[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

We are clearly starting in opposite directions. You are going from a law should be followed a priori. I'm going from the side where a law has to constantly justify its existence.

In moral principles, as a rule, freedom is good and certainly the default state. Every law constitutes a restriction of that freedom, so there had better be a very good ethical reason proportionate (or better) to its restriction for it to exist (generally for the utilitarian good of a working society). The moment the reason disappears, or we find it it never existed, dump it. If it still exists, it deserves to be ignored.

Now justify your position, please.

Very well written

By the way, you forgot one little detail on copyright law - Companies themselves have become living entities in the eyes of the law, so the copyrights now will never expire for an eternity. Public domain? What public domain? :p It doesn't exist any longer. Along with this comes the downfall with creativity and of others who seek to better already existing products, since the copyrights will be held for the rest of time.

Our system is very broken.

I wonder how long the US will continue to exist with laws such as this? The way I see it, the US was at its pinnicle between the 1950's and 1960's. Now, just like the roman empire, the long slide has started. I wonder if it will still be a power to recon with in 25 years? Doubt it if things continue the way they are.

Just my 2 cents. Copyright law is just one problem of many however.

-S