3 ms·

"We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art" I was not part of that, and neither was I part of some minority complaining wh

"We, the US public, out of the goodness of our hearts and wanting to foster art" I was not part of that, and neither was I part of some minority complaining while the majority did this. I don't think this ever happened. Just because there's a pretense of democracy doesn't mean the general public is actually to blame for everything.

mancerayder 10y ago
I also had to scratch my head at that, despite an otherwise nicely written comment. It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone is reading EFF manifestos. It's even worse because they're technical questions, requiring a certain expertise in IT as a specialized field, meaning a small percentage of people in the U.S. understand much less care about these laws. Where I may agree about a shift in perceptions is for a different reason. As more people have entered the field, which now has television shows about it and some of the world's largest companies to boot, there are more people with an interest/curiosity or knowledge in IT. Better able to understand the ramifications of rulings about APIs. But as someone said, we don't really leave in that much of a democracy as we think. Corporations have a louder voice. If they stand to benefit for a position they'll make more noise (in legal efforts or lobbying) in favor of it. And it's no surprise that we're seeing two behemoths battle it out.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  Fair enough. My point is only that this is a consensual system at its root. And when the public votes with there money (the Montgomery bus boycott) and back it up at the ballot box, you could actually effect change.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    There's actually a super strong case that the system is not really rooted in consensus, that we have a supply-side system in which people do not have effective "vote" with their money (see this article this thread is on), that boycotts basically don't work (even the story of the Montgomery bus boycott generally overplays the effect of the boycott aspect, see http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak... ), and, in the end, I'm not asserting a conclusion here, but there's more evidence against "you could actually effect change" than for it (disregarding the affect/effect spelling issue).
dave2000 10y ago
It's US specific and even then it's not true. Whenever I hear people going on about the constitution and how it's such an amazing document a little voice goes "pssst! Slavery!"

mancerayder 10y ago

I also had to scratch my head at that, despite an otherwise nicely written comment. It's not like copyright law is something Presidential candidates run on. I think the author is overstating his case with regards to public perceptions. The first problem with public perceptions is, when laws are forged in the court room (or codified in treaties), they're essentially happening removed from public scrutiny. Not everyone is reading EFF manifestos. It's even worse because they're technical questions, requiring a certain expertise in IT as a specialized field, meaning a small percentage of people in the U.S. understand much less care about these laws. Where I may agree about a shift in perceptions is for a different reason. As more people have entered the field, which now has television shows about it and some of the world's largest companies to boot, there are more people with an interest/curiosity or knowledge in IT. Better able to understand the ramifications of rulings about APIs. But as someone said, we don't really leave in that much of a democracy as we think. Corporations have a louder voice. If they stand to benefit for a position they'll make more noise (in legal efforts or lobbying) in favor of it. And it's no surprise that we're seeing two behemoths battle it out.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
appleflaxen 10y ago
Fair enough. My point is only that this is a consensual system at its root. And when the public votes with there money (the Montgomery bus boycott) and back it up at the ballot box, you could actually effect change.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  There's actually a super strong case that the system is not really rooted in consensus, that we have a supply-side system in which people do not have effective "vote" with their money (see this article this thread is on), that boycotts basically don't work (even the story of the Montgomery bus boycott generally overplays the effect of the boycott aspect, see http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak... ), and, in the end, I'm not asserting a conclusion here, but there's more evidence against "you could actually effect change" than for it (disregarding the affect/effect spelling issue).

dave2000 10y ago

It's US specific and even then it's not true. Whenever I hear people going on about the constitution and how it's such an amazing document a little voice goes "pssst! Slavery!"