In article <5gka4458krm7j1f1tc46839f2hof42cor9@4ax.com>,
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kurt Ullman writes:
>
> > Apparently since this reflects no change. That particular segment was
> > carved out in the original constitution.
>
> The writers of the Constitution intended copyright to be temporary and of
> short duration, long enough to allow creators of IP to benefit financially
> from their work in the same way that others do. It was not intended to be an
> immortal golden goose.
You know this how? As I mentioned they did not specific any kind of
time leaving up to the legislative to decide how long is long.
>
> > Apparently since they were the ones that specifically put in the
> > wording.
>
> No, they didn't put that in the wording. This is what they said (in reference
> to powers granted to the legislative branch of the government):
>
> "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
> times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
> writings and discoveries; [...]"
Which is exactly my point. They did not set down a specific time,
thus leaving explicitly leaving the ability to define "limited time" to
the Congress. In other areas where they desired specificity, they
included actual language outlining what they wanted. From terms of the
president to composition of the Senate to overriding vetoes.
>
> It's hard to imagine that "limited times" extended a hundred years beyond the
> death of the authors and inventors in question. Indeed, it's hard to see how
> it could even cover their lifetimes. Clearly, something less than the
> lifetime of the concerned parties was intended, otherwise it wouldn't have
> been written this way.
>
Nope. If they wanted something specific, they would have included
something specific. You are arguing that their lack of specificity
suggests they had something specific in mind.
> Strictly speaking, one could even say that protection is limited to written
> material and discoveries or inventions.
>
> In any case, Congress (bribed by large corporations) long ago distorted the
> principle beyond recognition. |