Quote:
Originally Posted by schex86
I believe I've already answered these questions,
|
They were not questions. They were statements of fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
both how the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 were related, what "useful" actually meant to the aforementioned commonality,
|
All law is related to the Constitution so that is beside the point.
Nowhere in the Constitution is a definition of "Useful Arts" given, as far as I am aware. Therefore, it is up to the government to decide what that definition is by enacting legislation which deals with the issue. Obviously you believe only the original legislation is valid in any way. I fail to see why you would seemingly make that assertion.
You seem to have no problem believing the government made a mistake in letting Un-useful Arts be covered by Coypright. You seem to have no problem believing the government made a mistake in increasing the length of copyright.
So why is it that you can not believe the government may have made a mistake when they drew up the Copyright Act of 1790 and decided to only cover maps and charts and such? And even if they did not make any mistake, why do you believe the "will of the people" is the same today as it was 200 years ago? Why should legislation not change over time? Why do you seemingly suggest that only the original legislation is valid?
And your credentials as an expert on the meaning of the Constitution and its commanality with law created 200 years ago consists of what?
Some of the greatest minds in your country argue over what is meant by sections of your constitution. On what basis should we accept your opinion as being the correct one?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
and my feelings towards the relevance of legal decisions later made at the behest of special interest to grossly expand the copyright soap bubble.
 |
And you are of course allowed your feelings towards the law. I took no issue with any of your feelings, only your assertions about what was meant and intended by passages of the Constitution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
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
|
Again I would ask what your credentials are for categorically stating what the will of the people was over 200 years ago?
By the sounds of it, nothing more than your personal opinion of what was meant by two words in the Constitution. The words "useful Art".
Cheers,
PKFFW