🇳🇱
Thats exactly how law works.. everyone agrees, it enters law, now you have to follow it at gun point... yes its completely legitimate and pretty much the basis for every society on the planet.
Ummmm what, yes thats **exactly** what legitimate means. The definition of legitimate is:
"conforming to the law or to rules."
You dont seem to know what "legitimate" means. the holocaust would be legitimate according to Nazi rule, and illegitimate according to international law. Saying a thing is legitimate must always imply by what rule system or system of law it is legitimized..
But yes, from the Nazi legal system the holocaust was as legitimate as anything else, and by international law illigitimate.
Copyright and IP law however is legitimate in nearly ever system of law we have on the planet.
@freemo @agoradefense @herag @Albright @null0x0
I could argue the current system in the US is clearly unconstitutional in several ways, but the current judges would not agree so it’s moot.
If you could make a coherent argument as to why it is unconstitutional then you'd have a leg to stand on in calling it illegitimate... Though i highly doubt youd be capable of doing so. I know the constitution well and cant imagine any way you could even begin to make that argument without making huge leaps.
You said you were going to argue constitutionality and your argument of constitutionality in now way even references the constitution? Pretty weak argument bro.
@freemo @herag @null0x0 @agoradefense @Albright
Are you high as fuck? I directly quoted the part of constitution being violated before listing how it was being violated.
Sorry your right, you did quote the constitution at the start. Was looking at the wrong post when i replied.
So your argument is that even though they only secure copyrights for limited times, and the constiton in no way claims that limit need sto be a "short" time or anything about how long... that somehow the fact that copyrights are longer than you want them to be that that represents a violation of the constititon?
Sorry still a pretty weak argument bro.
@freemo @herag @null0x0 @agoradefense @Albright
Not a slam dunk, but . 14 years was a reasonable copyright term 200+ years ago. The rate of innovation has accelerated greatly since then, and a shorter term would be rational, not 120 years for corporations and the rest of the authors life + 70 I’m sure when windows 7, which microsoft neither sells nor maintains 10 years after release, enters the public domain in the 22nd century those forks are really going to start blooming.
You are welcome to argue for shorter terms. I might agree I might not if that were the argument. But there is nothing remotely valid about your statement it is unconstitutional.
This, @mcduquesne, plus that the authors of the works are rarely the right holders, except for a few hyperly successful. Copyright laws got so corrupted that it’s mainly used to gather monopolistic power for corporation to exploit both work authors and consumers, and somehow goes against both capitalistic and communist principles at the same time.
Cc: @freemo, @Albright, @agoradefense, @herag, @null0x0
@freemo @herag @null0x0 @agoradefense @Albright
“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.”
the current corporate purchased copyright laws make a mockery of “limited time.” Patent law is frequently used to retard the progress of science and the useful arts. Threats of patent trolls with overbroad patents stopping any number of promising lines of investigation and discovery , old movies negatives slowly degrading into sludge because the rights are too confusing. FDA giving corporations exclusive IP rights to medicine discovered by Greeks millennia ago.
But since we are under an unlimited imperial power, and not a federal government with constitutionally limited enumerated powers, it’s a moot point.