3 ms·

Ah yes, the "if only we voted in the right politicians". My Dad likes to make this argument till he's blue in the face, and those people never get elected (and

Ah yes, the "if only we voted in the right politicians". My Dad likes to make this argument till he's blue in the face, and those people never get elected (and it's a different set of people for every individual, I bet you'd disagree with most of his choices). Of course it would fix things if all the right people got elected. But this is the real world, and that reality almost never, ever happens. It's much easier to get specific protections passed, especially ones that benefit one or more corporations, than it is to make sure "no one gets elected whose vote can be bought and believes in things different from me!" The main reason I don't hold out much hope for my solution either is because most corporations don't believe they'd have much to gain from limited copyright, focusing too much on what they'd lose, rather than what they'd gain, from being able to use so many newer IP without paying licensing fees.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>It's much easier to get specific protections passed, especially ones that benefit one or more corporations, than it is to make sure "no one gets elected whose vote can be bought and believes in things different from me!" // It's a very good thing when people get elected who have different beliefs to me as I'm not always right. Also, a politician who sides with me because of a "bribe" is not a good thing IMO; it rather suggests that I'm on the side that can't win through fair play, or indeed that I'm on the side that favours those corrupt enough to pervert democracy in their favour because of their wealth. I don't think there's any evidence to show that a copyright term less than life will damage artists, nor reduce impetus to create works. Indeed works entering the public domain appear to stimulate creative work. I don't agree with your "too rich to legislate against the preference of" arguments for Disney. Indeed their wealth suggests strongly that the balance between public protected monopoly and free use of works has been lost.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>It's much easier to get specific protections passed, especially ones that benefit one or more corporations, than it is to make sure "no one gets elected whose vote can be bought and believes in things different from me!" // It's a very good thing when people get elected who have different beliefs to me as I'm not always right. Also, a politician who sides with me because of a "bribe" is not a good thing IMO; it rather suggests that I'm on the side that can't win through fair play, or indeed that I'm on the side that favours those corrupt enough to pervert democracy in their favour because of their wealth. I don't think there's any evidence to show that a copyright term less than life will damage artists, nor reduce impetus to create works. Indeed works entering the public domain appear to stimulate creative work. I don't agree with your "too rich to legislate against the preference of" arguments for Disney. Indeed their wealth suggests strongly that the balance between public protected monopoly and free use of works has been lost.