Copyright Alliance Presses Presidential Candidates

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not satisfied with the current copyright terms of life plus seventy years and huge financial liabilities for infringement, the Copyright Alliance is pressuring presidential candidates for stronger copyright laws. In particular, they want the candidates to promise to divert police resources to punish even non-commercial copyright infringement. After all, without copyright, what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?"

Great Works

[dintech (998802)]

I refuse to believe Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci's works would be any less great despite their copyright status. Don't those works predate copyright? Aren't they just proving the point that great works are most useful when they are free in the public domain?

Re:Great Works

[dintech (998802)]

I'd also like to add that those artists were successful in their own times. Maybe not mega rich, and maybe there were fewer people hanging off them getting rich from their talents. However their lives perhaps demonstrate a successful model for artist in the post copyright era. In the case of Shakespeare by having his work played in the public domain perhaps the future for bands? Also Michaelangelo being commissioned (and paid) for his art. I'm sure their are a few rich fans out there who would love to commission their very own Red Hot Chilli Peppers track for instance.

Oh I'm sorry, I'm forgetting about the poor media execs...

Re:Great Works

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

This is such an unattractive debate. I have less than zero sympathy for either pole.

On the one hand we have media execs that demand tougher copyright laws "to protect artists" while having clauses inserted in the same bill to cheat them of their returned rights.

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Copyright is a legislative issue. The chance of a Presidential veto of copyright legislation is quite small. The opinions of the candidates are pretty well irrelevant.

Re:

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds. The rest of us just want to pay a fair price, which basically means premium price for new/popular stuff, and a lot less for everything else. You know, how the market works.

Re:

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds. The rest of us just want to pay a fair price, which basically means premium price for new/popular stuff, and a lot less for everything else. You know, how the market works.

It is the argument repeated time and again on Slashdot. Evul medja execs, blah, cheat artists, blah, get my movies from bit torrent via the Pirate Bay.

The objective of the Priate Bay is not to make content available a

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

If you disagree with those arguments, that's fine. Misrepresenting people's views, strawman arguments, are never acceptable

But he's not misrepresenting people's views! There are a lot of people out there who are in favour of abolishing copyright. They may not get modded to +5 Insightful very often, but they are there. Some of them are more passive than others, opting to wait and try to steer the market away from copyright. Others are a bit more forward about it, some of whom demand that copyright be abolish

Re:

[DesScorp (410532)]

"Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds."

Well, then Slashdot is dominated by retarded 12 year olds. Because the dominant ethos here is "I want it free, and if you don't give it to me, I'll steal it, and there's nothing you can do about it".

Re:Great Works

[Quantam (870027)]

"On the one hand we have media execs that demand tougher copyright laws "to protect artists" while having clauses inserted in the same bill to cheat them of their returned rights.

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists. "

I'm increasingly of the belief that the morality of file sharing is irrelevant. Right or wrong, I doubt even the government can stop it, as easy as it's become. And we're already at the point where companies' pursuit of profits are inhibiting the good of society, and stopping file sharing (if we are to assume that is even possible) would go much further than that, with a result a lot worse than starving artists and media executives.

Re:Great Works

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

I'm increasingly of the belief that the morality of file sharing is irrelevant. Right or wrong, I doubt even the government can stop it, as easy as it's become. And we're already at the point where companies' pursuit of profits are inhibiting the good of society, and stopping file sharing (if we are to assume that is even possible) would go much further than that, with a result a lot worse than starving artists and media executives.

Society is not held together with technical security measures. It is held together by accountability and honesty.

The critical mistake of the RIAA is that they engaged in a whole heap of unethical practices such as the returned rights grab at the same time that they were demanding ethical behavior from others.

The RIAA made it socially acceptable to commit file sharing. People don't see the behavior as criminal, they don't see it as wrong.

This should not suprise people, after all President Thumscrews is doing the same in Iraq, preaching to the world about the benefits of democracy while actively encouraging the use of torture.

Hypocrisy has a corrosive effect on society.

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

The RIAA made it socially acceptable to commit file sharing. People don't see the behavior as criminal, they don't see it as wrong.

