Sounds like you are describing a compiler.
Ah, cunning! So it's like my idea, but now you don't even have to hire someone to do the translation, because your boss/customer already did that bit. Nice. Definitely no programmers involved anywhere now!
Changing requirements aren't a problem. All you need is to define a language where they can be specified precisely, and hire someone who can translate your real world requirements into that language. Once you've got those, you can still do away with programmers because the new magic code generation tools will do everything else for you.
It's disappointing how these measures always seem to be about protecting the rights of whichever host country is involved, while completely ignoring any intrusion/violation of the rights of visitors.
Yes, as I've said throughout, I would agree that the extensions to copyright duration are not justified. However, they are also almost entirely irrelevant to arguments about incentives, because the continued copyright doesn't actually translate to continued income.
Most income from most copyrighted works is made within the first few years. The vast majority of online piracy is infringing the rights to works released within the past few years. If you cut copyright duration to 20 years across the board tomorrow, the economic situation would barely change in most cases. If you removed copyright entirely, on the other hand...
The same laws?
Yes, exactly the same laws. If you think the system is loaded in favour of content creators, you are as free as anyone else to create new content of your own and benefit from that system if you can. Millions of people make their living this way and billions benefit from the results, so it's not as if this is some crazy niche rule, nor one law for the rich and another for everyone else.
Show me one single group of people who can work once and milk it forever.
Well, pretty much any investment-based business works this way. Landlords who rent out their properties are probably the most obvious example. However, I don't see how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand.
In practice, significant income from works under copyright rarely lasts for more than a relatively short time after the work is released, and of course even that is not guaranteed. Creating the potential for that income, and thus an incentive to create and distribute new work in the first place, is the main effect of having copyright laws. I suspect we would agree that the duration of copyright protection has probably been extended far more than it should have been, but the benefit of that extended protection is mostly illusory anyway.
So just to be clear, you're not actually saying that Google are routinely listening in to everyone's surroundings, you're saying that an optional voice-activated feature on Android devices sometimes has false positives on the trigger word if it's enabled and in those cases it may record a short part of the audio around the phone and send it back to Google the same as it would if you were actually intending to use the voice-activated feature? I think it's fair to say that one of these is quite different to the other.
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.