I didn't give a definition of anything, I was commenting on your usage of the English language and willingness to try and change two different things into synonyms... trying to be a smartass and/or attribute things to other people still doesn't change the meaning of the words... and limited was being used related to time not the numbers of people involved which is another area for limiting but not the same one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by etienne66
Then by your definition they could change it to life plus 1000 years and that is still limited. Hell, why don't we make it life plus 1 millions years. That's still limited. My point was that the constitution says congress can grant limited rights to the the author. It does not say anything about giving them to the author's heirs in perpetuity. But that could effectively be done and still fit your definition of limited. My definition of limited is within regards to the original author. If they are guaranteed to exceed the lifespan of the author, then in regards to the original author their rights are unlimited. After they die does not count in regards to the original author's limitation. If the constitution had said "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors, Inventors and their heirs the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Then I would say you are right that it is limited with regards to that group. I've seen no amendment to the constitution that extends this right to the heirs and the original author has no limits within their lifetime no matter how long they own the copyright.
Etienne66
|