. What exactly he means by that, I'm not sure, because they don't have distinct economies. However, the unemployment rate for the Eurozone is 8.0% and the unemployment rate for Britain is 5.3%. These are the two largest traditional European economies (the Eurozone includes France, Germany, and Italy). The weighted average (Britain has 59.8m people, or 16.24%, and the Eurozone has 308.4, or 83.76% of the total combined population) is 83.76% * 8% + 16.24% * 5.3% = 7.562% unemployment, well under the 9.2% uneployment rate required for the above poster's claims to be meritorious.
Except that it's false to say "Americans can afford to drive SUVs." What you really mean -- unless you intend to deceive people -- is that SOME Americans can afford to drive SUVs. Many others (thirty-eight million Americans) have "insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health" (Figures from the Census Bureau, definition quoted from the Orshansky Thresholds used thereby).
I think there are fewer than thirty-eight million SUV drivers in the United States. If I'm right, then from a purely quantitative perspective, the Swedes have a better standard of living than a purely capitalist United States would have.
A person who cares more about military spending than social spending is putting kick-the-shit-out-of-the-other-guy nationalism above community well-being. When you're so bent on destruction of the Other that you'll hurt the people in your own community to do it, you're pretty dang fascist.
I had done a quick google search and used figures brought up by the BBC. European unemployment rates similar to the U.S. unemployment rate: Austria - 4.8% Britain - 5.3% Denmark - 4.8% Netherlands - 5.7% Sweden - 5.5% Switzerland - 3.3%
The overall unemployment rate in the Euro zone is 8% (this is in large part due to high reported unemployment in Germany and France, explained above, 11.0% and 9.3% respectively). However, the Euro zone unemployment rate reduced by.7% from last year's rate, compared with the U.S. unemployment rate, which reduced.5%.
Not to be a total jackass, but I really do have to rub this in your face: the Scandinavian countries have historically had the lowest unemployment (historically lower than that of the United States) and STILL have the largest welfare system of all of Europe. If that doesn't provide a counterexample to your nonsensical "Everyone benefits from a dog-eat-dog world" blind faith in Capitalism-as-God, I don't know what does.
I don't think so. Such an amendment would have been disastrous. It would make it impossible for the EPA to implement Kyoto (if we ever ratify the dang thing), impossible to outlaw torture (that's a non-chattel moral crime and, traditionally, the province of the several States), etc. Such an amendment would leave us with an inability to have a foreign policy that amounted to more than what we have right now -- "Do it our way, or we'll overextend our military resources trying to kick your ass."
The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants copyright power to Congress, but it doesn't deny further IP legislation, and in fact says that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. That is, unless something in the treaty is explicitly banned by the Constitution, any powers any treaties give to Congress are valid. See STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
Your party got its chance, and caused a national disaster. McReynolds, Sutherland, Devanter and Butler were the most prominent, powerful libertarians in the U.S. government in the history of the country.
Libertarians have total devotion to the idea of a free market. They infer that because free competition leads to the best results in certain circumstances, it leads to the best results in all cases. This is faulty logic. This differs not at all from the religious right. Blind devotion to an ideology without regard for the reality of the situation is NOT a valid basis for governing the nation.
I imagine that Libertarians reading this are bristling at this point. They object, saying that the issue isn't about best results, but about civil liberties. But liberty includes the right to enter into a contract, including the contract by which you gain the right to govern others in exchange for agreeing to live by the regulations you and others like you make together. This contract is called democracy, ancient Greek for "playing nice together like a civilized adult."
Sorry, but the right to keep whatever goods you coerce people into giving you is nowhere near as much of a civil right as clean air and drinking water, and society's right not to have people dying in the streets trumps your right to skin a flea for its hide and tallow.
"But the U.S. Government has no mandate over... non-citizens."
Uh. Thanks for defeating your own point. The Federal government has no rights over foreign citizens except insofar as it's for national defense. Otherwise, it's an unconstitutional extension of Federal power, and a waste of taxpayer money. The powers of the Federal government were enumerated very specifically, and should remain as such.
Remember, the way the system is SUPPOSED to work is, you as citizens delegate authority to a central government so it can get stuff done it takes a central government to do. Other than that, they shouldn't be allowed to do *anything*.
They're contradicting themselves. The GPL doesn't limit linking whatsoever. It limits linking *and distributing the product*. Even Stallman says so, not to mention all their lawyers.
