intelligent and reasonable arguments advancing the protection of intellectual property?
In The Left Sucks, Aaron Swartz states that
For example, in Censorship on the cryptography list, Unlimited Freedom argues that "Now you're claiming to know more constitutional law than the United States Supreme Court, which just decided that such legislation is constitutional!" in response to a list member who stated that "Legislation to extend the term of copyright for works already published is bad policy. And unconstitutional."
How does that advance the argument? Why not bother to at least cut and paste some of the text of the decision to allow for a response. Why not discuss whether life plus 70 is a limited term? I guess you and the Supremes know more than the founding fathers then too, huh?
Another problem I have in this same post is his failure to acknowledge contracts of adhesion in the context of his pro freedom to contract cum 'DRM can replace copyright legislation' tirades.
I don't claim to be a copyright scholar, but I certainly disagree with Aaron's labelling of these arguments as intelligent and reasonable.
Unlimited Freedom ... has bravely taken the side of devil’s advocate on Internet mailing lists and newsgroups, intelligently arguing that trusted computing and other things Internet consensus is strongly against are good things....I don't disagree with the importance that someone make intelligent and reasonable arguments for the other side of the debate; I'm just not quite sure that Unlimited Freedom makes "intelligent and reasonable arguments."
While I disagree strongly with both these people on many issues, I’d feel greatly impoverished without their intelligent and reasonable arguments. It’s frustrating to try and debate an issue when you’re the only one playing with the facts.
For example, in Censorship on the cryptography list, Unlimited Freedom argues that "Now you're claiming to know more constitutional law than the United States Supreme Court, which just decided that such legislation is constitutional!" in response to a list member who stated that "Legislation to extend the term of copyright for works already published is bad policy. And unconstitutional."
How does that advance the argument? Why not bother to at least cut and paste some of the text of the decision to allow for a response. Why not discuss whether life plus 70 is a limited term? I guess you and the Supremes know more than the founding fathers then too, huh?
Another problem I have in this same post is his failure to acknowledge contracts of adhesion in the context of his pro freedom to contract cum 'DRM can replace copyright legislation' tirades.
I don't claim to be a copyright scholar, but I certainly disagree with Aaron's labelling of these arguments as intelligent and reasonable.
