Why do we need to secure a "right to benefit from what they create"?
If it's not beneficial for authors, they can go do other things. Is there reason to believe this will lead to a loss of authorship? Abolishing copyrights would make derivative works' authorship possible, and that's probably a more significant source of creativity than brand new works. And we're currently sacrificing it for the former one, as well as various rights.
As a photographer, I support this part of the bill, at least in the spirit of that section. I don't want my photographs used in professional situations without AT LEAST my permission.
Could you please expound upon what you've said instead of quoting the last right?
They say that good fences make good neighbors. The problem with IP is that there's no good way to fence off anyone's property. I'm not convinced there can be, because maintaining the metaphorical fences require controlling everyone else's computer.
So I put more hope in new ways of doing business to help artists profit from their work.
I suppose, perhaps, our current system can work just fine. Whenever someone is caught doing something illegal with another person's artwork (for example, using a photo-manip'd version of a photo that person took as part of a CD album cover) take them to court for copyright infringement.
From what I can gather, anything more than that is draconian. I mean, what artist really cares if their artwork is used as someone's desktop background?
I'd actually rather it make it to the floor without watering down and fail than make it to the floor in a form that could pass. I'd really love to force every member of congress to be on the record voting on this.
The ironic thing to me is that in order to enforce the idea of an Internet Bill of Rights, you have to throw anonymity out the window. How do you defend an anonymous user in court?
It's not a bad idea, but how do we defend the anonymous users?
I used to be able to allow only session cookies. Now I get asked if I'm cool with cookies every time I visit a ton of major websites, and the only way to stop the message coming back? Allow persistent cookies. Ugh!
Why cant these damn people just keep their noses out of the internet? Seriously, leave it alone. Yeah, yeah, I know, but really, poke the thing enough with a stick and in then end you'll kill it.
Because Bills of Rights have a lot of meaning outside of the internet, right?
I know that doesn't really mean we shouldn't have one in first place, but these days seem to be more about tools than text and I think that's what the internet community has always been really good at.
We already have a declaration of independence btw:
10. Property – digital citizens have a right to benefit from what they create, and be secure in their intellectual property on the Internet
It seems to me that 10. would often times conflict with 1., 2. and 6. How would these conflicts be solved?