Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
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.
|
Correct, but to suggest that current copyright law is unconstitutional is, as far as I can tell, patently absurd and has no basis in actual case law or fact. E.g.
Eldred vs Ashcroft (2003) established that the extension of a copyright term to Life + 70 was acceptable.
And again, most nations have Life + 50 or longer as their copyright terms. The US Constitution does not apply to them at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
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.
|
I'm sorry to say that this is an absurd position.
The new-found ability to copy an artwork quickly and easily does not necessarily create a "new freedom," especially when the relevant actions are a violation of existing laws. If you did not have the right to duplicate a work of art prior to the invention of magnetic tape recorders, nothing about that invention suddenly grants you that right.
For example, let's say I invent a trivially easy way to make a human clone. This invention does not suddenly generate a new right to make human clones; the assignment of that right will ultimately be determined by a legislative process. Or, let's say I invent a new weapon that rapidly kills dozens of human targets with the greatest of ease, is highly portable, and is easy to manufacture. This "technical advancement" does not create a "new freedom" to murder at will which is only barely restricted by a thin veneer of law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Other laws are routinely ignored by the public (How many people obey a 55 mph speed limit on a long straight divided highway?) [etc]
|
To put it mildly, "Law X is hard to enforce" is a poor, if not completely invalid, justification to overturn or abandon a law. Either a certain behavior is just or unjust; or, it advances or hinders the public interest.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
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.
|
True, but these exact same words and observation(s) can be used to justify a draconian attitude towards copyright enforcement.
By the way, Shaggy, it's Stallman (and bill_mchale, apparently) who are suggesting that the new technical ability to share digital content justifies widespread copyright infringement. You may want to exercise care when choosing your allies....
