Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
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.
|
Yeah well, he is a lawyer, but but my interpretation is closer to yours than it is to his. This is a guy who has gotten very fat and happy under the old system. He has no reason to welcome the changes coming down the pike He is entitled to his fear filled opinions. I just don't share them.