Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
According to the constitution, it is supposed to be about encouraging artists.....
|
Yes yes, but that does not necessarily invalidate the subsequent expansion of copyright to include its commercial aspects. Nor does it have any impact whatsoever on our friends who are not in the US.
Separately, one could easily argue that protecting the current "pay a pre-set price for the original of / a copy of / licensed access to this work of art" does, in fact, "encourage artists." It apparently did just fine for a few hundred years, and I don't see why it gets chucked out the window with the introduction of digital distribution. Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy.
And why do I have my doubts that the people who cite this aspect are not actually originalists or strict constructionists when it comes to other aspects of constitutional law?
