2009/10/20 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Brian McNeil
<brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
Joking aside, I think that if I had a moment alone with Peter
Mandelson and could curb my violent impulses for five minutes, I'd put
it to him that cutting off someone's internet for illegal downloading
is a punishment liable to be suffered as much by the innocent as the
guilty.
Can you get him to meet some famous musicians? Childhood TV stars
perhaps? No? Your opinion means approx diddly squat then.
Flick through
http://dominicseuroblog.wordpress.com/ if you want to
see the kind of tactics used.
I'd also like to tell Mandy that copyright terms
of life plus 70 years
is helping a select few whilst denying huge amounts of culture to the
many and that owning something for 70 years after YOU'RE FRICKIN' DEAD
is unlikely to be the spur to activity the government thinks it is. In
addition, a next generation that inherits income from copyrighted
works actually is disincentivised from getting a job if the income
from the copyright is sufficient to support them. The government
normally *loathes* people who don't go out to work, but apparently
it's fine if your dad happens to have written The Da Vinci Code.
At this point dropping below life+70 isn't going to happen. There
isn't much of a campaign to extend it beyond that though.
--
geni