• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The copyright clause has nothing to do with copyright

SapphireSpire

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
123
Reaction score
36
Location
Monterey, Ca
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 
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.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to enact laws in keeping with it's duties listed specifically.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

Thus, Congress has the power to enact legislation covering patents and other intellectual property rights.

Why would you think otherwise?
 
Last edited:
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.

What does "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." mean if not a patent or copyright?
 
The Constitution grants Congress the power to enact laws in keeping with it's duties listed specifically.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

Thus, Congress has the power to enact legislation covering patents and other intellectual property rights.

Why would you think otherwise?
Because it makes no mention of IP. It's not even implied. Why would you assume it does?
 
Last edited:
What does "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." mean if not a patent or copyright?
It means exactly what it says- an exclusive right. For example, when you lend something to someone for a limited time, it doesn't mean they own it, because you own it. The power to grant to someone an exclusive right to something for a limited time is a power of ownership. Thus, the only ownership implied by the clause is that Congress owns all writings and discoveries by default, which makes them public by default. So anyone who has an exclusive right, granted by Congress, to any art or technology does not have the right to share or sell or give it away because they don't own it and nobody else is permitted to use it.

Since the powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, it does not have the power to issue patents or enforce copyright. All federal patent and copyright laws are unconstitutional and all manufacturing and publishing monopolies that dominate the captive market are unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
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.
I hate to break this to you, but: The Constitution is not a statute. It doesn't need to be specific about the mechanisms (or legal terms) by which it protects rights. In doing so, it gives Congress sufficient latitude to deal with the issue.

This is why, for example, the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," instead of providing an extensive list of which punishments are "cruel" and which are "unusual."

Plus, copyright laws date back to at least 1710, with the Statute of Anne. Meaning the Framers, and the authors of the first US copyright law (passed in 1790), understood the purpose of the Copyright Clause. We can see this with Federalist 43, which took copyright and patents for granted, and makes clear that the point is to ensure that the federal government, not the states, determines how to protect IP:

A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. ''The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress.


It means exactly what it says- an exclusive right. For example, when you lend something to someone for a limited time, it doesn't mean they own it, because you own it. The power to grant to someone an exclusive right to something for a limited time is a power of ownership. Thus, the only ownership implied by the clause is that Congress owns all writings and discoveries by default, which makes them public by default.
lol... no. The Free Software Foundation is thataway --->

The whole point of copyright law is to allow content creators to produce something, and make it available to the public, and ensure the still have a degree of control over it and/or receive compensation for access to it. It doesn't mean that once you discover the cure for cancer, you can lock it in a vault indefinitely, and the instant you show the formula to anyone else -- including, say, employees who manufacture it -- you lose all control whatsoever over the distribution of the cure.

You might not think this is a great plan, or that term lengths are too long, but that doesn't change the intent or effect of the Copyright Clause.

By the way, good luck throwing out 200+ years of copyright / patent law on the basis of a tendentious reading of the Constitution, and total lack of familiarity with contemporaneous IP law.
 
The purpose of IP in general is to protect manufacturing and publishing monopolies from direct competition, by making it a criminal offense. The authors of the Copyright Act of 1790 certainly understood that. The U.S. has been a captive market ever since.

IP kills two birds with one stone. First by prohibiting individuals from employing themselves, it forces the vast majority of working people into labor markets. Then, by keeping labor markets saturated, it gives retail monopolies a monopsonistic advantage over wage negotiations. This is why there are so few options for consumers, prices are high, and most people are employed rather than self employed. Anyone who can't keep a job ends up poor and homeless because there's no economic opportunity. This is why we need labor unions, minimum wages, welfare and social security- one injustice leads to another.

Monopolism is responsible for the increasing popularity of socialism and communism in the world. They blame capitalism for the consequences of monopolism even though monopolism has nothing to do with capitalism.

There's nothing tendentious about my reading of the copyright clause. It doesn't require you to understand copyright because it has nothing to do with copyright. The last 200+ years of copyright and patent law is not only tendentious but fallacious. That's why it should all be thrown out. Without IP, most of our economic problems would not exist.
 
Last edited:
It means exactly what it says- an exclusive right. For example, when you lend something to someone for a limited time, it doesn't mean they own it, because you own it. The power to grant to someone an exclusive right to something for a limited time is a power of ownership. Thus, the only ownership implied by the clause is that Congress owns all writings and discoveries by default, which makes them public by default. So anyone who has an exclusive right, granted by Congress, to any art or technology does not have the right to share or sell or give it away because they don't own it and nobody else is permitted to use it.

Since the powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, it does not have the power to issue patents or enforce copyright. All federal patent and copyright laws are unconstitutional and all manufacturing and publishing monopolies that dominate the captive market are unconstitutional.

This sentence, "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." is so clearly giving Congress the right to grant patents, I don't see how it could possibly be read otherwise. The language couldn't be more exact. Secure for limited times the exclusive rights is precisely what patent and copyright means. Precisely.
Besides, Congress takes for itself powers not granted by the constitution simply because the constitution hasn't specifically denied them the power. If necessary Congress amends the costitution and Bingo! you no longer have the right to stop for a beer on the way home.
 
The purpose of IP in general is to protect manufacturing and publishing monopolies from direct competition, by making it a criminal offense.
*bzzt* wrong, copyright violations are primarily a civil offense. It's only a criminal offense if you are counterfeiting goods, or fail to abide by a court judgment.


