

90 Law Professors sign letter in opposition to Protect IP Act - d0ne
http://volokh.com/2011/07/04/and-speaking-of-the-inalienable-right-to-the-pursuit-of-happiness/

======
Shenglong
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act>

70 year-old senators should not be allowed to influence technological law.

~~~
alayne
That's some blatant ageism.

~~~
burke
No, it's not. It should be reasonable to have an expectation that the people
writing laws have a working understanding of the subjects they're writing them
on. Very, very few 70-year-olds have a sufficient understanding of the
Internet. It's not ageist to be frustrated by this situation.

~~~
marshray
Very, very few people of any age have a sufficient understanding of the
Internet.

------
HistoryInAction
_Sigh_ This is why you don't wait until the very last stage or after that
point in the political process to lobby on an issue.

------
VanceRefrig
Is that enough?

~~~
Create
...to paraphrase Einstein, if they were right, even one person would be
enough. But true, it needs "change", because it is seeding just more trouble.

btw Slavoj Žižek argues, that capitalism cannot handle imaginary property, and
actually this dichotomy is strong enough to take it down eventually down the
road.

~~~
_delirium
I'm not sure about his prediction, but intellectual property _does_ highlight
more than most other issues the split between the individual-
rights/libertarian version of capitalism, and corporate/pro-business version
of capitalism. Intellectual property requires a particularly high level of
intrusive government policing; for example, it can be illegal to copy a book
by typing it on a typewriter in your own house, where you own the land, house,
typewriter, and paper. It's _definitely_ illegal to screen someone else's film
for payment, even if the entire transaction happens in your living room (you
project the film, in your house, using your own projector, to people who pay
you in cash inside your house).

This sits very poorly with the government-out-of-my-house-and-off-my-land
version of libertarianism, since it inherently requires agreeing that it's the
rightful role of government to police what you do in your own living room. It
feels more like social engineering than anything libertarian: the government
has decided that, in order to promote the good of society (encourage artistic
production, technical innovation, etc.), it must police what you do on your
land.

------
rick888
so..where are all the free speech advocates when someone willfully violates
the GPL?

~~~
drcube
Lacking the privilege to obscure, hide or restrict access to information is
not a violation of free speech. Similarly "I'm not allowed to shut people up!"
doesn't mean you are persecuted.

~~~
rick888
yeah, well pirating software, music, and movies isn't free speech either.

~~~
drcube
Yeah, but having a website IS. If someone is suspected of a crime, they should
be formally accused and put on trial (aka "due process") before stripping them
of their rights and property. Wild concept, I know.

