Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
You do realise the difference between a one-time investment and a cost that is incurred every time you publish a book, right? And how one is substantially higher than the other?
|
But new businesses come and go as well. I confess, I have not done an in-depth dollar analysis of what the cost would be... and neither have you. The point is, yes, it's expensive to provide for the disabled, but it's been done before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
No, the burden of proof is on the person positing, not on the person discrediting. That only starts once something is accepted as fact.
|
Like the burden of proof is on you to show that my proposed alternative is too expensive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "discrimination" is a term that is not legally&Medically circumscribed.
|
Actually, you're getting into the realm of the different levels of "protected class", and what level of "scrutiny" is applied to discrimination claims. There's a whole lot of unsettled law in this area. But you're not arguing what is legal or not; you're arguing what you think is moral and ethical or not. And thus I challenge you to provide a reasonable distinction between seemingly equivalent cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Really? Not even the bit about how "fair" refers to the fact that you get a limited time monopoly, and not to the fair in the sense of "any price I want".
|
The tying of the notion of the limited time grant of copyright protection with limitations on other free market rights is, I'll admit, somehwat novel to my ears, but no, I don't think it warrants a response any more than a similar statement about trademarks or patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Why are you so hard trying to make a straw man out of me?
As you said so eloquently before, "I don't see how you got anything like that from what I wrote, unless colored by your own prejudices.".
|
I didn't say that was your point. I didn't know what unanswered point you were referring to, so I guessed at one based on the tone of your previous comments.
I realize that there is disagreement here. My position is that there are better ways to provide for universal access by the visually impaired, without needing to further erode author's rights, than are put forth by the proposed treaty. While some people here may disagree, I don't appreciate being villified as being a greedy, uncaring, you-probably-kick-your-dog-too bastard for saying so.