La jurisprudence n'est pas la même chose que notre precedent . Au système de droit commun, si une court supérieure décide un règle de droit, tous les autres doivent non seulement le respecter, mais le suivre. Toute contradiction est strictement interdite. La seule exception est la Cour Suprême, qui n'a aucune obligation. Le système français avec la jurisprudence est plus semblable au principe de stare decisis .
En France, un juge ne peut ni créer ni démolir aucune loi.
The title is misleading. Maybe "Legal Victory for a P2P user in France" would be better.
France uses the "civil law" system (as opposed to the "common law" system used in the U.S., the U.K., and the Commonwealth, past and present). It's based on the Roman corpus iuris civilis, and it doesn't have any such thing as "precedent." Each and every case is decided purely on the facts of the case, the law as written, and the judge's... erm... well... judgment.
This doesn't mean P2P is legal in France. It means someone got away with it.
I do not support the dollar -- I have nearly 98% of my currency in the only true store of wealth: gold and silver
How's that market going for you?
By the way, I would seriously reconsider your truly asenine sheeple position on the economy. In the meantime, you might want to try reading the works of, say, the Nobel Prize in Economics winners of the past 50 years, including John Nash. You also might want to read about William Hamilton's work on altruism (beginning around 1963). At that point, you'll realize that not only is communism the objectively best system, but has a strong biological basis. This is not an ideology, this is not wishful thinking, this is not a social experiment. It's a hard, solid fact, proven by Princeton PhDs in Mathematics AND by the process of natural selection which you seem to hold in such high respect. The only question is whether it can possibly be implemented on a large scale in human institutions without someone taking advantage of the trust that has to be given to make those kinds of changes. But if it can't, it's because of free market winner-take-all looking-out-for-number-one avaricious snots like yourself.
Next time you get into an argument, try not to come across as an absolute idiot. It's generally considered bad form to tell a professional you know more than he does. I think you owe the biologist an apology.
I think it would be nice to slip in state legislation in as many states as possible that does a little death-by-a-thousand-cuts on corporations who do this kind of thing.
Maybe by making it illegal for any party contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and all their members, agents, and partners, to sell their wares to minors or in stores accessible by minors.
I imagine that you'd see everyone withdraw from the RIAA pretty quick. No music label wants their CDs to be available only in porn shops.
No, of course not. Not only is there no law protecting free speech, but the Constitution is only concerned with the government. If Constitutional limits of power applied to private entities, then things like the following would be true:
Sams Club couldn't charge member fees (taxation of interstate commerce is solely for the federal government)
Having a paintball gun on a boat would be illegal (only the Federal government has the right to a standing Navy, even though States also have rights to a well-regulated militia).
Trading of wampum or pelts would be illegal, and Parker Brothers (?) would be in trouble (only the federal government can create a system of currency).
Americans would not be allowed to use the metric system (Congress sets standards of weights and measures).
People would not be allowed to ask their fiance(e)s to convert before marriage (thereby establishing a household religion).
Some of those examples are slight hyperbole, but the point is that limitations on governments (not having statist rebellions, having universal money, etc) don't apply to ordinary citizens. You as an individual have more liberties than the State, in general, and usually we're thankful for that. But it also means that private individuals (say, the chair of the board of MU) get liberties government organizations don't get.
So, short answer, no. Not only is the First Amendment not "a law"*, but it doesn't say anything about private individuals rights, it just says what Congress can't do.
* Minor point, hardly relevant, it just means the procedure is different -- you sue the government for violating it, rather than trying to fit the Capitol Building in a prison cell.
They never made a law allowing private establishments to dictate their own rules on free speech.
First of all, the private establishments aren't "dictating" per se. Accepting the terms and conditions of the student code is always a part of the contract a student signs with a university. So the student agreed to it, even though he may feel it means something else and he may apply more common sense to it. However, it's likely that the contract he agreed to also defers all decisions about code of conduct violations to the school administration. While you might think it's stupid to give up this much liberty, you often don't have a choice. This, IMO, is a failing of the market system -- it fails to take into account that there may be no competitor to choose from who actually provides what consumers want, so if the particular market good is a necessity, the people are not really free.
Secondly, even if they were "dictating," Congress never made a law about allowing them to. It's simply assumed that private contracts are valid unless they specifically break a law. If there's no law against it, then there's no need for special legislation allowing it.
I admit it's a shitty and frankly undemocratic thing to do. But universities are not compelled to be democratic. The only way this kid would really have a chance is if the legislature of the U.S. or his state made a law AGAINST limiting free speech by universities.
