Cory Doctorow on DRM on the BBC website

[Giggleton]

But what if one of the framers was a time traveling magician who went back in time to help write the first amendment, knowing that in two hundred years the possibility for sharing all knowledge would be realized but we would also at this time be burdened by an antiquated and useless copyright clause?

You might say why didn't they just go back further and interrupt the writing of the copyright clause itself?

One reason might be that in the past, copyright might have actually done less harm than good. The reverse is certainly true now though, an infinite number of examples for you to choose from. COPYRIGHT IS HARMFUL. ipso facto irrelevant.

What I mean is, the traveller might not have been able to place themself at a point in history where it was actually possible to stop the copyright clause from being written, but adding the first amendment would ensure that at some point in the future, i.e. now, when the majority of the public has access to decent internets, the public, by accessing the knowledge contained on the internet will see a glimmer of light at the end of the blocked passage (copyright - texts).

We will ask ourselves why can't I access those texts? They sound like they would be beneficial to me and therefore humanity? Copyright?? Sorry Congress, No Law for you!!

[etienne66]

Originally Posted by elcreative

You can disagree all you like but you can't change the meaning of the English language and put very simply, "Quite long" does NOT equal "Unlimited," these have distinctly different meanings...

Then by your definition they could change it to life plus 1000 years and that is still limited. Hell, why don't we make it life plus 1 millions years. That's still limited. My point was that the constitution says congress can grant limited rights to the the author. It does not say anything about giving them to the author's heirs in perpetuity. But that could effectively be done and still fit your definition of limited. My definition of limited is within regards to the original author. If they are guaranteed to exceed the lifespan of the author, then in regards to the original author their rights are unlimited. After they die does not count in regards to the original author's limitation. If the constitution had said "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors, Inventors and their heirs the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Then I would say you are right that it is limited with regards to that group. I've seen no amendment to the constitution that extends this right to the heirs and the original author has no limits within their lifetime no matter how long they own the copyright.

Etienne66

[elcreative]

I didn't give a definition of anything, I was commenting on your usage of the English language and willingness to try and change two different things into synonyms... trying to be a smartass and/or attribute things to other people still doesn't change the meaning of the words... and limited was being used related to time not the numbers of people involved which is another area for limiting but not the same one...

Originally Posted by etienne66

Then by your definition they could change it to life plus 1000 years and that is still limited. Hell, why don't we make it life plus 1 millions years. That's still limited. My point was that the constitution says congress can grant limited rights to the the author. It does not say anything about giving them to the author's heirs in perpetuity. But that could effectively be done and still fit your definition of limited. My definition of limited is within regards to the original author. If they are guaranteed to exceed the lifespan of the author, then in regards to the original author their rights are unlimited. After they die does not count in regards to the original author's limitation. If the constitution had said "The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors, Inventors and their heirs the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Then I would say you are right that it is limited with regards to that group. I've seen no amendment to the constitution that extends this right to the heirs and the original author has no limits within their lifetime no matter how long they own the copyright.

Etienne66

[tompe]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I didn't give a definition of anything, I was commenting on your usage of the English language and willingness to try and change two different things into synonyms... trying to be a smartass and/or attribute things to other people still doesn't change the meaning of the words... and limited was being used related to time not the numbers of people involved which is another area for limiting but not the same one...

But lifetime is not limited in theory since it is in theory possible to live an infinite time.

[elcreative]

Regretably for you, the rest of us still live in the real world rather than the imaginary SF ones that seem to be inhabited by so many people around here...

Originally Posted by tompe

But lifetime is not limited in theory since it is in theory possible to live an infinite time.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by elcreative

I didn't give a definition of anything, I was commenting on your usage of the English language and willingness to try and change two different things into synonyms... trying to be a smartass and/or attribute things to other people still doesn't change the meaning of the words... and limited was being used related to time not the numbers of people involved which is another area for limiting but not the same one...

Aside from personal attacks, do you have anything to refute, the fact that the author himself/herself enjoys unlimited rights and copyright duration on his work?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why? You do not use that principle for ordinary salary work. So why use a different principle here?

Because we do use that principle for income-producing property. A copyrighted work is income-producing property. It is not an employer.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Judge not lest ye be judged. What do the courts do except present an argument for the way things should be?

Well, 95% of the time, courts are talking about what happened in the past. If you are charged with burglary, or sued for a traffic accident, the court doesn't try to determine what the law of burglary or negligence should be; those are pretty well established. The court is trying to find out what happened, and, then to draw the consequences based on existing law.

4.99% of the time, the courts are trying to find out what is happening *now* - is this contract still valid; does this building meet building codes; is this ramp ADA compliant.

Only very rarely do courts deal with what might happen in the future.
[/QUOTE]

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Nothing in law is ever really fixed. Courts frequently change their opinion; the US Supreme Court certainly does (about a 150 times since WW II, in case you were wondering) and particularly in cases "involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible" (Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410. Brandeis, J., dissenting).

That's a very small number, though, when compared to the *2 million* cases filed in my average-sized state in 2009 alone.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why? You do not use that principle for ordinary salary work. So why use a different principle here?

Salaried jobs usually come with benefits such as pensions and life insurance.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Because we do use that principle for income-producing property. A copyrighted work is income-producing property. It is not an employer.

So it is just arbitrary. Then we can treat copyright as salary work since there is no argument either way how to treat it.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

That's a very small number, though, when compared to the *2 million* cases filed in my average-sized state in 2009 alone.

What? We are talking about cases the Supreme Court has decided to hear, not your run-of-the-mill suits. That's only a good 120 or so a year.

[WT Sharpe]

Moderator Notice
The tone of this thread has shown that there are obviously differing viewpoints, and no one is going to persuade the other that they are wrong. If you are unable to remain polite, it is better to refrain from posting anything.

Posting Guidelines.

Please acknowledge that views do differ, and move on.


The MobileRead Moderation Team

[elcreative]

Why would I have anything to refute that when I wasn't talking about that in the first place... I was referring to limits related to the DURATION (time period) of the copyright and stating that "Quite long" does not equal "unlimited" when talking about the physical duration of time that the copyright lasts...

Originally Posted by dmikov

Aside from personal attacks, do you have anything to refute, the fact that the author himself/herself enjoys unlimited rights and copyright duration on his work?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But what if one of the framers was a time traveling magician who went back in time to help write the first amendment.....

Well, that is a rather creative approach to constitutional law.

A more standard approach is: The ratifiers realized that the nation was going to meet conditions that could not possibly be predicted. Thus the Constitution needed to have a certain degree of flexibility, and allow future citizens to change the Constitution. They also realized that if this process was too easy, it might happen too often. The result is the current amendment process.

If our society genuinely concluded that copyright was categorically harmful and needed to be completely eradicated, then we can pass an amendment. Problem solved.