No, that's not quite true. Naturally, it's easy to get that impression from sites like Slashdot, but in the wider community AFAICT, people do feel guilty about piracy. One person, I kid you not, was actually relieved that a CD was copy protected, so that he wouldn't have to face the decision of a new CD + guilt, or nothing. What the RIAA has done is polarised the debate somewhat

Re:

[CRCulver (715279)]

No, that's not quite true. Naturally, it's easy to get that impression from sites like Slashdot, but in the wider community AFAICT, people do feel guilty about piracy.

I spent a lot of time in countries where piracy is the norm (since legitimate media is not sold in stores). There is no guilt.

Re:

[Tim C (15259)]

The RIAA made it socially acceptable to commit file sharing. People don't see the behavior as criminal, they don't see it as wrong.

I disagree. I think most people found it socially acceptable to copy stuff long before this whole debate got started. Ever since it was easy to copy stuff at home people have been doing it. Why do you think so many games back in the 80s used copy prevention measures? Back then there were no anti-file sharing crusades, no headline-making law suits, no fat-cat executives making ea

Re:Great Works

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Zeinfeld, you're not paying close enough attention. I am anything but exceptional, yet I make great effort to support artists and innovators directly, completely circumventing the copyright system. As someone who makes my living with my intellectual property, I am qualified to give an opinion on the issue: Supporting the record labels, movie studios, Sony, Fox, etc., has absolutely zero to do with supporting artists. If they could get away with it, every one of those corporate vendors of art and media would do away with creative people completely. To them, we are nothing but superfluous content-providers. That's one reason you see all of the above throwing resources at "user-generated" content. They would love to turn every creative venture into nothing more than a delivery system for wealth from consumers to them.

I am well-acquainted with the anti-copyright and anti-IP community. These are not people who "want to have everything for free", but generally people who put great value on innovation and creativity. We just believe that innovation and creativity are not being served by the current system, which is designed only to enrich people who have neither innovation or creativity. Most of us actually pay more, and put more energy into supporting artists and innovators directly.

In particular, they want the candidates to promise to divert police resources to punish even non-commercial copyright infringement.

This is evidence that the corporations who control content see themselves as above the law, and will go to extreme lengths to protect their immoral and tenuous hold on the flow of ideas. They are fighting on several fronts to keep themselves rich and powerful. They want to destroy the currently relatively neutral manner in which information moves on the internet. They are using every technical tool to try to lock-down content so that they keep complete control over it's movement and use. They want to destroy any publicly-funded spread of content such as libraries. They want to destroy and lock-down any uncontrolled use of content such as Internet Radio, Slingox and similar products, or P2P content sharing. And they will go so far as to destroy the Internet as we currently know it in order to achieve their goals. They will not stop until the Internet is nothing more than a metered, monitored and mediocre method of moving money from our pockets to theirs. They will go to any lengths, including subverting the constitution, bribing lawmakers, and using the police powers hitherto meant for public protection in order to save their wealth and power. Because without their pimping of the creativity of others, they have nothing to sell, no assets, and will disappear.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the RIAA, their sponsors and others like them are the enemy of anyone that believes in liberty, creativity, and the free flow of information and ideas. If you support artists, creators of media, writers, inventors, innovators, or if you yourself are one of these, they are your enemy too.

Re:

[nEoN nOoDlE (27594)]

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Not everyone just wants stuff for free (although that would be nice). Innovation and art is being stifled in the name of copyright and giving artists and execs more money for no work. It's a broken system when a person can make 1 song and live the rest of their lives without working a single day. I'm sorry, but no song is worth that much wealth, and receiving

Re:

[SonicSpike (242293)]

Actually the chance of a presidential veto with Ron Paul as president is quite high!

Re:

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

One important option is that the copyright should never be transferable - the creator shall always be in control. There may be multiple creators involved in a work, but that's still possible to handle.

OK I have just finished writing a book. If copyright was not transferable I would have had no choice other than to self publish.

OK so you didn't quite mean that I guess, you meant that the author's share is not transferable. But that means that I have no option other than to rely on income from royalties.

Re:Great Works

[dintech (998802)]

It was a different era, though. During that time, there were less people who aspired to be artists.

