[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

Note the use of the qualifier "most", as in most perfect, or better yet mostly perfect. Once you take this into account, the rest of your statement/s are rendered irrelevant.

So is it the most perfect document we have or is it mostly perfect as a document?

If it is simply the most perfect document we have, that means very little. In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king as they say. Being the most perfect document we have could simply mean it is the best of a bad bunch of documents. It could mean all the others are really really crap and this one is only slightly crap.

Now, if you are contending it is mostly perfect then I'm afraid that as it is a written document, written by men, it simply can not be mostly perfect for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

And even if it is "mostly perfect" that means it is not perfect in totality. So why is it so inconceivable to you that one of the un-perfect bits isn't the copyright clause?

Originally Posted by schex86

Also note, the US Constitution was ratified by the people of their own free will, resulting in your comparisons with Japan and Iraq as, strangely, irrelevant.

See HansTWNs' post regarding how many of the people ratified the document.

Originally Posted by schex86

But here's something for you to try: Conduct a poll of US Citizens and ask them if they feel the Constitution represents the will of the people. I predict the results in the affirmative will constitute a very high percentage. If you tried this in Japan and Iraq, maybe not so much...

Yes, I'm sure they would.

What if you asked them exactly what was meant by the copyright clause? In particular the two words "useful arts"?

Do you think the majority would agree with you that only "maps and charts and non-fiction works and designs, etc" should be given copyright? Do you think they would agree with you that fiction works, paintings, movies and music have no inherent use and therefore should not be covered by copyright?

I'm betting you'd be singing in an off key on that one.

Originally Posted by schex86

Hmm, could this be the lynchpin to establishing a successful copyright based business model, as opposed to the copyright based business bubble currently being inflated??

Hmmm, depends on whether people believe the creative arts have any inherent use.

Your entire argument regarding this point is based on your belief the founding fathers felt they did not have any use and therefore they should be excluded.

Originally Posted by schex86

Copyright, as was envisioned by the founders, was instituted to benefit all, not a few. The currently undesirable status quo must change, and change dramatically, as that original intent of the founders as ratified by the people, was long ago swept under the rug by those fearing their fate at the hands of the free market.

I agree the current state must change.

I do not agree that the creative arts have no inherent value.

I do not agree we should go back to the 1790 Act and disregard everything since then.

I do not agree that your interpretation of the two pertinent words is necessarily the correct one.

Originally Posted by schex86

It sounds to me like you've haven't worked on a large project where the various tasks were meted out to various teams and committees. Is it, then, possible that those few responsible for the language of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, may also have been included on the Legislative Committee that drafted the 1790 Copyright Act? Sounds like a homework project.

So you are contending that the government of the day simply asked the remaining men, still in government, who drafted the Constitution, to draft the copyright law and then they all just got together and voted it through Congress and the Senate without any debate or amendments?

Do you seriously believe that is how government worked back in the day?

Originally Posted by schex86

Regardless, my original statement still stands. Or is the annual Disney ad infinitum copyright renewal program somehow a better representation of founders' intent? Or are they, as you seem to be implying, exactly the same in this respect?

My discourse with you has centred solely on the definition of "useful arts" and your contention that works of fiction, film, music or any other purely creative or artistic expression have no inherent value and do not, and should not, fall under copyright.

I have not discussed, as it does not interest me, aspects regarding the continual extensions of copyright terms.

Originally Posted by schex86

Oh, I never knew those Men weren't Perfect. Thanks for informing me. And the People weren't Perfect either??! I would have never guessed.

Well your continual assertion that a document written by these men and ratified by a tiny percentage of the population at the time is "mostly perfect" would seem to suggest that you thought them perfect. Their being perfect, or mostly perfect, themselves being the only possible way a perfect, or mostly perfect, document could be written.

Originally Posted by schex86

But this is also irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with whether or not the Constitution most closely represents their Will. Remember, the Constitution represents a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Exactly, "of the people, by the poeple yadda yadda yadda."

And how many of the people got to vote on it? Or better yet, how many of the citizens got to vote?

Originally Posted by schex86

And I do say so! It as close to perfectly representing the will of the People as any written document can be, and not necessarily for my sake, but that of the People, as I respect THEIR authority on the matter, and none other.

Ok.

So again, could you provide a link to the definition of "useful arts" contained within the Constitution?

No?

Then all your talk about the Constitution is basically hot air because the document you seem to base your personal laws on doesn't even define the issue.

Originally Posted by shex86

And there is a democratic process to resolve issues in which one side has exploited the current system and created a great injustice that must be rectified. This process is called Amending the Constitution, and its end result is that the will of the People is made known, without equivocation, without loopholes, without bubbles, without any doubt.

But instead you decide to take your personal opinion of what was meant by two words and use that to justify your desire to infringe copyright.

Why don't you seek to have the Constitution amended so as to provide a definition of these two words?

Could it be that it's just too much work and you really just don't care as much as you are making out and all this is simply justification for your desire to infringe copyright?

Or could it be that you know the overwhelming majority of the Citizens of the USA will disagree with you on what constitutes "useful arts" and then you will have to go to all the trouble of finding another justification?

Originally Posted by schex86

When the will of the People is finally returned to its rightful stature in the social contract of copyright, then will the People be invested in it, then will the People accept it, then will the People support it.

Until then, you have nothing more than Unrighteous Dominion.

And all you have is your opinion on what was meant by "useful arts".

If the Constitution is ever amended to explicitly define what is meant by "useful arts" then I think you will find that purely creative and artistic endeavours will be covered.

Originally Posted by schex86

You're the one asking for basis-es and credentials, so if its not relevant then you're to blame, since I was only attempting to answer your oft repeated question.

Yes, I asked for you credentials. Not your personal motto.

As a point of interest, mind if I ask if you are sure to only infringe copyright on works created by USA citizens?

You must realise that the USA Constitution only pertains to USA Citizens and therefore any problems you have with current copyright law being against the Constitution will only pertain to works created by USA Citizens.

So do you never infringe copyright on works created by citizens of other countries?

I'm going to guess you go ahead and infringe copyright on anything you want regardless of the nationality of the creator right?

Cheers,
PKFFW.