[schex86]

I think the nature of "society" is largely a moot point in the context of this discussion. Specifically, we already have the framework of a national society to operate within, that being the US Constitution. It should be safe to say that most of the participants here have more or less accepted the fundamental tenets of this document, as have the vast majority of US citizens.

So, starting from that baseline, we should next take a gander at the Constitution's copyright clause, which reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

If we look at the founders' actual intentions, as evidenced by their actual actions, then we see that most modern copyright protection does not contribute to the "Progress of Science and USEFUL Arts".

A plain interpretation of the Copyright Clause advises against extending copyright protection to purely artistic or expressive works. And this is apparent in the first implementations of copyright in the US. The Copyright Act of 1790 only covered maps, charts, and books, of which hardly any were fiction as novels had not yet risen to prominence. The Act, "strangely" enough, excluded all other forms of artistic expression, though it is doubtless that its drafters, many of whom had also worked on the US Constitution, enjoyed such things immensely.

Of course, when we look at this in a modern context, it seems obvious that copyrights should now be extended to recognize the many specializations of Science and other useful arts. So, maps & charts, non-fiction books, technical drawings/illustrations, documentaries, software, and architectural designs should be included, while paintings, sculptures, most fiction books, most movies, most music, most dances, most plays, etc. should be excluded.

Now it is well understood that the founders' intentions as reflected in the Constitution have largely been co-opted. Who would dare? This is also well understood, the Courts have chosen for themselves this role, blatantly bending the words of the founders to fit whatever their agenda has happened to be. Hence, the Publishers have turned to the Courts to circumvent the will of the people, and protect themselves from the ever present threat of Capitalism with its much feared Creative Destruction.

If copyrights should be extended to purely artistic expressions, then do so according to the tenets of the established framework. Amend the Constitution. That is the only way in which you will achieve the protection you desire by the Will of the People.

Until then, you have nothing more than Unrighteous Dominion.

As for myself, I have signed no contract with ANY author or publishing house, and I doubt they ever will seek to do so. They do not believe that my, or your, or anyone's approval is required to establish their power over society. All that is necessary for them is lawyers and a willing court system.

But I have willingly accepted the conditions of the US Constitution, and have even sworn to defend it. When the current copyright "contractual obligations" placed upon me reflect this reality; then, and only then, will I consider them valid.

I have not yet addressed the second constraint on copyrights, that of "Limited Times". And though it may seem disheartening to the current copyright sycophants, I believe that this constraint contains within it the key to ending the conflict between all parties concerned.