This is true. However, I think the reason there are more artists is purely because there is more money. Not because the human race is suddenly more artistic. I'm sure if the money disappeared then so would the 'me-toos' that drown out the good works. The true artists would remain because they've always been there regardless of money.

Re:Great Works

[clubby (1144121)]

I'm no fan of copyright as it exists today, but just because I don't believe entertainers should necessarily be fabulously wealthy doesn't mean I want them to die broke and penniless, and that did happen a lot more prior to copyright.

That said, the idea of diverting further police resources to prosecute people who listen to music they're not supposed to listen to is terrifying. Yikes! If I didn't already live in Canada, I'd move to Canada.

Re:Great Works

[Tony (765)]

. . . doesn't mean I want them to die broke and penniless, and that did happen a lot more prior to copyright.

Many people died paupers, not just artisans and inventors. Even today, most musicians, authors, poets and inventors die without making much money from their art, while most other folks have a bit more income.

Re:

[rolfwind (528248)]

Indeed, the great copyright myth as it is sold today covers the fact that the corporations benefit from it in the current state and they are only lobbying for more. Many famous artists don't even own their own songs in their entirety.

We shouldn't be duped into thinking this corporativism is helpful at all for the artists. Frankly, I don't think any legislation - even well intentioned legislation - will ever help artist. What will help them is open distribution channels where they can retain control inste

Re:Great Works

[arivanov (12034)]

They would not be less great. They will be in jail.

Sir Isaac Newton wrote, "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".

So did Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, da Vinchi, Bocaccio, Chocer and everyone else.

If copyright was enforced at that time they would have been in jail.

Re:Great Works

[belmolis (702863)]

Sorry, the OP is right. The quote is not from Einstein. It is from a letter of Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke dated 5 February 1675 (corresponding to 15 February 1676 in our calendar).

Re:Great Works

[arivanov (12034)]

Yep, Einstein goes straight to jail too. Quote is Newton's.

insightfull?? We're moderating ironically now?

[Scrameustache (459504)]

I refuse to believe Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci's works would be any less great despite their copyright status. Don't those works predate copyright?

Yes they do, by hundreds of years, and that sarcastic point soared majestically high above your head, like a mighty eagle.

Re:

[ultranova (717540)]

Of course I understand your point, but my attempt at sarcasm was meant to indicate that you are making your point too broadly. "Corporations hate innovation" does not explain why so many corporations fund university research. Nor does it explain many corporations' participation in innovative schemes that bring them no immediate benefit, notably IBM's contributions to Linux.

No, you don't seem to. Big corporations hate innovation. They fund university research to stay competitive against other big corpor

Damn! too late

[by Anonymous Coward]

I was going to comment making a prediction that someone would completely fail to spot the "what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?" comment was meant to be ironic. Seems I was too slow.

Slashdot can be depressingly predictable at times.

Without copyright...

[christurkel (520220)]

After all, without copyright, what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?"

Widely imitated styles that will help usher in a new Renaissance of learning, arts and science?

Much weaker copyright

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

We need a much much much weaker copyright system. Already, due to "copyright infringement" the *IAA has managed to fine single mothers and college students outrageous amounts of money for supposedly "stealing songs" this has already harmed the emergence of P2P software as a way of distributing bandwidth better as simply a way of "illegally" distributing material. In technology, there is little innovation compared to what there should be due to software patents, outrageous licenses and copyright. We need to protect fair use and give the right to make backups and to share files and songs, without it, despite what the *IAA thinks, our economy of software, music and movies will collapse leaving the *IAA and artists without a penny. Our copyright system is broken, if it becomes hardly any stronger the USA will be right up there with China and other nations that are hostile to information sharing and become even more digitally shackled then we already are.

Re:Much weaker copyright

[dosius (230542)]

The most I'll grant anyone respect for is 5-10 years for software and audiovisual media, 20-40 years for books.

And I'm blatantly violating copyright laws all the time with my BT tracker, but am I bothered? Do I look bothered? I don't see anything wrong with "blatantly ignoring" a law I don't believe is right. We need so many people to "blatantly ignore" it that they have no choice but to concede (like that'll ever happen).

-uso.

ZOMG Lobbying!

