Zamfir wrote:I am hesitant to call something broken if it seems to work anyway, because that relies on a counterfactual non-broken situation that is hard to be sure of.
I know this was a whole page ago, and I've posted a bunch of things since this, but I didn't address this in the detail I wanted to. I don't find this a compelling argument against trying to fix copyright laws, because many other things that are also clearly broken can still be apparently functional. Going straight to another form of IP, just look at patents. Just about everyone agrees that patent laws (again, at least in the US) are broken. Companies are patenting the most broad things, we have patent trolls, we have companies like Microsoft or IBM with so many patents that they can drown out the competition if they choose to. The system still appears functional however, because all of the big companies have effectively made a giant circle of gentlemen's agreements not to fuck with each other over minor patent disputes. So things still get invented and patented, giving the appearance of working anyway. That doesn't change that it is very much broken.
yurell wrote:Isn't it nice that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assumes the author is male with its choice of pronouns? >.>
Much as I hate it, it is technically the correct form in the English language. I use "they" to indicate singular gender-neutral, which is also valid English, though lots of people really dislike it. It would be nice if a document such as that would take the time to say "he or she" however.
yoni45 wrote:Alright, let me make clear what I meant:
Malice: IP is not a fundamental right.
Me: We went down this avenue before, and moreover, UDHR clearly cites it as a fundamental right.
Elasto: No one here disagrees with that as a sound principle ['that' in this case, was interpreted by me as IP being a fundamental right, since 'that' was what was the point of my words that were quoted].
Me: Malice just disagreed with that.
Except that isn't what Elasto said; read their whole post. They were saying no one disagrees with the idea behind the declaration (allowing the person some protection of their intellectual works). Because no one here has disagreed with that. Malice said they don't feel it's an inherent right, which is, again, separate.
yoni45 wrote:Moreover, nothing that I've said in the last few posts had anything to do with anyone removing all copyright. My argument in the recent posts has simply been that a specific reason is a very poor reason for limiting copyright at all.
And what about when that specific reason is that copyright law is no longer fulfilling its intended purpose? That seems like a good reason to limit it then.