![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/a18b0c69-23c9-4b2a-b8e0-3aca0172390d.png)
Technically unlimited, but with an exponentially increasing annual registration fee.
Technically unlimited, but with an exponentially increasing annual registration fee.
Exactly. I don’t have a problem with artists profiting from their work. I don’t have a problem with their temporary exclusivity. The problem I have is when they never intend for that work to belong to the people; when they think they can maintain control over an idea long after it has become “culture”.
For the problem you mention, I would suggest that any studio who has been offered the work during the five year period owes royalties for a 5-year period after the studio publishes the work, even if it has since entered the public domain. Something along those lines would likely become a standard clause between the screenwriter’s guild and the studios, and doesn’t necessarily need to be enacted in law.
I wouldn’t be opposed to a longer period for some major works. Start with a standard, 5-year period from the time of original publication, then allow an extended copyright registration with an exponentially increasing annual fee. A few additional years would likely be affordable. The fifth, possibly. The sixth, only for the most profitable franchises, and the seventh being a large fraction of the national GDP. If James Cameron wants to pay for the entire military establishment through the proceeds of Avatar III, he can get one more year of protection.
I don’t really care to fight about what the original intent of copyright is,
Then you can get bent.
Art and invention benefit the whole of humanity. A work whose sole beneficiary is its creator does not qualify as art or invention, and deserves no protection.
The purpose of copyright is to promote science and the useful arts. The purpose is to get art and inventions into the public domain. The purpose is not “to get artists paid”. Getting them paid for their works and discoveries is the method by which copyright achieves its purpose. It is not the purpose itself.
If they are only interested in keeping their works proprietary; if they are uninterested in pushing them into the public domain, they are not achieving the purpose for which copyright exists. They do not qualify for copyright protection. They can get bent.
My first thought (which probably isn’t the best method, but I’ve done similar before) is an Arduino between the mouse and the system. The Arduino normally just passes the mouse commands to the system, but it listens for the button and blocks movement if it sees the button press.
Because it’s all done in hardware, this method would be system-agnostic. You could plug it into anything.
I used a Teensy 3.6 for a similar project.
Do you know how many problems would be solved if the nation wasn’t run by workaholics, but by people who expect to retire at a reasonable age, while they still have some life to live?
57 is the oldest we should elect a president to their first term, so they are done with gainful, serious work by the age of 65. The only work someone over 65 should be doing is profiting from enjoyment of a useful hobby.
A dozen armed people attract cops.
A couple hundred armed people repel cops.
Package the leftovers into “meals” (perhaps “family meals”). Have your people order those “meals” through Doordash.
Your people can then (optionally) sign into their Dasher accounts to make those deliveries.
Women have enough problems with unwanted male interaction, not to mention so many lies about women’s anatomy. This makes it so much worse.
In this hypothetical, men switch from having a sexual interest in women 52/52 weeks a year to 4/52 weeks a year. I would expect a >92% reduction in “unwanted male interaction”.
He’s doing exactly what he should be doing right now, acting like he’s going to be the one running.
Sometime between August 12th and 19th is when he needs to withdraw, for health reasons. The week before the Democratic National Convention. Dropping out a few days before the convention turns it from a pro forma circle jerk into a media frenzy, energizing the base less than 3 months from the election.
Tell me you didn’t watch the debate without telling me you didn’t watch the debate. The GOP wants the Democrats to stick with this particular horse.
Biden isn’t going to win. The Republicans are mad as hell, and the Democrats are bored.
What we need is Trump spending the next 5 weeks telling us how old and senile Biden is, how bad an old, senile president will be. And then we tag in a 40-something candidate, making Trump the only geriatric left on the ballot.
A random Millennial could run on an “Ok, Boomer” platform and beat Trump.
The choice doesn’t have to be between the narcissist and the potato.
In about 6 weeks, the Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago. With a democratic incumbent, that’s a boring little party that the entire nation ignores. But, if Biden drops out of the race in about 5 weeks, that convention turns into a media circus, and the entire base has a fresh new candidate winning the news cycles.
I’ll take the entrails of a priest.
Joenald Triden
If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is “needed”. (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother’s needs are valid, so the only abortion that is “unneeded” is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)
The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn’t asked for your help; she doesn’t want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What “help” are you going to force on her against her will?
About last point: I choose to presume consent
I’ll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don’t get to make that “choice”.
The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
#You may never infer consent from silence.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.
Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned.
The military is strictly limited on what kind of operations it is allowed to perform. The commander and operators of Seal Team 6 would be prosecuted if they obeyed an unlawful order, even if it came from their Commander in Chief. The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act. The President does not have the power to violate his political rival’s right to due process. A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an “unofficial act”. The courts are free to rule accordingly.
The dissents are reading far more into the majority opinion than is actually there. I suggest you read the majority opinion a little more closely.
When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune
In all three of those cases, the question as to whether those actions are required or permitted under the law is put to a judge, and that judge is free to rule that they are not. The trial judge is free to rule that they are “unofficial” acts, and deny that immunity.
This ruling is terrible for Trump.
Challenging a stereotype is going to earn the “woke” label, so there isn’t a simple numerical answer. An all-black cast might not be considered “woke” if all the characters promote the stereotype.
Ideally, the answer to your question would be approximately zero. You should wear the “woke” epithet as a badge of honor.