Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

  1. #21
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,480
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSpire View Post
    It clearly doesn't say 'patents'. If the clause was meant to give Congress the power to grant patents, why doesn't it say 'patents'?


    Yes it could, if that's what it was meant to say.


    But it's not what the clause says therefore it's not what the clause means.


    Ya well, that's not how it's supposed to work either. The powers of Congress are supposed to be limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution state that Congress has the power to "secure patents and copyrights". It only says Congress has the power to "secure exclusive rights"- not the same thing at all.
    Who knows, maybe the words 'patent' and 'copywright' didn't exist then. Maybe they were created to name the principles described in the constitution. Happens all the time. The word 'astronaut' didn't exist until it was created because it was needed.
    The eye through which you see God is the same eye through which God sees you.
    -Jalal al-din Rumi-

  2. #22
    It's the Despair Quotient
    Checkerboard Strangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,807
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    If it isn't your music/video/book why do you believe you have a right to it?
    Because he enjoys getting his bank account cleaned out and his possessions sold off to satisfy collections.
    Some of us have experience suing large record companies, so going after two bit pirates is maybe a mixed bag but you figure out which ones are exposed enough to grab by the neck.

    Sometimes the good guy actually win a few of these things.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If a middle class can only exist through government violence and violation of property rights then the middle class deserves to be abolished.

  3. #23
    It's the Despair Quotient
    Checkerboard Strangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,807
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

    Quote Originally Posted by Tlrmln View Post
    This is looking more and more like a bad troll.

    The Constitution also doesn't say that Congress may appropriate funds to buy bullets or airplanes, or install carpeting in its offices.
    Probably also a sovereign citizen who doesn't believe he owes rent to a landlord or mortgage payments to a bank either.
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If a middle class can only exist through government violence and violation of property rights then the middle class deserves to be abolished.

  4. #24
    Sage
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,003

    Re: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSpire View Post
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    [Congress shall have the power] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    It makes no mention of patents or copyright or ownership therefore it does NOT give Congress the power to grant patents or copyright or to create and protect intellectual property.

    While the ownership of property necessitates, and therefore implies, an exclusive right to that property, an exclusive right to something does not necessitate ownership and therefore does not necessitate or imply that the something over which a person has an exclusive right be regarded as their property.

    When a person has an exclusive right to something, granted by Congress, nobody else can use it. Since nobody else can use it, that person cannot share it or give it away or sell it or license it. The only way to obtain the right to share, gift, or sell that thing is to wave the exclusive right to it. In doing so, they permit everyone else to do the same.
    You should probably read further in your textbook before making posts like this.

  5. #25
    Educator

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,141

    Re: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSpire View Post
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    [Congress shall have the power] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    It makes no mention of patents or copyright or ownership therefore it does NOT give Congress the power to grant patents or copyright or to create and protect intellectual property.

    While the ownership of property necessitates, and therefore implies, an exclusive right to that property, an exclusive right to something does not necessitate ownership and therefore does not necessitate or imply that the something over which a person has an exclusive right be regarded as their property.

    When a person has an exclusive right to something, granted by Congress, nobody else can use it. Since nobody else can use it, that person cannot share it or give it away or sell it or license it. The only way to obtain the right to share, gift, or sell that thing is to wave the exclusive right to it. In doing so, they permit everyone else to do the same.
    Another wackadoodle libertarian fantasy.

    You ignore historical, practical, and legal precedence at your peril. Several other posters have completely shredded your argument, so I'll pass.

    You might as well argue that since the Constitution does not mention aircraft, the FAA and the air traffic control system is totally outside the authority of the federal government. Each state should have their own unique air traffic control regulations. Nothing impractical or hazardous there. SMH. And even if there is, gotta follow the Constitution of 1789, no matter what.

  6. #26
    It's the Despair Quotient
    Checkerboard Strangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,807
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSpire View Post
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    [Congress shall have the power] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    It makes no mention of patents or copyright or ownership therefore it does NOT give Congress the power to grant patents or copyright or to create and protect intellectual property.

    While the ownership of property necessitates, and therefore implies, an exclusive right to that property, an exclusive right to something does not necessitate ownership and therefore does not necessitate or imply that the something over which a person has an exclusive right be regarded as their property.

    When a person has an exclusive right to something, granted by Congress, nobody else can use it. Since nobody else can use it, that person cannot share it or give it away or sell it or license it. The only way to obtain the right to share, gift, or sell that thing is to wave the exclusive right to it. In doing so, they permit everyone else to do the same.
    Let me make it real clear:

    If you appropriate and sell my retail commercial entertainment product without my permission, I'll not only successfully sue you, I'll also successfully extract anything and/or everything of value that you possess if necessary in order to satisfy collection on the damages settlement, which will be enforced by officers of the courts. This also includes any instances where you might even give away my product for free.

    This has already happened, not only with private parties but with a record company. Screw with copyright at your own risk. The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor.
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    If a middle class can only exist through government violence and violation of property rights then the middle class deserves to be abolished.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •