And trite sayings don't mean they are correct, either.
The social contract in the constitution was to grant people with limited exclusivity for works they created. Patents have roughly stayed within that parameter (with exception to patent abuses on design and software).
For copyright, it was originally 17 years, extendable another 17 years. Works released in 1981 (my date of birth) will expire in 120 years. I will be dead before they are in public domain.
The social contract was 'reneogiated' by campaign donations, without input from the people. The supreme court found that forever extensions the way congress is implementing them as 'constitutional' and it was Congress's problem.
So yes, I believe that should open up the debate on piracy as a legitimate solution.
There's been plenty of input from the people. The people vote every 2 years for representatives and every 6 years for senators. By and large, the people's input has been to keep the congresspeople who voted for these extensions.
The reality is that most of "the people" just don't care about this issue. But they've had their input.
You can't oversimplify this. The issue goes beyond simple voting because in the grand scheme of things copyright isn't as important as other representative factors.
Would you honestly say that you would vote for a representative who agreed with you on copyright agenda but disagreed on all other aspects (or at the very least, most of the categories that are directly important to you)? That's the choice we're asked to make. Should I re-elect Senator Y if he is copyright lobbyist's bitch? He does however take strong stances on the issues A, B and C which I do like though.
> The issue goes beyond simple voting because in the grand scheme of things copyright isn't as important as other representative factors.
Exactly. Due to the imperfect nature of our democracy, copyright has never been voted on by the general public. The general public has effectively voted for foreign policy, the economy, numerous social issues including the right to vote, reproductive rights, marriage rights, etc.
However the public has never effectively voted for more minor issues like copyright. The only people who are effectively voicing their opinions are politicians themselves and the corporations who pay them. It has never been a large enough issue for the general population dictate on, one way or the other.
There's been plenty of input from the people. The people vote every 2 years for representatives and every 6 years for senators. By and large, the people's input has been to keep the congresspeople who voted for these extensions.
I'll never understand why people think this is a valid argument. We're being asked to conflate topics that are not closely related and, by voting, make unnecessary compromises. An overhaul of democracy is pretty much overdue.
