As a cyclist I've seen a fair few arguments and studies like this one against wearing a helmet, but most people just use the 'common sense' argument for wearing one.

I don't wear a helmet, and in general I'd rather learn the arguments for changing my behaviour. Does anyone have a good link to well conceived arguments or studies that say you should wear one?

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Noims.

If copyright is supposed to encourage the arts by providing future financial security, then surely varying the rate for past works decreases that security by putting across the message that the timeframe may change in the future.

If this is the case, then I can see an argument for increasing copyright term on new works (not that I agree with it), but surely older works should go into the public domain on schedule, as the artists have received what was promised.

It's the equivalent of saying you'd pay an artist $1000 every year for the next 60 years. They can decide that yes, 60k is worth this amount of work. If you then start changing this around, the artist might be getting 95k or, in a possible future backlash, 40k. They then can't use this as a basis for viability. This, then, at least partially invalidates this incentive.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that this is the purpose of copyright, which I think is a pretty big assumption these days. I'd be interested in seeing a list of other justifications for it.

Noims.