If you could make any laws what laws would you make?

[lianderson]

I am a member of the incinerator party! We believe in throwing all of humanity into incinerators at the start of every other Monday and then throwing a party afterwards! We are very moderate! Common sense is a word we use when describing ourselves with sentences!

*drop liquid into eyes and then consults with demonic lawyers*

Hmmmmmmm, yes... yeah..... yup.... nah, that wouldn't work.... wait, really? Kill them! ...oh, they're already dead? Okay. Okay, okay...

Ahem...

We now second the free taco on the day of Taco Tuesday! We shall adopt this new stance into our platforms between ritual llama walking and forced red circle xboxs to all those who refuse to walk the ritual llamas! We have an economy to maintain! Do you not know llama and demand? Peasants!

 

[ryuugonana]

I would make it illegal to talk on the phone in public places like a grocery store. I dont like hearing someone's whole conversation.

 

[Celestrium]

I would make it illegal to talk on the phone in public places like a grocery store. I dont like hearing someone's whole conversation.

I was taking public transportation, and there was a lady making a phone call. She was really loud, and giving all her personal information like her social security number and date of birth to the person on the other end of the phone, and everyone on the bus.

While annoying as people's conversations on phones can be, there are places where they are almost dangerous depending on who can hear them. You hear on criminal shows all the time, Did anyone know she was going to be there?, Who would know those details of her life?, etc. For some people, you don't have to delve much to get these details (Social Media is a culprit too), and they are oblivious to the amount of information they are sharing with the world.

Edit - Sorry this was slightly off topic, but wanted to validate there is more than just being annoying when people overshare their conversations...

 

[kirbwarrior]

If I could make any law, I'd create new LAWS OF PHYSICS

This but unironically. No matter what laws you make, it doesn't take into account of future lawmakers being able to be influenced like any other human being.

One thought I'd change is make it harder for our brains to fail us. Our perceptions and memories can let us down, so fix that. Plus, anything to make it harder for someone to lie to themselves.

If I was restricted to actual laws, I'd require vastly improved education. Namely, understanding what you will face as an adult living in a society (so learning taxes, cooking, budgeting, what it's like to live with strangers, how you go about figuring out what job you want, how to go about getting a job, etc) and how the country works (who makes laws, how they are made, what each position in the government is, what their responsibilities and powers are, etc) and a firm understanding of your options post education (both high school and college).

For the US in specific, I'd change the voting system. Right now it's a popularity contest that pushes towards having only two candidates. Instead, you rank all possible candidates, then your votes in order are tallied up; If there were ten candidates, #1 would be worth 10pts, #2 worth 9pts, etc. I'd probably also ban political parties (but I don't know if that was possible) and remove any retirement plan from being president (your 4 or 8 years as being president are supposed to be in a vacuum with you going back to your regular life after). Becoming president shouldn't be a reward people fight for, but a responsibility.

 

[Stimulantfound]

I would decriminalize sex work.

 

[SamuelRichards]

As for phones ...

 

[SamuelRichards]

I think this cannot be changed at the legislative level, but the fact that telephone conversations in public places are distracting and annoying is a fact, recently standing in line at a grocery store, I became an involuntary listener to solving problems on the phone next to someone standing next to me, because of this I could not concentrate and was mistaken when paying.

 

[Shaz]

@SamuelRichards, please avoid double posting, as it is against the forum rules. You can use the "Edit" function on your posts to add additional information you've forgotten or respond to multiple people. You can review our forum rules here. Thank you.

 

[KrimsonKatt]

Changing copyright law so that something, anything becomes common domain after only 30 years after the piece of media was made. That will force companies to innovate more and allow people who are less skilled to use more content than just fairytales and mythology. Megacorporations like Disney have long messed with the political system to consistently raise the time it takes for something to become common domain so that they can continue to profit off old IPs like mickey mouse. (who should have become common domain in 1978, by the way) Originally, something became common domain 28 years after the original creation of the produce. This was later changed to 50 years after the piece of media was made without the influence of any megacorps.

Then, around 1978, the year Mickey Mouse would enter common domain, Disney bribed the US government to change common domain law to instead of something becoming common domain 50 years after the piece of media was made. It would instead become common domain 50 years after the creator died. This changed the time of Mickey Mouse becoming common domain in 2003 instead of 1978. Then, when 2003 finally game, Disney ONCE AGAIN bribed the US government into changing copyright law AGAIN to be 75 YEARS after the death of the original creator, which once again changed the year Mickey Mouse would become common domain to 2024, which is coming up soon.

Because of Disney's greedy actions, all media in existence has suffered since nothing can EVER become common domain because Disney keeps paying off the US government to keep changing the requirements. This is ironic because Disney's entire business model is based off taking from the common domain. 99% of all Disney movies are adaptations of fairy tales, myths, fables, old stories, and legends. Imagine if the stories of Cinderella or the Little Mermaid were not common domain? 99% of Disney's movies would cease to exist! Meet the Robinsons, Wreck it Ralph, and Zootopia are currently their only fully original movies, though Wreck it Ralph uses IP from other companies like SEGA, Namco, Konami, Nintendo, and Capcom. All their other movies are based on existing IP that has become common domain, like myths, legends, fables, fairy tales, and even old novels. (like Tarzan and Peter Pan)

If it wasn't for Disney, stuff like Xenomorphs and Indiana Jones would be common domain by now, and most 3rd gen games like Mario and Zelda and some 4th gen games like Sonic 1 and Mario World would be common domain by now as well, making their emulation 100% legal and their soundtracks and graphics royalty free. If Disney tries anything again in 2024, I hope the current president would put a stop to it, as he's a lot harder on megacorps than the last president was. Let's just hope someone, anyone, puts a stop to Disney's madness.

