Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
That pretty much sums up the entire piece.
I was really bothered, perhaps more than I should be, about his reference to authors being "one of the few professions directly protected in the Constitution". What he seems to miss is that the provisions and protections in the US Constitution are available to every American citizen. Those protections apply to various types of creative works which anyone can create. He makes it sound like authors are some sort of Constitutionally-protected class, without acknowledging that this particular club is one that anyone can join.
Which brings us to pidgeon92's point - just about everyone seems to be joining the author club these days. Supply and demand has run amok.
|
He's referring to the fact that copyright (and patents) are allowed for specifically in the Constitution. He is, in addition, dead wrong in his interpretation. The constitution does not
protect authors as a profession, it
allows them, which is to say, it allows copyright as the cost of having a large public domain. Copyright laws isn't interpreted the same as it used to be, really, but he's just flat wrong in his take on what the Constitution says.