Basically, the whole thing kinda falls along the same lines as the reason private colleges can make you wear uniforms but public ones can barely get away with having a dress code.
There's a difference between forcing you to enter into a contract and just taking your property. Presumably, the Court could confiscate the college and award it to the kid, but I don't think they'd do that. Besides, they'd have to have some kind of economic rationale, because eminent domain only applies to things done 'for the common good' (like urban renovation projects).
No. The government is NOT required to protect anyone's free speech. The relevant wording is "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Since they didn't make a law, first amendment rights have nothing to do with this, legally. Frankly, the kid has no case unless he can successfully argue that the *inalienable* right to free speech is so important that it trumps private contracts. Even then, since it's a contract and not criminal law, and the contract is already dissolved, there's nothing the Court can do.
The government can't FORCE you to enter into a private contract, no matter what.
I would be very surprised to see this pass. If you were the French government, and you had the choice of promoting Mandriva Linux (Mandriva is a French company) or Microsoft Windows (Microsoft is, of course, an American company), and especially if you were having a few fiscal problems and had to keep getting exceptions to EU rules about deficits, what would you do?
Just some food for thought. It would be very much against France's self-interest to pass this. They tend to be pretty shrewd about such things.
Just so you know, France's government isn't liberal. Google "Jean-Marie Le Pen" for the historical details, but they basically had to choose between doppelgangern of Gee-Dub or Pat Buchannon, and chose Bush's counterpart.
As for this legislation, it seems to outlaw free software using the internet, under the notion that free software can be modified to remove restrictions on what you do with copyrighted material.
I feel disdain even saying these things to you. I doubt anyone here is familiar with the French Constitution, which requires laws to be reviewed by the Constitutional Committee before they can be enforced. The CC includes former Presidents and legal minds NOT involved in politics. It's kind of like a pre-emptive Supreme Court, and it would almost certainly not approve.
Of course, the likelihood of this amendment passing is low. There was a fuss about this in the U.S., too, when DRM first started being a big issue.
Trust me, the Ministry of Culture is laughed at by most of the government. Considering that the French government is encouraging open-source software (trust me, I know, I have worked with IT professionals in France on database conversions), and that OSS contributes to France's economy significantly, I very very seriously doubt this will be an issue.
I guess maybe I should go on an America-bashing tirade because of your proposed amendments to variously ban gay marriage and rename yourselves "The United States of Earth."
Re:There's no such thing as intellectual property
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
You did not indicate anything about law. *I* did. The law is that copyright expires. The law is that patent ownership expires. Table ownership doesn't expire. IP and property are totally different.
The difference is that you OWN property. Government cannot take your property without due process (civil litigation, confiscation after getting a warrant, eminent domain). Intellectual "property" is on loan to you from society. It expires. No due process required -- after a time period lasting X years, it's no longer yours.
Just because Congress is a puppet of the RIAA and has made X longer than your lifetime doesn't mean that X is infinite.
Re:There's no such thing as intellectual property
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
You're stupid.
If I own a table, that table is mine until I sell it.
You can't own "intellectual property." You just can't. It's against the law. Any attempt to is illegal, unconstitutional, and un-American.
What part of "for a limited time" don't you thought-fascists understand?
Re:There's no such thing as intellectual property
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
Wow. You're dumb.
Since when is a distribution of something (in this case, exclusive rights) not economic? Economics is ENTIRELY about the distribution of wealth, resources, whatever. In this case, we're talking about market resources, which we assume eventually lead to wealth.
Since when is giving someone a bonus for doing something you want them to do not an incentive? The government has an interest in progress in the arts and sciences, which is why it is offering these exclusive rights -- as a bonus to those who contribute to society*.
What I said is synonymous with the Constitution's wording. Quit being a dumbass karma whore just trying to look smart by spewing out worthless debate. You just end up looking like Anita Coney.
This is my original point. The work is not property, because you can't build ideas from scratch. You can only make incremental progress. So you can't really EARN it except as part of society as a whole. These limited-time exclusive rights are a little bonus to get people to take things to the next level, but if they don't expire, then nobody will be able to build on THAT. This means that society gets no benefit, Congress isn't doing it's job of protecting national interest, and it actually impedes progress.