 

[Volourn]

"Changing copyright law so that something, anything becomes common domain after only 30 years after the piece of media was made. "

100% disagree. If I create something, I should not lose it ever (barring me choosing to sell it) when I'm still alive. If I create it, I should own it forever if I so choose to even leaving it to my descendents. Making things open domain only lets people take advantage of others' creativity.

i' willing to compromise. I'd say let become open domain 25 years after the creator's DEATH *unless* they leave it to their descendents - this forces others including big companies into working with them if they are gonna leech off of someone's ideas.

Disney may do scummy thinsg but one should not punish creators for that. You basically want to take away people's creations. Theyc reate something it is theirs to do with as they wish. PERIOD.

 

[Lornsteyn]

@KrimsonKatt
Thank you, Im totally with you there, copyright laws need a rework/change, there is no doubt.
Especially if big greedy companys try to sue everything with slight similarities to there products.
This is a mayor problem, its ridiculous.
It also hinders creativity in many ways.
I think the 30 year cap you suggest would be perfect.
Well, anyone who tackles this copyright problem has my support.
Hopefully we see a change in the near future.

 

[kirbwarrior]

The worst part of copyright law isn't the length, but how much it's a complicated issue with a simplistic hammer of a solution the law provides. I keep hearing about scientific works that can't be published and thus kept out of the loop for decades just because of how copyright works. And it technically means not being allowed to sing a song in a public situation or audio media because you don't have the rights, like the incredibly silly situation with Happy Birthday.

Don't get me wrong, it needs to be changed, but "It should last X years" is not it.

 

[AccolourChris]

I would make it a law that people who work in Customer Service are allowed to assault one person a month without repercussion. Like obviously not be allowed to kill them, but just like when that one customer goes to you and tells you how stupid you are for putting their cold items with their other cold items; you can just extend your whole fist into their face for atleast 5mins. It would definitely boost employee moral globally and some people might actually be better people in the end.

Like Bill Burr said, I've had my most clearest thoughts and understanding after I got my butt kicked.

 

[Stimulantfound]

Is anyone discussing copyright laws concerned that if something becomes a public domain, the original owner may not invest in it anymore?

I'm not sure I would be happy in a world where Nintendo didn't make Mario games, because they had little control over his public image . . .

 

[GolvaeGames]

There are a lot of really stupid laws I would get rid of. If I had to add something I would probably make certain elective medical treatments for minors illegal.

I also saw someone actually suggesting castration as a punishment in this thread. Could you imagine this happening to you if someone falsely accused you and you got a liberal jury? What an absurd thing to say.

 

[Stimulantfound]

@GolvaeGames That's horrible . . . I didn't read all of the replies, but what would they do if you're a female? Genital mutilation . . . a bilateral oophorectomy? No thanks, I'd rather die.

 

[GolvaeGames]

There are very good reasons for laws against cruel and unusual punishments. Also thank you for expanding my vocabulary I have literally never heard that word in my entire life, I had to look it up I didn't think it was real lol.

 

[HexMozart88]

(let's just ignore the tech billionare governor-elect convicted of assault I'm sure you voted for).

Mandated by the government? Me too! Thanks Obama!

Uh, mods. Are we just going to ignore the blatant politics here? Or no because you agree?

 

[Tai_MT]

Is anyone discussing copyright laws concerned that if something become public domain, the original owner may not invest in it anymore?

I'm not sure I would be happy in a world where Nintendo didn't make Mario games, because they had little control over his public image . . .

That's why I would impose fairly strict limits upon it. You know, if you haven't done anything with your intellectual property in X amount of years, its' now public domain. My suggestion would be 5 years so you don't have people squatting on their IP for 10-15-20 years and only pumping out something as the deadline looms in order to keep it.

Of course, I'd also have this contingent on whether or not you're even still selling anything related to the IP as well. Still selling old Mario games for their original consoles? You still own the IP. But, of course, this selling would be contingent upon actually owning the venue you are selling the product from as well as making sure that it's a "public" type venue and not gated off in some way (like if you were still selling it on your website, it's a public venue. If you're selling it behind some kind of pay wall or secretively to select clientele... doesn't count).

I'd rather we take things away from people who don't plan to do anything with it rather than allow them to collect royalties on it forever and serve C&D's for the sole purpose of "proving" they still have an interest in it. Still care about Mario? Make a Mario game.

Companies should not get to sit on their IP's forever and never do anything with them. Use it or lose it.

But, I'm kind of a jerk about such things. I'd also have stipulations in there about "it can't be in development, it has to be released and sold to the public to count" and that "it has to be the primary selling point of the product" to avoid companies just plastering their IP onto pachinko machines as a picture and get to keep their IP. I'd force companies to prove that the main selling point of whatever it is they are selling is why people are paying money (so if people would play Blackjack regardless of if Samus Aran is on the machine or not, your argument is kind of invalid. You'd need to prove more people are using it than would use it otherwise because of the IP plastered on it).

 

[Stimulantfound]

@Tai_MT That makes sense . . . like, Microsoft should lose ownership of the games developed by Rare Ltd.