[4D6963 (933028)]

Copyright Alliance Presses Presidential Candidates

OMG! Special interest groups are pushing their agenda by pressuring politicians! We've never seen that before! But what will become of us!?!

Re:

[deniable (76198)]

Special interests in media. Modern politics is all about money and media. The two go together. Telling media special interests where to go would be a real smart move for a politician. He'd end up with fair and balanced reporting.

Getting you money after you die...

[Slashidiot (1179447)]

Copyright is already far too long, as it lets you make more money while being dead. You are dead! You cannot be productive! No reason to pay you anymore! Because, no matter how well I did at my job, once I die I stop getting money.

Copyright is supposed to exist to promote creating stuff, so you can profit of what you created. "As long as you live" should be long enough for anybody.

I certainly will not be creating anything and thinking: "And when I die, my grandson will still be getting money for this!"

Re:

[vux984 (928602)]

Ah, but that's the beauty of assigning copyright to a corporation. They don't have to die. They don't have to ever stop earning money.

Re:

[Plunky (929104)]

The two problems with that are, one, corporations, and two, it's reasonable for an artist's dependents to be fed by his work for a little while even if he's hit by a bus one day.

My employers will not continue paying my dependents for any significant amount of time after I die.

Whats different for an 'artist' then??

Time to Pull Out Your Glad-Hand

[darkonc (47285)]

This is the time to start lobbying your presidental and congressional candidates and worker groups. If you get a handful of IT specialists and shop them around to the candidate who's attitude is most friendly to consumer issues in copyright, you'll really get their attention.

Candidates don't just need money (that's good too). They also need volunteers, and -- if they see people lobbying for volunteers to support pro-consumer candidates, they'll react to that.

This is where "Vote Early, Vote Often" actually applies.

Shakespear would not have happened

[Phantom of the Opera (1867)]

Some of the Bard's work was based on the work of other artists. Romeo and Juliet come to mind. From Wikipedia :

Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching back to Ancient Greece. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582. Brooke and Painter were Shakespeare's chief sources of inspiration for Romeo and Juliet. He borrowed heavily from both, but developed minor characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris, in order to expand the plot. The play was probably written around 1595-6, and first published as a quarto in 1597. The text was of poor quality, and later editions corrected it, bringing it more in line with Shakespeare's original text.

In such an idea ownership culture, those works would never have propagated and come to maturation.

Methinks they need to read the Constitution

[Rogerborg (306625)]

How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?

United States Constitution, Article 1: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

So I guess the correct response would be to enact legislation:

1. Prohibiting "work for hire" contracts, to ensure that the exclusive rights are secured for the author. According to the Holy Constitution, all authors should be freelance, not toiling on Massa Mickey's content plantation.
2. Setting up a body to make subjective value judgements about whether an artwork is "useful" or not, as the Constitution mandates, with an assumption that it is not (otherwise why would the Unquestionable Constitution specify "useful" at all?).
3. Repeal the Mickey Mouse Protection Act and "limit" the duration of copyright in order to promote "progress", rather than eternal milking of the same work.

I think that about covers it. Any more that I missed?

Penn and Teller need to do a show about this

[rolfwind (528248)]

From TFA:

The introduction to the questionnaire states that "the livelihood of the next generation, and America's global competitiveness, will increasingly depend on the strong copyright protection that allows creativity to be rewarded."

Quite the opposite. I don't quite see how the author's life + X amount of years rewards productivity.

I know someone who is older, around 60, whose father wrote music for movies and TV shows between the 1930s-1950s. He still gets a very handsome check each month for every time one of those shows or movies are broadcasted. The son lived his entire without working, just resting on the fruits of his father's labor. No new music is being produced nor does it encourage anyone to make any.

So I am left asking, what is this BS? This would encourage less productivity, not more.

Re:

[adam1101 (805240)]

Quoth the Oracle of Omaha [cnn.com]:

"[The perfect amount of money to leave children is] enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing."

How about FAIR copyright and FAIR use?

[dananderson (1880)]

Instead of copyright law biased to the media companies, how about FAIR copyright? Current copyright has outrageously long terms lasting several decades (sometimes over a century). Copyright law has no provision for punishment for Copyright FRAUD where media companies claim copyright on public domain works. Fair use is intentionally vague. Let's level the playing field--both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are in the racket, passing ever-more biased copyright law.

