Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
As you pointed out yourself, the law and the Constitution are two entirely different things.
No where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that useful Arts are confined to "maps & charts, non-fiction books, technical drawings/illustrations, documentaries, software, and architectural designs" or any other such definition that you have deemed worthy of the title.
Hence why the courts have deemed works of fiction, paintings, movies et al, can be and indeed are, covered by copyright.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
I believe I've already answered these questions, both how the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 were related, what "useful" actually meant to the aforementioned commonality, and my feelings towards the relevance of legal decisions later made at the behest of special interest to grossly expand the copyright soap bubble.
You should be aware, I'm not arguing legality here, but establishing the relationship between the will of the people as reflected in their ratification of the Constitution and the desires of the publishers as reflected in their convoluted copyright schema designed exclusively to avoid being subject to the will of said people.