Texas hates YOUR Bible, Ken Paxton's Bible is OK.

Has Texas even had a straight governor since George W? The answer is no.

It's almost as if the rush to monetize the internet caused the free market to focus on the wrong problems to the detriment of society. Fortunately, that definitely won't happen with AI. Fortunately we have geniuses like Zuckerberg, Musk and Andreeson to protect us.

Why anyone thinks anonymity is the principal requirement of the internet is beyond me, it's exactly backwards. The ability to verify who you are should be fundamental.

Before electronic communications there was mail fraud. Difference was back then people knew mail fraud was bad.

Finally, a few intelligent comments. Funny how "won't anyone think of the kids" doesn't work here. Why is that?

Society universally agrees that children are deserving and in need of special protections, yet the other side of that coin is special limitations, kids don't have full rights of adults. Technology doesn't invalidate basic needs, children are not adults.

Also:

'...the law would effectively bar young people from accessing a wide range of content, "be it a book by Ernest Hemingway or J.K. Rowling, a Taylor Swift album, or a subscription to National Geographic." Allowing the law to take effect, the group said, would have "profound consequences for the protection of digital speech."'

Sure seems like an opportunity. You'd think industry heavyweights could do more than offer petty bitching, solve the problems assholes. Also, kids don't inherently have a right to digital speech that needs protecting, they are kids.

"Simple changes to charging methods (I listed in another post, below) will counter most of that."

Citation please. Anecdotes of early life failures are not conclusive of problems, there are "numerous actual/real cases" of early life failures of ICE vehicles, too. Furthermore, anecdotes don't support your assumption of cause, and cars should be designed to work properly regardless of use. An owner should be incapable of any "charging method" that causes failure.

"I don't think it is an "anti-EV" conspiracy. "

It absolutely is.

"In most cases, it is just people operating on outdated information that also carried more fear-factor than warranted."

This is not the argument you think it is. Where did that outdated information and fear-factor come from?

Correct, my immediate reaction. They absolutely live up to expectations, what they do is make fools out of liars.

Correct, and "eventually entering the public domain" is presented as though it were part of the bargain and not merely a consequence of the limited nature of IP law. There is no obligation for work to "enter public domain" if that is some explicit act, this part is merely the ending of protections.

"eventually entering the public domain" doesn't place a burden on creators, though. The burden on creators is limited to the creating itself. Creators are under no obligation to assist in the "entering".

Absolutely correct, and the very point I made as first poster for which this AC seems to be the first to also understand. Creators are under no obligation to support piracy, copyright exists to encourage them to create, it doesn't impose burdens AFTER creation.

Greytree's bogus comment duplicated by an AC, literally using the same words.

If da Vinci were to have just painted the Mona Lisa, would he not have copyright protection? And would da Vinci not allowing unlimited duplication for "research" mean he should have "no right to copyright at all"?

What we have here are children who feel entitled to steal other people's work.

Greed afflicts both sides of this issue equally. At least one side doesn't lie about it.

"Right now I have no choice."

You ABSOLUTELY do. Choose not to do business with companies that do these things you object to. You're a "free market capitalist", right? Are you now a socialist because of a video game?

The free market offers a solution to this problem, but it requires you pay and make choices. That's just too much for entitled people.

"Using copyright to prevent the people accessing creations breaks that deal ..."

False. You are assuming the "benefit of the people" includes access in perpetuity. You are literally begging the question. Furthermore, copyright eventually ends, withdrawing access at that time would still deny permanent access while respecting your bogus interpretation. No problem is solved.

And what is this alleged problem anyway? Lack of "research"? LOL

More conventional art forms have costs associated with distribution and may not be "distributable" to the public anyway. Your "the people" interpretation implies everyone, copyright doesn't entitle you personally to access to someone's work AT ALL. That's what this is about, you getting access to copyrighted works for free. It's piracy dress up in new language.

Then use your power to fight against IP rights, and good luck.

How do you define "part of your daily life" for a corporation? Do corporations not have "property"? What about governments? Do they have "property"? Are governments "kings, dictators and capitalists" because they "control or limit what others can do"? And is that wrong, something that "we should collectively reject"?

What rules are they not abiding by? Is there a rule that they make their product available to copyright violators? Since when does an IP holder have to provide their IP in commercial form?

IF you are suggesting that, after copyright expires, that others are free to duplicate the work for an archive, then have at it. Just don't expect all that effort to be rewarded with protection of its own and don't expect original creators to contribute.

...is a minor contribution to computing efficiency, a contribution that may or may not be preserved through an archive depending on what was archived, and a contribution that, if sufficiently valuable, might we have been preserved in a patent independently. Finally, the Quake engine, including the technique, was released as open source, so this example is entirely moot.