Part of my inaugural speech ...

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

"My fellow Americans, today we face many pressing issues: the war in Iraq, assaults on traditional liberties at home and abroad, a difficult economy, climate change, and the list goes on. There's another issue I'd like to address today, and it may seem like it's not quite on the scale of those others. But it's an important one, and it has implications for everything I just mentioned, because the way we're going to solve those problems isn't just to ignore them and hope they'll go away; it's to use our heads and figure out solutions. More than two hundred years ago, the Founders of this great nation decided that one of the best ways to do that was to make sure that smart people who came up with important ideas were rewarded for their work, and I'd like to thank the Copyright Alliance for bringing this issue up.

"Today, I am calling on Congress to fulfill their Constitutional duty to 'secure for a limited time' copyrights and patents. And limited time means limited time. It doesn't mean extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse might be due to enter the public domain. It doesn't mean sitting on patents for things that you didn't invent until someone else figures out how to make money off it, and then suing them out of the blue. When the Constitution was signed, it meant twenty years. If twenty years was good enough for James Madison, it's good enough for me. So I urge Congress to send me a bill restoring the terms of intellectual property law to their original forms, and making it clear that it's a civil matter, not a job for the FBI, because you know, Osama bin Laden is still out there and frankly I think the FBI has more important things to do."

"Thank you, good night, and God bless America."

But that's probably not the answer CA is looking for. ;)

Writer's strike

[Scrameustache (459504)]

Copyright Alliance executive director Patrick Ross says he speaks "on behalf of the 11 million Americans employed in the creative industries," and asserts that piracy reduction is essential.
"The future of our creative output in the United States is at stake in the 2008 presidential election," the letter to the candidates says. "It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the US economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America's greatest strengths, its creative community."

Would those lobbyist happen to represent the same corporations that are now denying the authors their right to be paid their share for the money that is made in new media?
My, how 'uncharacteristically' hypocritical of them.

The issue

[edwardpickman (965122)]

The real point that should answer the questions is who owns the copyright the creator or the community at large? That really seems the debate. As a copyright holder I've already radically changed what work will be released to the public and how it will be released due to the weakness of the current copyright system. Electronic distibution and foreign markets that ignore copyright has seriously threatened the market and the ability of creators to make a living. Yes there's still money to be made but for how much longer? I have films based on my work in stores in Malaysia shortly after their release for a $1 a copy. South East Asia is already spoiled as a market with the largest potential market China being almost exclusively pirate. If the creator doesn't benefit from his/her work then why do it in the first place? Yes we'll still create but why release it to the public? I can make money off my lesser work so I decided to not release any of my favorite work to the public because of the current system. It's like a genie in the bottle and once it's released it will be copied endlessly. I'm a writer by preference and even if I strictly limit my work to printed text even then some one will likely scan it and post it. The point I'm trying to make is if I can make a living off what I consider lesser work and I want to avoid others exploiting work that is important to me then the world at large will never benefit from the better work. You can say who cares and I agree one artist may not be important but I do know of others quietly doing the same. As free distribution of material gets worse so will the restricting of material so in the end the community suffers. Many artists were mentioned like Shakespear. He's a perfect example. Let's say his work was strictly performed live and never published in any form. He would be completely unknown today. All artists especially writers have work that they never publish. What if they as a group decide to restrict their best work? Already there's been a noticable drop in the quality of the work available. It may not be the primary cause but I will say I know for a fact that some writers are no longer releasing their best work. An artists creation is very much like a child to them and it's at times like throwing your children to the wolves. In the past it was publishers and film studios that molested writers but now the community seems to feel they own our children so it might be time to start keeping our children in a closet. There are two sides to any situation. If the community at large feels they should be able to freely exploit an artists work then they may find one day they control smoke because there might not be much out there to exploit. We need to encourage the best people not punish them. Been to a movie lately? One of my passions is film and in the past I've been known to see three films in a single day in a theater. Now I rarely go and going to Blockbuster is a depressing experience. Dozens of films were released this week for the holiday rush and yet I found myself renting several older films. I'm hesitant to sell film rights anymore due to how poorly they are treated by most film makers these days. Anyone see The Mist? They turned one of Stephen's best stories into a tedious yawn fest. If our best work is going to be stolen and butchered whats the point? I'd rather restrict my favorite work to family and friends and my safe deposit boxes.

