Airwaves are a public resource, and so privately owned issues pretty much end where they hit the antenna. I'd make the argument that it isn't in the public interest to promote crazyness. I support the public interest, but that doesn't mean every whack-o's mutterings are worthy of promotion.

We do research, but we don't build anything with the results of our research. Nuclear Reactors that can't meltdown are old hat at the US research level.

No. Your work was not stolen. No part of "take (the property of another or others) without permission" occurred. Your property was not taken. The software of which you speak isn't property in any real sense. However, you had an agreement, and for whatever reason, that agreement was violated. The reason the agreement was violated can't change the fact that it was a contract dispute, not theft. What you are trying to do is redefine "steal" and/or redefine "property" so that one can "steal" something without taking it, or depriving you of it. This is a point of view that lots of money and marketing is going into, but all the propaganda in the world won't change the fact that you are wrong. It isn't stealing. No physical property was taken from you without permission. You gave permission, under an agreement, to be paid and that pay was not forthcoming. You could say they stole your money. That would be theft.

Most want reform, not abolition. I think a two year copyright would be sufficient. The way it is now, the value to be added to society for pretending that it is property isn't worth it. Where are the increases in the public domain that are the reason that we are willing to pretend? If they aren't there (and they aren't) then why pretend?

Well if that happened, it would be a contract violation, not theft. At least where I've worked, I can't claim to own anything even I think it up on my "own time". You don't own the code you typed. It isn't stealing. If they don't pay you, that still doesn't make it possible to steal their own code from themselves. But if they don't pay you, that is a contract violation. Likewise, content providers who want to claim copying a DVD is the same as shoplifting are lying. They go after people in civil court, not criminal court. If you really can't see the difference take a few law classes, or read some books.

I would also suggest that if every movie went into the public domain two years later, fewer people would violate copyright. If they could buy a DVD for $1, more DVDs would be sold, and almost nobody would bother to pirate. It wouldn't be cost-effective to pirate. It is inevitable. Laws can be bought, but you can't legislate away the tide.

How about 2 years? With a 3rd year renewal, but only 50% are renewable by lottery? No exceptions.

Disagree that the distinction made is splitting hairs. The fact is that labels make money, and artists get a pittance. The fact is that Disney makes money, and the artists get a pittance. You want to say it is Disney that creates it, and Disney that publishes. The point made was that there are makers and takers, and having the takers contract the makers, or bringing them inside, doesn't change the dynamic. Control of distribution is a choke point. If you construct a choke point on any major flow, you control it. Totally. What good is it to get a phone call if they take away your mouth?

There is a difference, though, between an artificial wall and a separation where form follows function.

Yes. But my point is that just email works just like that. Yahoo users can email Gmail users. However, you can't see google+ posts on facebook. That is where the analogy with phone companies breaks down. Email and phone calls are analogous. Social networks are not analogous to either email or phone calls.

Agreed. Many people follow news sites from facebook. Facebook has become their portal to the rest of the internet.

No, not really. If I use gmail and you use yahoo there is nothing lost in our email conversations. If I use facebook, and you use google+, then logging into facebook doesn't show me your stuff. I'd have to go to your system to see your stuff. If i had 20 friends all on facebook, its easy. If they were on 20 different systems, I have to have 20 tabs open. To make it similar to email, then if you post on Facebook, or on google+, then I'd see it in my "aggregator system", and it'd be like I was simultaneously on both. So whose Ads do I see? If I built it, I wouldn't see any. So why would they let me scrape their sites? I don't know, why would they?

No, actually, its like AT&T has 98% of the market share, and someone is whining, "why doesn't everyone start up their own independent telephone network space". Like I want to use the yellow phone to talk to people about baking, and the green phone for talking about movies. Not gonna happen.

Right. I remember those days. It was back when everyone was on Yahoo! What made Yahoo! chat rooms work was that you could go there and find people. What makes Facebook work is that is where everyone is now. I could (and do) use google+, but I get almost nothing out of it because nobody is there. This is called "network effect".

Mathematica use QT.