This is my analysis and response to Thomas Babington Macaulay's speech to the House of Commons, delivered on the 5th of February 1841, opposing the then proposed "Life + 60 Years" copyright term.
First I should state that I also oppose any extension to the copyright term, but moreover I oppose copyright in general, and seek its total abolition.
Macaulay's speech is good overall, inspired in places and clearly well-intentioned, but makes what I believe to be a fundamental logical fallacy which must be addressed. He also tends to waffle, giving far more examples than is necessary, most of which I've edited out. Therefore the following comprises a summary of the relevant parts of the original speech to which I wish to respond, and my indented responses (in blue) to each point. With the exception of Macaulay's final summary, I will only respond to those points I disagree with, so you may assume that I agree with the rest.
My objective is to demonstrate that copyright is not only morally indefensible, but also quite unnecessary.
I've found a disturbing trend in GNU/Linux, where largely unaccountable cliques of developers unilaterally decide to make fundamental changes to the way it works, based on highly subjective and arrogant assumptions, then forge ahead with little regard to those who actually use the software, much less the well-established principles upon which that OS was originally built. The long litany of examples includes Ubuntu Unity, Gnome Shell, KDE 4, the /usr partition, SELinux, PolicyKit, Systemd, udev and PulseAudio, to name a few.
I hereby dub this phenomenon the "Poetterisation of GNU/Linux".
Is this the real American Dream®?
As George Carlin once mused; "It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
In watching the meltdown of this American dream, what I find most amusing is the fact that Americans genuinely believe they have such a thing as left-wing politics, and then rant furiously against it, when in fact even the most radically "left" ideology expounded by any American politician, or even most of his constituents, would essentially qualify as "fascist" anywhere else.
At the very least American ideology is a profoundly narcissistic doctrine that's universally reviled by the rest of us. The fact that American's would rather take themselves to the brink of another civil war, than provide the poor with healthcare and welfare, is a fairly damning indictment of exactly how malevolent their society really is.
I'm not really one for playing video games. I'm far too old and too busy to waste much time on such childish and trivial things. Frankly even when I was young I was more interested in learning about how computers worked than playing games on them. These days my interests are even further removed from such trivial pursuits. I view computers as little more than sophisticated typewriters with which to express my concerns and opinions.