Comments on: Clearing the decks, Part 2: The progressive case for lawlessness

By: Terminus Est

Terminus Est — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:00:59 +0000

I HATE that stoopid argument that "to ensure cooperation from corporations in the future we need to legalize their criminality now" blather. Besides the factual argument that companies are covered by the law as it stands IF they made a good faith effort to ensure legality, they have no choice but to cooperate with government if the government shows up with subpoena! They HAVE NO CHOICE. They cannot say "no" to government requests for "aid" if it is accompanied by a subpoena or warrant. NO CHOICE. It is irrelevant what companies want or like. They just have to DO. If they actually acted in good faith, they have nothing to worry about. As for future aid to the government...THEY HAVE NO CHOICE! Sheesh.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:53:47 +0000

Having looked at the link, it reminds me of Justice Breyer’s dissent in ELDRED V. ASHCROFT, opposing the majority’s acceptance of the latest law extending copyright protections. He spends some time on the financial benefits, arguing they are minimal for most authors after not too long, and thus not too useful in promoting art and science … the putative reason for copyright protection.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:39:58 +0000

The copyright tidbit hits to one of my pet peeves, if that is the right word. The idea that the great-grandchildren of copyright holders should still have rights (though usually corporations get most of the benefit) is absurd.

Likewise, “fair use” should be interpreted broadly. I think, e.g., of the trouble someone got into when she tried to publish a version of Lolita using the girl’s p.o.v. Again, the author being dead, a descendant was the one able to block this “original” twist on what is after all a decades old work to begin with.

My advice btw is to get a slower computer. Avoids that tab thing in a jiffy.