Funny. The other day someone on TV was saying that in America you still have the right to be obnoxious. Did he and I both miss the memo where Freedom of Speech is still Free, but only as long as you say the right things?"
Someone I know is a satanist. He sent a copy of Oracle's license docs down to hell with a note attached saying "Guys, learn".
A reference to Pratchett/Gaiman's 'Good Omens', btw, and essential reading.
Programmers are taught to code for a specific, well-defined objective, whereas untrained ordinary folk think more along the lines of "do what I mean". Recently, however, through the ACA state funding case, decided that what is *said* is immaterial, and that the law should reflect what Congress obviously *meant*. In other words, "do what I mean". Given this, language is no longer important, and it is up to the high priests of the US Supreme Court to view the auguries to determine true meaning. In other words, thanks to the Supreme Court it is not programmers that are needed, but magicians.
I'm afraid that willfull, destructive ignorance and barbarism isn't a problem that technology can solve. A digital copy, however perfect, remains a copy, and by nature, can't be used as proof that there ever *was* an original, which is the entire purpose of ISIS's destruction of these relics.
Even having a physical object is not proof that it is the original. Moreover, I submit that even backups of purported original texts of the Library of Alexandria, for example, would be extremely informative, especially when the only other options is nothing.
It seems to me that if museums, as a matter of course, scan and extensively photograph all new inventory as well as old inventory -- and put the data on the interwebs -- that will provide some protection from the pigshit known as ISIL as well as other semi-human garbage. It would generate a lot of data, but these days that seems pretty cheap.
Part of the problem is that, although it is possible for museums from stable nations to storehouse collections from museums in unstable regions, the practical end result could be that those regions would be unable to show artefacts for decades or centuries. Further, if an official from semi-civilized country Y says, "give us back our junk", who is authorized to say yes or no, even if the purpose of getting stuff back is to destroy it? As I understand it, even now, items in museums in stable democracies are being returned to the country from which they were were taken, because those countries are asking for them back. Scanning such items before returning them at least provides the possibility to make a backup in case the original is damaged or destroyed.
If this is 70 years, period, and not lifetime plus 70 years, then it may be tolerable, I think. If 50 years was the previous term of copyright, it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright. This is even true for 70 years, but that seems like a better balance between public and private good.
In the grand scheme of things, it is irrelevant how much he earned, or his detractors earned, from their respective supporters. In a debate, when someone resorts to saying, "you're stupid", or "you're ugly", it's a sign that the attacker is unable to counter the argument. Given the heated rhetoric directed at Soon, he must have landed some solid body blows against the 'global warming' position. If his evidence could have been easily swatted away, it would have been, and no one would have bothered to try to dig up dirt against him.
No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.