Slashdot Mirror
It's to your credit to resist the urge to be sarcastic, because you're wrong. In Europe, countries are not economies. The poster to whom I was responding said that the uneployment rate of the United States approximated half that of the major European economies. What exactly he means by that, I'm not sure, because they don't have distinct economies. However, the unemployment rate for the Eurozone is 8.0% and the unemployment rate for Britain is 5.3%. These are the two largest traditional European economies (the Eurozone includes France, Germany, and Italy). The weighted average (Britain has 59.8m people, or 16.24%, and the Eurozone has 308.4, or 83.76% of the total combined population) is 83.76% * 8% + 16.24% * 5.3% = 7.562% unemployment, well under the 9.2% uneployment rate required for the above poster's claims to be meritorious.
Except that it's false to say "Americans can afford to drive SUVs." What you really mean -- unless you intend to deceive people -- is that SOME Americans can afford to drive SUVs. Many others (thirty-eight million Americans) have "insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health" (Figures from the Census Bureau, definition quoted from the Orshansky Thresholds used thereby).
I think there are fewer than thirty-eight million SUV drivers in the United States. If I'm right, then from a purely quantitative perspective, the Swedes have a better standard of living than a purely capitalist United States would have.
A person who cares more about military spending than social spending is putting kick-the-shit-out-of-the-other-guy nationalism above community well-being. When you're so bent on destruction of the Other that you'll hurt the people in your own community to do it, you're pretty dang fascist.
I had done a quick google search and used figures brought up by the BBC. European unemployment rates similar to the U.S. unemployment rate:
.7% from last year's rate, compared with the U.S. unemployment rate, which reduced .5%.
Austria - 4.8% Britain - 5.3% Denmark - 4.8% Netherlands - 5.7% Sweden - 5.5% Switzerland - 3.3%
The overall unemployment rate in the Euro zone is 8% (this is in large part due to high reported unemployment in Germany and France, explained above, 11.0% and 9.3% respectively). However, the Euro zone unemployment rate reduced by
Not to be a total jackass, but I really do have to rub this in your face: the Scandinavian countries have historically had the lowest unemployment (historically lower than that of the United States) and STILL have the largest welfare system of all of Europe. If that doesn't provide a counterexample to your nonsensical "Everyone benefits from a dog-eat-dog world" blind faith in Capitalism-as-God, I don't know what does.
Britain - 5.1% Portugal - 4.3% Denmark - 4.2% Ireland - 4.2% Austria - 3.9% Luxembourg - 2.6 Netherlands - 2.4
How about adding an option to post as an ignorant math-challenged fascist instead? 4.6 is nowhere near half of 5.1.
As a side note, France and Germany have higher reported unemployment because they don't count part-time minimum wage jobs. HTFH.
I don't think so. Such an amendment would have been disastrous. It would make it impossible for the EPA to implement Kyoto (if we ever ratify the dang thing), impossible to outlaw torture (that's a non-chattel moral crime and, traditionally, the province of the several States), etc. Such an amendment would leave us with an inability to have a foreign policy that amounted to more than what we have right now -- "Do it our way, or we'll overextend our military resources trying to kick your ass."
The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants copyright power to Congress, but it doesn't deny further IP legislation, and in fact says that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. That is, unless something in the treaty is explicitly banned by the Constitution, any powers any treaties give to Congress are valid. See STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
Your party got its chance, and caused a national disaster. McReynolds, Sutherland, Devanter and Butler were the most prominent, powerful libertarians in the U.S. government in the history of the country.
Libertarians have total devotion to the idea of a free market. They infer that because free competition leads to the best results in certain circumstances, it leads to the best results in all cases. This is faulty logic. This differs not at all from the religious right. Blind devotion to an ideology without regard for the reality of the situation is NOT a valid basis for governing the nation.
I imagine that Libertarians reading this are bristling at this point. They object, saying that the issue isn't about best results, but about civil liberties. But liberty includes the right to enter into a contract, including the contract by which you gain the right to govern others in exchange for agreeing to live by the regulations you and others like you make together. This contract is called democracy, ancient Greek for "playing nice together like a civilized adult."
Sorry, but the right to keep whatever goods you coerce people into giving you is nowhere near as much of a civil right as clean air and drinking water, and society's right not to have people dying in the streets trumps your right to skin a flea for its hide and tallow.
Oh, snap.
Horatio_Hellpop, you're a poophead.
"But the U.S. Government has no mandate over ... non-citizens."
Uh. Thanks for defeating your own point. The Federal government has no rights over foreign citizens except insofar as it's for national defense. Otherwise, it's an unconstitutional extension of Federal power, and a waste of taxpayer money. The powers of the Federal government were enumerated very specifically, and should remain as such.
Remember, the way the system is SUPPOSED to work is, you as citizens delegate authority to a central government so it can get stuff done it takes a central government to do. Other than that, they shouldn't be allowed to do *anything*.
