Now that's interesting. I didn't follow the case closely, but I am aware about the general issues and such. And I always thought that internet and related IT issues could only be discussed in a responsible way on the political arena when the people who used it for something else than paying bills and shopping and that really understand what the internet means get involved politically, in the party way, not just raising their voice or lobbying halfheartedly.
And copyright is an essentially flawed idea: although I hope to sell what I create in all the mediums I am involved and make a living from it, copyright laws seems more intent on protecting the right of the publishers to benefit from your work than on protecting the creator.
The world continue changing and advancing, and obsolete laws created with the viewpoint and the paradigm of the past cannot even hope to regulate the ever-advancing world. Laws should not be simply patched at every change, they should be though again from scratch and replace the old ones. Only by creating the laws with the eyes of today we could create a legislation that makes sense today.
(I hope I could make my point clear... 4:56 a.m. in the morning here. And I want to make clear that, although I am talking about law-making here, I am more of an anarchist kind of guy, with more trust on self-government and cooperativism than on capitalist representative "democracy").
|