When are you going to pay the creator for the use of wheels then? Not going to the store, pay for any wheel you add to any item you make yourself. For the roman alphabet. You think these ideas are property. TANSTAAFL pay up. Pay for every idea you use they're owned are they not? In fact pay for the idea of property and of course there's no set license so get permission too. Better get permission from the British to use the idea of copyright at all. it was their idea they own it what right do you have to use it.
Someone is always doing something but they can't do it alone because everything builds on something else. The world doesn't owe you free copyright, no one got togther and decided to build a system around Kenny can build on what came before but after that progress stops because Kenny owns the changes forever. You are not the center of the universe and copyright was not passed to do you a favor.
"to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts"
progress, not production, not profit, the didn't say let's create the profession of inventor or novelist.
I'll post this quote again, try reading it, it was penned by someone who had a hand in drafting the language of the US constitution and the copyright clause in particular. Someone who I think would know the reasons behind copyright and patents.
Quote:
|
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
|
Thomas Jefferson August 13, 1813
Quote:
|
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additons would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose.
|
Thomas Jefferson August 28, 1789
Clearly in the above he was completely against the perpetual monopoly you wish to create. We're talking about a man who went so far as to own PEOPLE, not some communist who thinks there's no such thing as property.
And don't you dare accuse me of beating a dead horse when all you ever add is snide remarks about how everyone is a thief and how copyright was invented to line your pockets. Just because you want an indefinite monopoly without having to pay for it doesn't mean that's the purpose of copyright.
Do you have anything at all to back up your arguments? I mean somethign besides wild claims and insults? Maybe some citations? Do you have James Madison writing somewhere that he never meant the limited time part of the copyright clause?