They're contradicting themselves. The GPL doesn't limit linking whatsoever. It limits linking *and distributing the product*. Even Stallman says so, not to mention all their lawyers.
La jurisprudence n'est pas la même chose que notre precedent . Au système de droit commun, si une court supérieure décide un règle de droit, tous les autres doivent non seulement le respecter, mais le suivre. Toute contradiction est strictement interdite. La seule exception est la Cour Suprême, qui n'a aucune obligation. Le système français avec la jurisprudence est plus semblable au principe de stare decisis .
En France, un juge ne peut ni créer ni démolir aucune loi.
The title is misleading. Maybe "Legal Victory for a P2P user in France" would be better.
France uses the "civil law" system (as opposed to the "common law" system used in the U.S., the U.K., and the Commonwealth, past and present). It's based on the Roman corpus iuris civilis, and it doesn't have any such thing as "precedent." Each and every case is decided purely on the facts of the case, the law as written, and the judge's... erm... well... judgment.
This doesn't mean P2P is legal in France. It means someone got away with it.
I do not support the dollar -- I have nearly 98% of my currency in the only true store of wealth: gold and silver
How's that market going for you?
By the way, I would seriously reconsider your truly asenine sheeple position on the economy. In the meantime, you might want to try reading the works of, say, the Nobel Prize in Economics winners of the past 50 years, including John Nash. You also might want to read about William Hamilton's work on altruism (beginning around 1963). At that point, you'll realize that not only is communism the objectively best system, but has a strong biological basis. This is not an ideology, this is not wishful thinking, this is not a social experiment. It's a hard, solid fact, proven by Princeton PhDs in Mathematics AND by the process of natural selection which you seem to hold in such high respect. The only question is whether it can possibly be implemented on a large scale in human institutions without someone taking advantage of the trust that has to be given to make those kinds of changes. But if it can't, it's because of free market winner-take-all looking-out-for-number-one avaricious snots like yourself.
Next time you get into an argument, try not to come across as an absolute idiot. It's generally considered bad form to tell a professional you know more than he does. I think you owe the biologist an apology.
I think it would be nice to slip in state legislation in as many states as possible that does a little death-by-a-thousand-cuts on corporations who do this kind of thing.
Maybe by making it illegal for any party contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and all their members, agents, and partners, to sell their wares to minors or in stores accessible by minors.
I imagine that you'd see everyone withdraw from the RIAA pretty quick. No music label wants their CDs to be available only in porn shops.
No, of course not. Not only is there no law protecting free speech, but the Constitution is only concerned with the government. If Constitutional limits of power applied to private entities, then things like the following would be true:
Sams Club couldn't charge member fees (taxation of interstate commerce is solely for the federal government)
Having a paintball gun on a boat would be illegal (only the Federal government has the right to a standing Navy, even though States also have rights to a well-regulated militia).
Trading of wampum or pelts would be illegal, and Parker Brothers (?) would be in trouble (only the federal government can create a system of currency).
Americans would not be allowed to use the metric system (Congress sets standards of weights and measures).
People would not be allowed to ask their fiance(e)s to convert before marriage (thereby establishing a household religion).
Some of those examples are slight hyperbole, but the point is that limitations on governments (not having statist rebellions, having universal money, etc) don't apply to ordinary citizens. You as an individual have more liberties than the State, in general, and usually we're thankful for that. But it also means that private individuals (say, the chair of the board of MU) get liberties government organizations don't get.
So, short answer, no. Not only is the First Amendment not "a law"*, but it doesn't say anything about private individuals rights, it just says what Congress can't do.
* Minor point, hardly relevant, it just means the procedure is different -- you sue the government for violating it, rather than trying to fit the Capitol Building in a prison cell.
They never made a law allowing private establishments to dictate their own rules on free speech.
First of all, the private establishments aren't "dictating" per se. Accepting the terms and conditions of the student code is always a part of the contract a student signs with a university. So the student agreed to it, even though he may feel it means something else and he may apply more common sense to it. However, it's likely that the contract he agreed to also defers all decisions about code of conduct violations to the school administration. While you might think it's stupid to give up this much liberty, you often don't have a choice. This, IMO, is a failing of the market system -- it fails to take into account that there may be no competitor to choose from who actually provides what consumers want, so if the particular market good is a necessity, the people are not really free.
Secondly, even if they were "dictating," Congress never made a law about allowing them to. It's simply assumed that private contracts are valid unless they specifically break a law. If there's no law against it, then there's no need for special legislation allowing it.
