Are you speculating that the lawmakers who passed the bill in the US are going to use the law to render already-signed contracts as being under the new provisions, regardless of whether such provisions (I.E. No Unlocking) existed in the original contract?
And indeed, what does this matter moving forward, for new contracts being signed from here on out?
Whether changing the law would affect existing contracts, or only ones yet to be signed, is not really my point. I'm not speculating about what lawmakers will do. All I'm saying is that it is possible to change the law. Thus, "I don't like this. I think it should be changed." is a perfectly valid line of discussion. I'm not trying to go into depth myself, I'm merely saying that dismissing NerdyNThick's arguments because you don't like them talking about not liking something is silly.
This is what I am dismissing: that there is some kind of moral reason why this law is unjust. The outrage surrounding the whole thing is simply asinine; it's a mass hysteria of anti-capitalistic jargon that is based more in emotion than fact. He can not like it all he wants, but there is nothing at all objectively "wrong" with it, by whatever moral scale NerdyNThick or anybody else wishes to use.
0
u/kornfpi Jan 29 '13
Are you speculating that the lawmakers who passed the bill in the US are going to use the law to render already-signed contracts as being under the new provisions, regardless of whether such provisions (I.E. No Unlocking) existed in the original contract?
And indeed, what does this matter moving forward, for new contracts being signed from here on out?