Re:

[khallow (566160)]

As I see it, much of the best work in history has been ripped off from someone else. I can see the argument for copyright, but keep in mind that many of the best artists in history predate copyright. So we have a old counterexample to the claim that ending copyright will destroy artistic creation.

Second, you seem to be complaining that copyright is weak and then only cite examples where copyright isn't supported? There's always going to be some place where they will copy your stuff for cheap. Is the point

Fixed that

[HalAtWork (926717)]

"After all, without copyright, what would become of the Copyright Alliance?"

There, fixed that for ya. What is that, like the new RIAA & MPAA? All I know is if I were an artist that distributed copyrighted works, and I am, I wouldn't really see it necessary to make money off my works after I'm dead. I wouldn't really want to profit off my work more than it's worth either, that's for consumers to decide. I'm a productive member of society and I don't need to leech off of everyone to stay alive, I'm perfectly capable.

Oh, ok, I see that [wikipedia.org] The Copyright Alliance is a lobbying organization formed on May 17, 2007 by 29 companies and organizations including groups that represent songwriters, recording artists, film makers, authors, photographers and sports leagues (see members below). The group is led by Patrick Ross, who recently left the Progress and Freedom Foundation [The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a U.S. market-oriented think tank based in Washington, D.C. that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy.]

With such members such as RIAA, MPAA, NBC [slashdot.org], Major League Baseball [slashdot.org], Disney [slashdot.org], Viacom, Time Warner, NFL, so basically everyone who is a conduit for someone else's talent.

Stronger copyright laws create more piracy

[Midnight Thunder (17205)]

The reality that the members of the copyright alliance fail to recognise is that if you make fair use so difficult to achieve, then people will default to piracy. The reasoning behind this is that if laws are so absurdly stringent that no mortal being can follow, then they won't even bother.

The other problem is that culture loses out when copryright still applies to works that the owner refuse to distribute due to 'economic reasons', but fail to allow the public domain to take over.

With the strength of these fascist copyright holders, we need a fair use lobby with equally strong support. The sad thing is that when so many people fail to realise what they are losing, such counter-lobbies are unlikely to get much support or funding.

Ron Paul won't bend to this nonsense!

[SonicSpike (242293)]

If you have not researched Ron Paul, then you should.

He doesn't take money from lobbyists or large corporations. Over 99.999% of Dr. Ron Paul's donations are from individuals, not PACs or corporations. Lobbyists don't even bother to talk to him in Congress because he is known as "Dr. No".

Contrast this to Fred Thompson who was a lobbyist for years.

If you vote, consider voting for someone who is principled and honest.

Re:

[zotz (3951)]

Ask them if they think any crime of rape should carry a lesser punishment than any copyright infringement. And if so, which ones and why...

all the best,

drew

There's an important priciple here.

[Erris (531066)]

Way to try to justify your illegal activity, slashfags.

Not that you care about either, AC, but laws should follow morals, not the other way around. Copyright laws are the result of corruption and following them is often immoral. They prevent the free flow of information more important than pop songs anyone can hear on the radio anyway. If the US is still a functional democracy, these initiatives will be defeated and bad laws like the DMCA will be rolled back. As is usually the case, private privilege has led to vast public harm.

Copyright laws have gotten so bad that scientific and medical journals are restricted and hard to find. This is both against the author's intentions and a sever blow to the whole purpose of copyright law. Authors who publish seek the widest possible audience. They want anyone who's interested to have ready access to their findings and that's what publishing is supposed to be about. The purpose of US copyright and patent law expressed in the US Constitution is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [wikipedia.org] Any law that goes against that purpose requires a constitutional amendment. Again [slashdot.org] and again [slashdot.org], prominent scientists [slashdot.org] and artist [salon.com] have stepped forward to complain.

Wait, wait wait

[Almahtar (991773)]

You have to translate these things so the troll can understand. Trolls have no use for your "facts" or "reason". I'll do the honors.

"OMG no ur wrong fag.Lol."