[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's just something that really shouldn't be in the constitution. It relates to business (right to sell your creations) and should just be covered by laws just like all the SEC, antitrust laws etc. etc. we have.

You already have the right to sell your creations.

If you create a table, you can sell that. If you create a ballgown, you can sell that. If you create a book, you can sell that.

It needs to be in there because it's giving rights that *don't exist* for other creative works. In the case of tables or ballgowns, the person who buys it can copy it at will, create as many more like it as they care to, and sell those. If you want books to be in a different category from clothing, those special rights need to be established.

Have a law that requires people to register for copyrights, and have the copyrights give them (and/or their publisher etc.) sole control over the sales, distribution, and re-use (re-mixes etc.) of their content from the time of creation/copyright until 10 years after death when it will become the public domain.

Why should public domain begin with death of the author? What was wrong with 28 year copyrights?

What makes some creative works--prose, poetry, drawings, song, video--different from other creative works--carving, architecture, sewing, knitting? (Architectural *plans* are copyrighted, but AFAIK houses are not; anyone who can copy a layout is permitted to.)

No need to mention the for the good of society, progress of the arts etc. That's just BS.

No, that's the reason books get copyrights at all, instead of being treated like a line of high-fashion clothes or shoes, where if you want to prevent yours from being copied, you keep prices high & sell to a limited market.

The only thing they can do is take it and sell it on their own, remix it etc. until it's in the public domain--hardly any great set back to progress.

I assume you mean "only thing they can't do." The restriction on remixing and derivatives is a substantial impediment to progress, moreso in the current climate that believes a 60-years-later sequel that doesn't even name the main character is "merely derivative" instead of a transformative re-imagining of the character's life.

The core issue isn't, "does society need all that derivative art?" What we "need" is endlessly debatable. The core issue is, "why is it okay to restrict some people's free speech rights in order to allow other people to make money?"

And this is a decision we often make in favor of "allow some people to make money." We don't allow protesters to block a sidewalk and run sirens to interfere with a business. However, every time the choice occurs, we have to be aware that we're restricting someone's basic civil rights, and we need a strong justification for it--not based on "person X deserves to make money!" We're only allowed to restrict basic civil rights when not doing so is harmful to society. (Costing an author a few bucks from a book sale is not considered "harmful to society," or it'd be illegal to give negative reviews.)