[The Old Hoosier]

I don't even necessarily object to the death of the industry--my favorite bands are broken up already.

All I'm saying is, you don't know what you're unleashing. it's not the free market, it's a world in which property rights are not respected.

[William McKinley]

That may be true, but unless I am reading things wrong here, the judge said that under the law as it is written, the products are ok.

The answer to me is, if it is a problem, then the laws should be changed.

I don't like when courts change (or expand) laws.

[eno_]

All I'm saying is, you don't know what you're unleashing. it's not the free market, it's a world in which property rights are not respected.

This, too, is a canard. Real property rights are different from intellectual property, and it is a bad idea to confuse and conflate them. The entire (as stated in the Constitution) purpose of IP protection is to increase the pool of unprotected public IP. That, of course, should NEVER become the goal of real property rights. Ironically, as we get obsessed with protecting Mickey Mouse forever, real property rights are eroded by taxes and regulation. It is certainly not the case that twisting IP protetction out of shape has done anything positive for real property rights.

[GretchenEE]

It seems this whole argument is being defined down to one basic tenet: adapt or perish.

[tm22721]

it's a world in which property rights are not respected.

This 'rights' issue must be resolved because sometime in the next 100 years everything will be software, ie nanotech will obviate the need to buy hardware anything except the raw elements like hydrogen, etc.

BUMP