[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: Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:43:17 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <XFMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> > 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.
Maybe you are taking the statement too literally, but you haven't heard
the phrase "corporate citizens" 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
> intellegence computer.
Yes, but define "artificial". They were created, so now that -are-
entities. As an entity, they should get some say. (If you disagree with
something, it is probably more that they should have been created at all,
but that is not at issue here..)
Since a corperation has to pay taxes as itself, it should get a vote as
itself. The problem is "a vote" means "a vote", not a vote that is 300x
stronger than any non-corporate vote.
> > The problem is, though, there is no effective way to count the
> > politicians for an individual. You can send a letter.. it is ignored.
> > ...
> > 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
> > ...
> > 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.
Again, it sounds more like you disagree with the entire idea of
corporations. I wouldn't confuse this with what rights a corperation
should have if it -is- allowed to exist. It does make sense to me to
allow them because the partnership model doesn't scale so well. Besides
that, as the number of people in a company increases, The people who work
for the company have interests less and less like that of the company. A
good example would be my company. It is extremely large. While it is in
my interest that they do well enough to pay me, beyond that it doesn't
matter exactly what goes on or if they accomplist every goal they want
to. It might be in my company's interest to have weaker pollution laws,
but it might be in my personal interest to have stronger pollution
laws. Because of this it makes sense that the company should have a vote
of it's own. What's more, large companies are a part of our landscape,
and at times an important part. If consumers were given the only vote,
many would vote every time for whatever benefitted them, regardless of the
morality or harm to others. I don't dispute that an individual or company
should be able to copyright or patent thair work, providing there
-really-is- a significant amount of creativity or novel thinking. What
bothers me is when granting patents is done like handing out flyers on a
busy street, and contesting them is time consuming and difficult. What
bothers me is when the corporate interests become distorted to become the
only significant factor in law making. How many consumers would have
voted for the AHRA act?
-- noah silva
> Jim Bauer, email@example.com