Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th May 2009 12:06 UTC
Permalink for comment 365226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Thom should probably have worded the post better. It's not that they're 'pro-copyright' exactly - being in favour of a widely supported legal mechanism isn't that controversial. It's that they are or have been members of industry-based groups with enthusiastic views on the ways in which such laws should be enforced, and future ones written.
Imagine, for instance, if a judge presiding over a movie copyright infringement case in the U.S. turned out to be a member of the MPAA. That would be rather more troublesome than if the judge had, at some point in their life, said "I think the principle of copyright is a good idea".