3 ms·
Legal considerations are not the only considerations. What the court says is not accepted by all as the final word. And why should we need to confine our repli
by acyou 3y ago
Legal considerations are not the only considerations. What the court says is not accepted by all as the final word.
And why should we need to confine our replies to a narrow and arbitrary framework of existing case law, when there is so much more at play?
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago[flagged]
- nullc 3y agoThe ancestor poster isn't saying you can't discuss those other things at all-- but they are offtopic for their interesting sub-question.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoBecause so many of those responses are just wholly uninteresting - they're just "basic" as the kids say (or used to say? I can't keep up anymore). "Rich companies abuse copyright" - no shit. "Copyright is unreasonably long" - no shit. "It's absurd to think copyright needs to be that long to incentivize creation" - no shit. Putting a sarcastic or "witty" spin on the above types of arguments still gets the same "no shit" response from me. I have not read a single response of that form that I find interesting in the slightest, or adds new information, or makes an insightful point, and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>And why should we need to confine our replies to a narrow and arbitrary framework of existing case law Because the user wants responses from that narrow and arbituary framework. You are free to make or respond to another thread to look in another lens.