I admit it's a shitty and frankly undemocratic thing to do. But universities are not compelled to be democratic. The only way this kid would really have a chance is if the legislature of the U.S. or his state made a law AGAINST limiting free speech by universities.
Basically, the whole thing kinda falls along the same lines as the reason private colleges can make you wear uniforms but public ones can barely get away with having a dress code.
There's a difference between forcing you to enter into a contract and just taking your property. Presumably, the Court could confiscate the college and award it to the kid, but I don't think they'd do that. Besides, they'd have to have some kind of economic rationale, because eminent domain only applies to things done 'for the common good' (like urban renovation projects).
No. The government is NOT required to protect anyone's free speech. The relevant wording is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
Since they didn't make a law, first amendment rights have nothing to do with this, legally. Frankly, the kid has no case unless he can successfully argue that the *inalienable* right to free speech is so important that it trumps private contracts. Even then, since it's a contract and not criminal law, and the contract is already dissolved, there's nothing the Court can do.
The government can't FORCE you to enter into a private contract, no matter what.
Oh, it's broken?
Funny. Seemed to work last time *I* used it.
<!-- insert one of my obscenely abusive ad hominem attacks/dismissals here -->
I would be very surprised to see this pass. If you were the French government, and you had the choice of promoting Mandriva Linux (Mandriva is a French company) or Microsoft Windows (Microsoft is, of course, an American company), and especially if you were having a few fiscal problems and had to keep getting exceptions to EU rules about deficits, what would you do?
Just some food for thought. It would be very much against France's self-interest to pass this. They tend to be pretty shrewd about such things.
Just so you know, France's government isn't liberal. Google "Jean-Marie Le Pen" for the historical details, but they basically had to choose between doppelgangern of Gee-Dub or Pat Buchannon, and chose Bush's counterpart.
As for this legislation, it seems to outlaw free software using the internet, under the notion that free software can be modified to remove restrictions on what you do with copyrighted material.
I feel disdain even saying these things to you. I doubt anyone here is familiar with the French Constitution, which requires laws to be reviewed by the Constitutional Committee before they can be enforced. The CC includes former Presidents and legal minds NOT involved in politics. It's kind of like a pre-emptive Supreme Court, and it would almost certainly not approve.
Of course, the likelihood of this amendment passing is low. There was a fuss about this in the U.S., too, when DRM first started being a big issue.
Trust me, the Ministry of Culture is laughed at by most of the government. Considering that the French government is encouraging open-source software (trust me, I know, I have worked with IT professionals in France on database conversions), and that OSS contributes to France's economy significantly, I very very seriously doubt this will be an issue.
I guess maybe I should go on an America-bashing tirade because of your proposed amendments to variously ban gay marriage and rename yourselves "The United States of Earth."
You did not indicate anything about law. *I* did. The law is that copyright expires. The law is that patent ownership expires. Table ownership doesn't expire. IP and property are totally different.
The difference is that you OWN property. Government cannot take your property without due process (civil litigation, confiscation after getting a warrant, eminent domain). Intellectual "property" is on loan to you from society. It expires. No due process required -- after a time period lasting X years, it's no longer yours.
Just because Congress is a puppet of the RIAA and has made X longer than your lifetime doesn't mean that X is infinite.
You're stupid.
If I own a table, that table is mine until I sell it.
You can't own "intellectual property." You just can't. It's against the law. Any attempt to is illegal, unconstitutional, and un-American.
What part of "for a limited time" don't you thought-fascists understand?
Wow. You're dumb.
Since when is a distribution of something (in this case, exclusive rights) not economic? Economics is ENTIRELY about the distribution of wealth, resources, whatever. In this case, we're talking about market resources, which we assume eventually lead to wealth.
Since when is giving someone a bonus for doing something you want them to do not an incentive? The government has an interest in progress in the arts and sciences, which is why it is offering these exclusive rights -- as a bonus to those who contribute to society*.
What I said is synonymous with the Constitution's wording. Quit being a dumbass karma whore just trying to look smart by spewing out worthless debate. You just end up looking like Anita Coney.
This is my original point. The work is not property, because you can't build ideas from scratch. You can only make incremental progress. So you can't really EARN it except as part of society as a whole. These limited-time exclusive rights are a little bonus to get people to take things to the next level, but if they don't expire, then nobody will be able to build on THAT. This means that society gets no benefit, Congress isn't doing it's job of protecting national interest, and it actually impedes progress.