| And they get to do it because the FTC has been totally defanged. It has nothing to do with Trump or oil. Sheeple indeed.

In March 2025, Mr. Trump fired the two remaining Democratic commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, basically consolidating executive control over the agency. This action effectively ended the agency’s longstanding statutory and bipartisan independence.

So, basically, Mr. Trump defanged the FTC. Who's the sheeple now?

Depending on the study, from 30% to 44% of Vietnam vets came back with PTSD. The stereotype of the unhinged 'Nam vet was thus not just a leftist conspiracy. Today, Vietnam-era veterans remain disproportionately represented in the homeless population.

If we have a draft today the level of resistance will cripple the country. Nobody will tolerate the Government pulling that. That move could break the country.

We've come full circle to the tech community deciding what's proper for our neighbors. ChatGPT is free to decide not to include adult stuff, and celebrity/CSAM should totally be illegal, but "The proper use of AI is as a tool, not as a friend, lover or therapist, and especially not as an addiction" is how we get the government regulating how adults use the tools at their disposal.

Aside from CSAM and defamatory stuff we don't have the right to decide what's proper for someone else.

Eventually peer to peer training (Petals using Hivemind, etc.) will lead the way.

At least they didn't do a Tumblr and have the feature put in, then wait for millions to be using it... and then yank the rug out from under them.

We saw how that ended.

Fortunately there are alternatives.

The Founding Fathers made a slave country where women, minorities and non-landowners couldn't vote. We already changed what the founding slaveowners made.

I hope you're willing to pay more for food and see food shortages which Trump has already caused after running on "but muh bidenflation" platform where he said food prices will go down (hint: they didn't).

As civilizations mature, entropy advances like a cancer and eventually rots the country from within. America's the oldest continuous governmental system around. We're well past our expiration date if you factor in how fast history moves nowadays.

We should have kept Biden. He might have died and still been more mentally here than Trump. Biden at least remembered what the Declaration of Independence and never declared a trade war with Mattel. He never tried to posture about conquering Greenland and was not going to invade Venezuela. Or a hundred other batshit / dementia inspired things Trump has done.

Most importantly: he didn't treat minorities or women like second class citizens.

Holy crap, that wasn't something I looked forward to reading this morning...

Popeye's great, and they're still making the comic strip. Nancy's gotten pretty good again. Little Orphan Annie eventually got canceled, but man, it was just insane after around 2000 or so.

Patents keep getting longer too. They used to be 14 years long, and now they're 20.

My proposal has been requiring authors to take affirmative steps to get a copyright (it's not automatic or free, though the fee is nominal), so that we only have to worry about the works the author specifically wants to protect, and that the terms would be 1-year with renewals. The number of renewals would depend on the type of work, but in no event would be all that long.

There was a study some years ago that suggested that 15 years was optimal in general. I'd like to see more investigation of that.

Strong disagree. First, life terms are too unpredictable (and might be shorter than fixed or renewable terms of years). Second, part of the goal of copyright is to encourage the creation of unauthorized derivative works; that's why we have limited terms to begin with.

If an author writes a series of books over years in a common setting, with common characters, the first one entering the public domain only opens up the setting and characters as they were in the first book; third party authors can fork it -- instead of the character of John Smith remaining in Everytown USA on his farm, which was what the original author kept writing about, the new unauthorized one has him set out on magic spy adventures in space. The market can sort out whether this is popular or successful.

This sort of thing has worked out okay before. The Aeneid is just the pro-Trojan, pro-Roman fanfic sequel to the Iliad. (Virgil: "Turns out some of the Trojans survived the war and escaped and had crazy adventures! Let's follow them instead of continuing with Odysseus or Agamemnon.")

No, it's not. This is, no pun intended, patently obvious -- look at all of the unsuccessful artists out there, who will never be successful by virtue of their art even if the copyright lasted a billion years.

Copyright gives people a shot at success, but ensures nothing. Most works are, with regard to copyright-derived income, total flops. Most artists don't get reasonably paid from their copyrights.

It's a lot more like a lottery ticket; lots of people try their luck, and all but a handful lose. The tiny number of big winners, combined with the poor math skills of the average artist or gambler, result in people trying again and again and again, almost always fruitlessly.

But as a side effect, our culture gets enriched with all of this art. Maybe not much, if it's bad, but the only way to get more good art is to have more art created period.

I agree that it should vary, probably by medium. Different media have different viable commercial lifetimes, ranging from less than a full day, in the case of a daily newspaper, to usually no more than a couple of decades (and possibly less, now) in the case of TV and movies. On the other hand, I don't think we need guaranteed minimums at all. If an author wants a copyright, let them apply for it -- by as simple a means as possible, but still requiring an affirmative act and the payment of a token sum, such as $1, so that they have to put in at least a little thought. In many cases, the author won't bother, in which case, why should we be putting a copyright on it anyway?

So what if instead there is an auto mechanic who dies unexpectedly at a young age, and who left behind a young family with children that had depended on their income? Do they get a royalty on the cars he fixed, or do you say fuck his family, he should've been a successful artist.

No reason for there to be a special solution that only benefits young, dead, successful authors and their surviving families. Everyone dies, and plenty of people die young or otherwise leave their family in dire straits. And the vast majority of creators are never successful in the first place, whether during their lives or posthumously.

Better then to have a more generalized solution: encourage people to get life insurance policies, regulate the insurance market so that they actually pay out, and provide a social safety net just in case. This solution doesn't fuck up our copyright laws, helps more people, is more reliable (what if the work suddenly stops being popular?), and is just plain better in every imaginable respect.

Copyrights have their uses, but providing for one's widow and orphans is not one of them. That's just a red herring meant to play on people's sympathies.