[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Lexmark Decision
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Lexmark Decision
- From: Jim Bauer <jfbauer(at)comcast.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 19:44:37 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 31-Mar-2003 Noah silva wrote:
>> > again, I don't have a problem with corperations being able to have some
>> > influence. They are citizens, and not really "ficticious". But one
>> > corperation is one entity, and as such, should only count as one
>> > individual. Thus if one corperation wants copy protection, and 50
>> > normal citizens don't, the corperation should clearly lose (especially
>> > since many of the corp's own employees might be against it!).
>> Not only are coprorations people, they are citizens too! I havn't
>> heard that one before.
> Maybe you are taking the statement too literally, but you haven't heard
> the phrase "corporate citizens" before ?
>> They are artifical entities, created by the
>> state, which is created by the people. That should not be permitted
>> to take over / displace real people like some sci-fi artificial
>> intellegence computer.
> Yes, but define "artificial". They were created, so now that -are-
> entities. As an entity, they should get some say. (If you disagree with
> something, it is probably more that they should have been created at all,
> but that is not at issue here..)
Not the best term, I agree. I used that as a more aceptable
version of "artificial person" as they were one (and maybe
still are) in some laws. I havn't thought of anything better.
> Since a corperation has to pay taxes as itself, it should get a vote as
> itself. The problem is "a vote" means "a vote", not a vote that is 300x
> stronger than any non-corporate vote.
Then those who control the corporation have extra (fractional) votes.
>> > The problem is, though, there is no effective way to count the
>> > politicians for an individual. You can send a letter.. it is ignored.
>> > ...
>> > time to talk in person or wine and dine someone, whereas for a somewhat
>> > large company, it is a trivial thing to do.
>> The (real) people need to be protected from those with undue
>> >> Why should corporations (fictitious entities that only exist by charter
>> >> of the government) be allowed to make campaign contributions? (thus
>> >> making elected officials effectively beholden to those fictitious entities?)
>> > They can make contributions, but I think there should be a more formal
>> > accounting to prove that our representatives are actually representing
>> > ...
>> > any other job, if you don't do what you are supposed to, why is it that
>> > senators can mis-represent their constituants, and keep their job?
>> Corporation should not have any rights what so ever. Especially
>> a right to exist. There once was a time when corporate charters
>> could be easilly revoked. Ah, the good 'ol days.
> Again, it sounds more like you disagree with the entire idea of
> corporations. I wouldn't confuse this with what rights a corperation
> should have if it -is- allowed to exist. It does make sense to me to
> allow them because the partnership model doesn't scale so well.
Not at all. I just don't like them when they get out of control.
The vast majoriy are of no concern. I just think they should
be regulated like any other government agency.
> that, as the number of people in a company increases, The people who work
> for the company have interests less and less like that of the company. A
> good example would be my company. It is extremely large. While it is in
> my interest that they do well enough to pay me, beyond that it doesn't
> matter exactly what goes on or if they accomplist every goal they want
> to. It might be in my company's interest to have weaker pollution laws,
> but it might be in my personal interest to have stronger pollution
> laws. Because of this it makes sense that the company should have a vote
> of it's own. What's more, large companies are a part of our landscape,
> and at times an important part.
Except for the voting part (as noted above), I would agree.
> If consumers were given the only vote,
> many would vote every time for whatever benefitted them, regardless of the
> morality or harm to others.
At least people have morals (even if it doesn't always
seem that way), but corporations by definition are amoral.
> I don't dispute that an individual or company
> should be able to copyright or patent thair work, providing there
> -really-is- a significant amount of creativity or novel thinking.
The more I have thought about this, the more I have convinced myself
that only people (real people) should be able to hold copyrights/patents.
Non-person can be granted licenses. Will that ever happen? Well, lets
just say I am not holding my breath.
> bothers me is when granting patents is done like handing out flyers on a
> busy street, and contesting them is time consuming and difficult. What
> bothers me is when the corporate interests become distorted to become the
> only significant factor in law making. How many consumers would have
> voted for the AHRA act?
Jim Bauer, email@example.com