And? Doesn’t everyone deserve that kind of safety net? Should we take away people’s 401ks, pensions, life insurance, etc. because other people don’t have them?
I think I’d rather focus my energy on making sure that more people can make sure their families are secure if something should happen to them, not less
Just because the system is flawed doesn’t mean we should implement even more flaws in the system to cover some of the old ones. If providing for retirement and a family that survives the early death of their provider are your priorities, let’s work out systems to ensure everyone gets the support we can both agree should be provided. Depending on inherited IP rights and depending on an employer to contribute to retirement are both deeply flawed plans, and we’d be better off doing something like eliminating the cap on social security taxes so we can make sure everyone’s retirement is covered and that survivor benefits are sufficient.
But what were talking about isn’t implemented a flawed system, it’s improving one that’s already flawed, and the result still wouldn’t be perfect but it’s better than what currently exists
And it doesn’t prevent passing even better laws further down the line, but I think you know that creating new more comprehensive survivor benefits that would cover everyone is a much harder sell than a comparatively small tweak to copyright laws.
And if we remove those copyright benefits before those new systems are ready, you’re leaving people in the lurch without any safety net until those new systems can be created (if in fact they ever are)
But what were talking about isn’t implemented a flawed system, it’s improving one that’s already flawed, and the result still wouldn’t be perfect but it’s better than what currently exists
Except this is something we disagree on. I do not agree that the massive extensions to copyright are anything other than deeply flawed.
And it doesn’t prevent passing even better laws further down the line, but I think you know that creating new more comprehensive survivor benefits that would cover everyone is a much harder sell than a comparatively small tweak to copyright laws.
“But it’d be hard to do it right, let’s just bandaid it with more flaws.”
And if we remove those copyright benefits before those new systems are ready, you’re leaving people in the lurch without any safety net until those new systems can be created (if in fact they ever are)
I could maybe, maaaaybe, agree to a big shift with a grandfather clause. Anything already published would then get the old rules, and anything new would get the new, much less restrictive rules. I’d still rather just fix it properly, though.
And? Doesn’t everyone deserve that kind of safety net? Should we take away people’s 401ks, pensions, life insurance, etc. because other people don’t have them?
I think I’d rather focus my energy on making sure that more people can make sure their families are secure if something should happen to them, not less
Just because the system is flawed doesn’t mean we should implement even more flaws in the system to cover some of the old ones. If providing for retirement and a family that survives the early death of their provider are your priorities, let’s work out systems to ensure everyone gets the support we can both agree should be provided. Depending on inherited IP rights and depending on an employer to contribute to retirement are both deeply flawed plans, and we’d be better off doing something like eliminating the cap on social security taxes so we can make sure everyone’s retirement is covered and that survivor benefits are sufficient.
But what were talking about isn’t implemented a flawed system, it’s improving one that’s already flawed, and the result still wouldn’t be perfect but it’s better than what currently exists
And it doesn’t prevent passing even better laws further down the line, but I think you know that creating new more comprehensive survivor benefits that would cover everyone is a much harder sell than a comparatively small tweak to copyright laws.
And if we remove those copyright benefits before those new systems are ready, you’re leaving people in the lurch without any safety net until those new systems can be created (if in fact they ever are)
Except this is something we disagree on. I do not agree that the massive extensions to copyright are anything other than deeply flawed.
“But it’d be hard to do it right, let’s just bandaid it with more flaws.”
I could maybe, maaaaybe, agree to a big shift with a grandfather clause. Anything already published would then get the old rules, and anything new would get the new, much less restrictive rules. I’d still rather just fix it properly, though.