[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Fortunately, "feelings" have nothing to do with it. Nor can you void her legal rights primarily because in your opinion, a few authors have earned "enough" from their works -- especially given how many authors are not so lucky.

It was more an illustration that 14 years is far too short (even in our highly caffeinated contemporary society), that not many content creators would love drastic reductions in copyright duration, and that the financial stakes are huge for works that lose protection with such short durations.

14 was a number, I don't know if it is to long, to short, or just right. I do think that it is probably long enough, but could probably argue either way.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I'll keep that in mind, but I do not see any logical connection between military service and specific interpretations of the US Constitution. Nor is someone "unpatriotic" if they believe that the Constitution is a living document, rather than set in stone circa 1778. Not to mention it's arguable whether all of the authors (let alone citizens who voted for it) had a unified, specific, focused interpretation of each and every exact phrase in the document; or that contemporary understandings of those original interpretations are in fact accurate; or....

Doesn't matter at all in the specific interpretations of the US Constitution, I brought it up, because I was asked about the Constitution. I do believe it is a living document, but we have a very set method to change things, if we want it changed. I think the founders wanted to make it hard to change, I think it should be hard to change. I think it would be a mistake to set any form of government in stone at any time, but I think it should be a lot of work to change that system. We should never try and change such a fundamental law with the whim of change of usage of words.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or within the framework of the law.

You should keep in mind, though, that many of the recent modifications to copyright have, in fact, benefitted the "little guy." For example, the Berne Convention offers copyright the instant a work is put into a fixed form, without any sort of paperwork, registration or fees required. So a photographer who makes $30k a year can crank out thousands of images, pass off high-quality prints or JPEGs to their clients, and know that each and every one is protected internationally without having to shell out a single cent for that protection. (Enforcing those rights is not always free, though.) It also thoroughly protects self-publishers and unpublished writers.

Contemporary copyright laws also grant the rights holders tremendous latitude, regardless of their economic standing. If you choose to put your work into the public domain after 14 or 28 years, or hold it for the maximum duration, or allow non-commercial use while blocking commercial uses without compensation, you can do all this without any extra fees -- just a text specifying usage.

Ergo, it is incorrect if you happen to believe that all changes to copyright since 1778 (including increases in duration) were advantageous exclusively for the wealthy.

Nope, not exclusive to the wealthy, but often pushed by the wealthy. Most of what was done I believe was done within the law, ie the extension of time for a copyright, although that I think will at some time push the populace to far. I think, the Pirate Party is a the start of that. Now, pushing the copyright so far, and making it retro-active I think goes against the spirit of the copyright law, and steals from the public.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That's fine. Typically, though, people say this not when the court is enacting a specific aspect of jurisprudence -- rather when the court hands down a ruling they don't like.

So if you're going to say that Eldred v Ashcroft is incorrect, given that it was a 7-2 decision and that both dissenterers (Stevens and Breyer) are not considered to be originalists, you might want to present a more thoroughly researched argument.

I actually was not even trying to reference a specific ruling, but really think the Supreme Court is going off base. That may be one ruling, but there have been a lot recently, and with some justices publicly stating that the constitution should not be read literally, but interpreted for the time we are in, should be dis-barred. If they want the constitution changed, they should do it through the established process.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And in this, one can easily argue that there are drawbacks to hewing too strictly to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Our legal system would be ossified and stagnant if we needed to amend the Constitution every time a law potentially affected interstate commerce....

I actually think pushing the congress to fully follow the constitution is a good thing. If they were not given the authority for something, they should request the people grant them that authority, or not enact laws. They get their authority from the constitution, trying to end run it is worse than any stagnation that comes from following it.

--Carl