That's simply not true. The Bible, Koran and Torah are all very vocal about things which should be condemned and not respected at all.

I imagine the same is true for many other religious texts. It's pretty difficult to develop a substantial following or moral code by saying "everything is worthy of respect." Religions mainly function by what they condemn.

I oppose any Bacon boycotts on the grounds of deliciousness.

Who told you that??

Seriously, did you not understand that that was the point of my post? Did you miss the obvious subtext and sarcasm?

But nobody was writing front-page articles about Foxconn when Dell or HP or whoever were the top of the industry, and Apple was considered to be irrelevant.

I wonder why?

Yes. That was my point. That people in America, who believe in this Randian fantasy land, demonize the Chinese government for failing their citizens up, while simultaneously screaming for less government intervention.

Did you entirely miss my fairly obvious subtext?

While it's true that the Chinese government needs to take its share of responsibility, don't the citizens of China also have responsibility in improving their lives?

Imagine if the same were said about America. The American government should be responsible for improving the lives of citizens? In "the land of the free," shouldn't that responsibility lie in the hands of the citizens themselves, while government should just get out of the way?

I'm pretty sure there would be an outcry about how the government shouldn't be managing people's lives.

Wow, that's almost 100% incorrect, yet you get modded up. What the fuck?

No fucking shit. So, why not make that argument, rather than the trollish rubbish you first advanced?

Huh? Where did I say it shouldn't be time limited. What I was responding to was your argument that the money shouldn't be flowing to the creator/owner, but rather some undefined "somebody else" for the benefit of society.

My argument is that without copyright law, that "somebody else" who is benefiting is likely to be shady actors like Megaupload, etc. So, how does that benefit society and the arts?

When did I mention them? You are aware that one can copyright works without being involved in the RIAA/MPAA cartels, right?

[citation needed]

Nonsense. The Republican base needs those people to exploit. The last thing they want is an intelligent and skilled population, that would mean the end of their party.

The racist part comes in where with white skin who speak English are favored over other immigrants. If you don't think that happens, then you are delusional.

There are also other issues apart from racism. America was founded by violence. Who's to say that certain people are able to claim a certain geographic area, but not others? If a stronger military force were to conquer the USA, would you be OK with that?

You must have a strange definition of "very few" when it comes to Slashdot. That's pretty much the majority position.

Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument.

Generally speaking, copyright does support the greater good of culture and society. The money that's not going to the artist at least goes to a publisher who was willing to support the artist at some point.

If it's just a free-for-all, then who does that money go to? Even shadier individuals and the viagra/online dating/porn/gambling scumbags that enable them.

That diversion of money does not enrich culture and society, it impoverishes it.