Lets remember the point of the federal goverment of the USA is spelled out pretty clearly in the preamble of the Constitution. If an act of the President or Congress does not somehow serve the goals of the Constitution, I think it is fair to say that the law would be unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
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.
|
To my mind, the key point is this. An expansion of copyright is necessarily a limitation on the freedoms of the citizens of the United States. Such a restriction is allowable under the Constitution when it provides an incentive to artists and authors to create new works. When such an extenstion occurs without any real increase in the incentive to authors (incentive here being defined as something that will actually induce them to create, not simply an increase in compensation except when such increase achieves the first goal) it unfairly restricts the citizens from their rights to make use of the material as they see fit (i.e., the public domain).
The latest revisions to copyright retroactively extended copyright to existing works (how does that increase the incentive to create? Further, I don't think many, if any, authors find life plus 70 years to be a greater incentive than life plus 50 years (and I am sure few enough found life plus 50 years to be a significantly greater incentive than the previous 28 year + 28 year provision).
Quote:
|
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.
|
Now this is where it gets interesting. I agree that paying to purchase a copy of a work does provide a reasonable incentive under the terms of copyright. However, as Stallman rightly points out, up until relatively recently, making copys of books (or music) was somthing that was rather difficult for the private individual. Copyright law was targeted specifically at those who made money from violating copyright (No one was going to prosecute someone who decided to type out the entire text of a novel for typing practice). New technology essentially makes copying works very easy. Further it also makes sharing very easy.
Prior to cassettes becoming popular for recording music and VCRs, copyright law had very little impact on the average American unless said American was somehow involved in media production and or pulbication. For the vast majority of Americans, it hindered our freedoms very little, but provided a great benefit. Starting in the 70s technology has opened up new freedoms that copyright law is now limiting in a rather significant way.
To put it in simple terms, prior to present day, our freedom of action was limited by technology. We couldn't copy and share because the technology to do so cheaply and easily did not exist. Now the technology exists and the law is what is curtailing our action. People, as a general rule are far more willing to accept what they can't do than what they are are not allowed to do.
Laws must be seen to clearly benefit to common good if we wish the public to obey them. There are genreally numerous laws on the books that are essentially unenforcable because they are not seen as just and often end up being over turned if they someone does try to enforce them. Other laws are routinely ignored by the public (How many people obey a 55 mph speed limit on a long straight divided highway?)
For copyright law to be effective in the 21st century, it must carefully consider how easy it is to share and copy data and also the fact that many people are going to want to do so despite what the publishers want.
Quote:
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? 
|
Keep in mind that there are few places where the Constitution is so clear about its intent as it is regarding patents and copyright.
--
Bill