[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: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:42:58 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <1049052759.7891.103.camel@feklar>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 30-Mar-2003 noah silva wrote:
>> I think that the root of this problem is the ability of corporations to
>> influence Congress and the President, in particular by making campaign
>> contributions. Average citizens can't afford to open a permanent office in
>> Washington DC and make a campaign contribution to every senator and
>> representative, but many corporations can. Therefore, they wield more
>> influence then citizens.
> 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. 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
> The problem is, though, there is no effective way to count the
> politicians for an individual. You can send a letter.. it is ignored.
> They are always "unavailable" to talk to on the phone or in person - and
> as you mentioned, it is a large effort for an individual to schedule a
> 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
> us. Their job is to represent their constituents. I think there should
> be a poll given by the senator or congressman, and he should have to
> vote accoring to the results. Corperations are recognized as
> individuals, so there is no reason they shouldn't get a vote as one. In
> 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.
Jim Bauer, email@example.com