Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:26:19 -0400
From: <lees103 at verizon.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Ever use YouTube?
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

    The current US legal system allows judges to appoint qualified experts
to advise them when the judges realize that they're out of their depth.  The
generic term is "special masters."  The special master is supposed to be
familiar with both law and functional expertise.  He/She boils the issues
down for the judge and the judge can then make an intelligent decision.
    I personally think that the attitude that it's easier to get rich by
litigating rather than by inventing and building is more dangerous than
judges who don't recognize their own limitations.  Most legal systems allow
litigants to appeal unjust results.
    Not sure what Mike's getting at when he talks about rethinking
copyrights.  The idea of having copyrights and like limited monopolies in
other areas is to encourage people to develop ideas because they will have
the exclusive right to exploit the idea for a limited period of time.
Society gets the benefit of the idea and the developer gets the money.
After a time, the idea becomes freeware and anyone can exploit it.  If any
idea became freeware the instant it was articulated in public, a lot of
people would say "Why bother publishing?  I'll keep it to myself and gain an
advantage that way.  The advantage that I will gain is not as good as the
advantage that I would gain if I could sell copies without fear of stealing
but it's better than having others help themselves."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:33 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Ever use YouTube?

> Michael Walsh wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm
>
> I suppose that's what we get when we give that kind of power to
> ignoramuses (referring to the judge who made the ruling in an area he is
> unlikely to be equipped to rule in intelligently).
>
> Judges probably know the law, and they are most likely familiar enough
> with everyday issues, such as theft, domestic violence, contract
> breaches, and injury cases, but any time the question requires expertise
> just to understand the issues, they are really not qualified to be
> making rulings and we really need to re-think our legal system or we
> will continue to get moronic, dangerous and counterproductive rulings.
> The education most judges have just does not qualify them to rule on
> questions involving such things as bioengineering, the Internet, the
> safety of certain scientific experiments, or certain kinds of
> intellectual property.
>
> Perhaps the Internet has caused it to be time to reconsider the entire
> idea of "copyright"?  It's not a natural law...it's a human construct,
> created to cause a particular outcome.  If there's a better way to reach
> that outcome, or if we no longer desire that outcome, it's time to
> change the rules.
>
> -- Mike B.
>