By your logic, every artist should have the right to erase the memories of every person that ever heard one of their songs, because there is a copy of the song in those peoples' brains. Is that what you are asserting? That the songwriter owns my brain because his song is in it?

Next think you know, you'll be asking your neighbors to help pay for your porch light, because it reaches their yards and they are using your light.

So ... you are claiming copyright expiration is a seizure. How does that happen? Do jack-booted thugs show up at your house to take it away from you? No - you still have it. In fact, you can still sell copies. But you can no longer decide that the 2 dozen people that already have copies of your work cannot make more copies. Now there are 25 copies. Did you lose anything? NO. In fact, you were already paid by 24 people that were stupid enough to think a copy of your crap is worth paying for.

It already is. You have exclusive right to anything you create. Now, if you want to distribute it for a fee, then you are given a monopoly on the ability to make copies of that work. The only copy any owners of a copy of your work may create is the one in his/her brain. I have exclusive control of all the books on my bookshelf. Some of them I can scan into my computer and print all the copies I want. Some, however, I am forbidden from doing so by federal law. If I do so, the grantee of the exclusive right to make copies may sue me for infringement. If you create something and you don't want anyone from accessing it, you have a [god-given][inherent][whatever] right to keep it to yourself. When you make a copy for me, it is governed by "first sale doctrine" and I own that copy - exclusively - and may do with it what I want. See - it's not yours any more. That copy is mine.

That has nothing to do with anything. If the artist releases his work, it's done by creating copies. Those are paid for and owned by the purchasers. I have created MANY works using my brilliance and talent that I have never received any payment for. You do not have a right to be paid for everything you do. Nobody gives a shit about your time or talent if none of it is marketable.

Nope, that is incorrect. Property is tangible, and when stolen, you no longer have it. Copyright is not property. It is a right to make copies. A more rational analogy would be that corporations are stealing from people that buy copies of CDs with music on them, by manufacturing them with a limited lifespan. Without the right to make copies of that CD, purchasers are at some point deprived of their property (a copy of some musical bits) without compensation.

And as I have shown above, your point is demonstrably false. They already protect their copyright-holding citizens. By allowing them to sue someone that makes copies of their works without authorization.

But do they continue for 70 years after they are dead? Because the exclusive right to make copies of their works lasts that long. And it deprives the public of its cultural heritage and the ability to honor and celebrate their artists after they are gone.

Your inability to see the difference between a tangible asset (and depriving the owner of that tangible asset), and the grant of an exclusive right to perform an activity (copying), is truly a stunning example of your myopic view. The world does not owe you a living. And it certainly does not owe you and your kids a lifetime of earnings for a extremely short-term amount of work.

Proponents have argued that the law should be changed to allow them for "forever minus one day". Same affect as your proposal, but the Mary Bono was testifying before Congress when she suggested it, and she was serious.

Because the indications that it was "Der Chiners" was just innuendo and speculation by media reporters. There is NO evidence that it was the Chinese, and no official statement that China was involved or that they had evidence to that effect. It's just as likely that it was some kid in his parent's basement in Jersey.

That's not true. Using a matter/anti-matter annihilation drive, you can get to the nearest star at 1g acceleration with just 10 kg of fuel for each kg of payload. Now, it's true we don't have such an engine, but we do have (a tiny amount of) anti-matter, and the energy output is 100% efficient. So it's a known power source which can provide sustained acceleration with only about 10x the fuel to payload ratio, maybe a bit more to make up for a less than perfectly efficient thrust engine.

Or gold mining! Yea, that's the ticket to get the prospectors out there to colonize the place. Interstellar gold rush!

Sure, but it assumes the user either locked the phone before pocketing it, and/or the timer locked the screen before the dial/tweet/email happened.

Correct. Smart phones tend to butt-email or butt-tweet instead.

We had a contractor here one time that brought in a portable AP. It was set to broadcast the SSID which was "I Shoot Kids". This was shortly after the Sandy Hook incident. The admin called security and he was ejected permanently.

I just checked my spam folder again. I reserved a U-Haul, and the email confirming that reservation went to spam. One of the few false positives I get, but there are others.

What's interesting is all the political fund-raising emails. Only the conservative ones end up in Spam (Campaign for Liberty, Conservative Senate committee, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Mark Mix, etc.). That's fine - I don't really want to see those emails anyway. Yet, I get lots of the same emails from Hillary Clinton, Obama, Harry Reid, common good VA, Virginia Dems, Webb 2016, etc, and NONE of those left-leaning groups or politicians get sent to Spam. 0. That seems a little odd - I didn't do any filter training based on that. So does Google's spam filter have a political leaning?