4 ms·

Death plus 70 is just one instance of laws being purchased by special interests; and that is a tough problem.

by olefoo 17y ago

derefr 17y ago
At this point, I'd actually accept a special "Disney gets to make money from Mickey Mouse forever" law in exchange for shorter copyrights for everything else.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  That's actually an interesting idea. Wouldn't it be a good experiment (and a nice comeuppance if it pans out) to see the unshackled media beat the pants off a stagnating Mickey?
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    Finally legal Mickey Mouse anime slash.
- andreyf 17y ago
  There's probably a more realistic version - to put expensive-to-prove legal loop for extending copyright (but not as expensive as lobbying congress) so large corporations can take that option instead of breaking copyright for everyone. Another option would be to create a branch of IP "in between" copyright and trademark (which is indefinitely renewable). But IMNAL, so it might as well be my ass talking.
- 10ren 17y ago
  Unfortunately, it would probably need to be "Disney gets to make money from all its copyrighted works forever". But I suspect Disney isn't actually that powerful itself, but it has sufficient resources and motivation to argue its case strongly before the appropriate committees - and then the many other powerful parties with similar interests rally round it.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
I agree with the intent of what you said. But I'd like to point out that the phrase "special interest" is very loaded. If you're going to use the phrase, can you differentiate between a "special interest" versus just a plain old regular interest? It seems that people use "special interest" to denote interests with which they disagree. Those entities that they agree with are overlooked, despite the fact that all entities manifestly have their own interests. (I hesitate to cite specific examples for fear of forking out an off-topic thread for an OP that's already marginal)
- olefoo 17y ago
  It is in the nature of special interests that they will always declare themselves to be acting in the public interest. I would agree that getting too specific is best left to discussions on another site.
- andreyf 17y ago
  I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so things done "in the public interest" will benefit the majority of people. Democratic governments are good [1] because they tend to do things which are "in the public interest". Things done "for special interests" are those done for a minority at the expense of the majority - "special" because that minority has some sort of power (lobbying) that the majority of people don't have. 1. According to utilitarianism - the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism]
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    We are told that actions like Kelo and Didden are in the public interest -- that is, to the benefit and betterment of the entire community -- but this is clearly bunk. How can we discern which of policies being espoused are really net-beneficial to society? I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda.

Death plus 70 is just one instance of laws being purchased by special interests; and that is a tough problem.

by olefoo 17y ago

Death plus 70 is just one instance of laws being purchased by special interests; and that is a tough problem.

At this point, I'd actually accept a special "Disney gets to make money from Mickey Mouse forever" law in exchange for shorter copyrights for everything else.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
That's actually an interesting idea. Wouldn't it be a good experiment (and a nice comeuppance if it pans out) to see the unshackled media beat the pants off a stagnating Mickey?
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  Finally legal Mickey Mouse anime slash.
andreyf 17y ago
There's probably a more realistic version - to put expensive-to-prove legal loop for extending copyright (but not as expensive as lobbying congress) so large corporations can take that option instead of breaking copyright for everyone. Another option would be to create a branch of IP "in between" copyright and trademark (which is indefinitely renewable). But IMNAL, so it might as well be my ass talking.
10ren 17y ago
Unfortunately, it would probably need to be "Disney gets to make money from all its copyrighted works forever". But I suspect Disney isn't actually that powerful itself, but it has sufficient resources and motivation to argue its case strongly before the appropriate committees - and then the many other powerful parties with similar interests rally round it.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

I agree with the intent of what you said. But I'd like to point out that the phrase "special interest" is very loaded. If you're going to use the phrase, can you differentiate between a "special interest" versus just a plain old regular interest? It seems that people use "special interest" to denote interests with which they disagree. Those entities that they agree with are overlooked, despite the fact that all entities manifestly have their own interests. (I hesitate to cite specific examples for fear of forking out an off-topic thread for an OP that's already marginal)

olefoo 17y ago
It is in the nature of special interests that they will always declare themselves to be acting in the public interest. I would agree that getting too specific is best left to discussions on another site.
andreyf 17y ago
I think of "special" interest as the opposite (by some imaginary scale) of "public" interest. Public interest that which costs/benefits people equally - so things done "in the public interest" will benefit the majority of people. Democratic governments are good [1] because they tend to do things which are "in the public interest". Things done "for special interests" are those done for a minority at the expense of the majority - "special" because that minority has some sort of power (lobbying) that the majority of people don't have. 1. According to utilitarianism - the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism]
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  We are told that actions like Kelo and Didden are in the public interest -- that is, to the benefit and betterment of the entire community -- but this is clearly bunk. How can we discern which of policies being espoused are really net-beneficial to society? I claim that in all but the most obvious cases, you can't. It's a fool's errand, and thus the term "special interest" has no use but in propaganda.