Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9886410" data-attributes="member: 6778210">And yet it is, somehow, an explicit justification within a great many of our early copyright laws, which I've cited and still had sunsets. The idea that the only way there is a natural right is that it would be in perpetuity clashes with early lawmakers who clearly saw these as not being mutually exclusive, including guys like Madison (who was on the Continental Congress committee that put out the quote I cited when pushing out their own copyright law).And sometimes tech has natural limitations, which is why the Metaverse is a mobile-only thing now.Because, again, this was a new concept they were ushering in. Putting an idea in perpetuity might be too much for them, but that doesn't necessarily argue against it being a natural right: as I said with our colonial forebearers, they clearly didn't see the contradiction in justifying ownership of ideas as a natural right with a similar time limitation. So how do we slice this? Do we call them liars, or simply accept that they could work out the contradiction in their mind because they weren't trying to overthink it too much.What's the response to "Oh look, tech can get better" when it currently isn't much better?</blockquote>