IP kills two birds with one stone. First by prohibiting individuals from employing themselves....
*bzzt* wrong, copyright law often empowers the content creator.

a) The instant that IP is in a fixed form (written code, manuscript, etc) the content creator has the copyright. You don't even have to file with the Copyright Office (though it's a good idea for something valuable, as it offers stronger protections). That's not just in one nation, that is now international too.

I will grant that it is not easy for the Little Guy to enforce their copyrights, but that's not because of the actual copyright law, it's because our legal system does not provide an individual with unlimited free legal counsel for civil cases, and does not cap how much a company can spend on legal defense.

b) In case you missed it, current US law actually allows content creators to regain their copyrights after 35 years if they transferred them.

c) Absolutely nothing about copyright law forces content creators to transfer their copyrights, or work for hire.

d) Your understanding of employment in the arts is deeply flawed. The vast majority of musicians, artists, authors, choreographers, etc are freelancers. There are few full-time jobs for artistic content creators, i.e. it isn't copyright that forces people to become employees somewhere.


....by keeping labor markets saturated, it gives retail monopolies a monopsonistic advantage over wage negotiations.
*bzzt* wrong, nothing about copyright gives distributors either a monopoly or monopsony -- especially in an era where independent publishers can go right around them and sell directly to the public.


This is why there are so few options for consumers, prices are high, and most people are employed rather than self employed.
Is it still 4/20? :mrgreen:

What "prices are high?" Who are these "most people?" You can legally listen to music for free on the radio, via podcasts or on services like Spotify; I can watch TV for free; I can listen to almost any piece of music for $8/month; I can purchase digital albums or digital books for next to nothing; I can get all sorts of software for free....


This is why we need labor unions, minimum wages, welfare and social security- one injustice leads to another.
Oookay... but all of that has nothing to do with copyright.


It doesn't require you to understand copyright because it has nothing to do with copyright.
...except for the part where James Madison explicitly stated that the Copyright Clause was written to empower the federal government to regulate copyright and patents.
 
This sentence, "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." is so clearly giving Congress the right to grant patents, I don't see how it could possibly be read otherwise.
It can't, unless an individual is so utterly opposed to copyright that he or she will say anything in an attempt to delegitimize copyright law....
 
This sentence, "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." is so clearly giving Congress the right to grant patents, I don't see how it could possibly be read otherwise.
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'?

The language couldn't be more exact.
Yes it could, if that's what it was meant to say.

Secure for limited times the exclusive rights is precisely what patent and copyright means. Precisely.
But it's not what the clause says therefore it's not what the clause means.

Besides, Congress takes for itself powers not granted by the constitution simply because the constitution hasn't specifically denied them the power. If necessary Congress amends the constitution and Bingo! you no longer have the right to stop for a beer on the way home.
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.
 
*bzzt* wrong, copyright violations are primarily a civil offense. It's only a criminal offense if you are counterfeiting goods, or fail to abide by a court judgment.
Well then *bzzt* I'm not wrong.

*bzzt* wrong, copyright law often empowers the content creator.
Ya by making it illegal to copy which is unfair and unjust because it's anti-competitive and it violates our real property rights, i.e. my right to use my own tools and materials to copy whatever I think I can sell. An equal right to copy anything is a basic and essential real (physical) property right and the hallmark of a free market.

Your understanding of employment in the arts is deeply flawed.
How do you know this, we've never discussed it?

The vast majority of musicians, artists, authors, choreographers, etc are freelancers.
Yes, I know this.

There are few full-time jobs for artistic content creators, i.e. it isn't copyright that forces people to become employees somewhere.
It's because of copyright that content is so extremely competitive and heavily guarded and that's why there are so few full-time jobs for content creators.

*bzzt* wrong, nothing about copyright gives distributors either a monopoly or monopsony -- especially in an era where independent publishers can go right around them and sell directly to the public.
Publishers own the content. The ownership of content is a monopoly so the publisher is the only source. That means other publishers cannot "go around" them and freelance artists cannot duplicate their work which limits their ability to employ themselves, thereby forcing them to get other jobs.


Is it still 4/20? :mrgreen:

What "prices are high?" Who are these "most people?" You can legally listen to music for free on the radio, via podcasts or on services like Spotify; I can watch TV for free; I can listen to almost any piece of music for $8/month; I can purchase digital albums or digital books for next to nothing; I can get all sorts of software for free....

Oookay... but all of that has nothing to do with copyright.

...except for the part where James Madison explicitly stated that the Copyright Clause was written to empower the federal government to regulate copyright and patents.
Except the Copyright Clause doesn't actually mention copyright.

Whenever anybody contradicts what the Constitution says, even the author himself, we should go with what the Constitution says.
 
Last edited:
It can't, unless an individual is so utterly opposed to copyright that he or she will say anything in an attempt to delegitimize copyright law....
So, the Constitution doesn't say Copyright but everybody wants to assume it does, and, by pointing this out, I'm the one who's "willing to say anything"???
 
Last edited:
Ya by making it illegal to copy which is unfair and unjust because it's anti-competitive and it violates our real property rights, i.e. my right to use my own tools and materials to copy whatever I think I can sell. An equal right to copy anything is a basic and essential real (physical) property right and the hallmark of a free market.
So... The grand moral position you're trying to defend is... the right to sell counterfeit cam DVDs of the new Avengers movie? lol

Oh, and yeah, copyright is not a radically free market. It's a government granting the content creator a monopoly. Wanna tell us something we don't already know?


Publishers own the content. The ownership of content is a monopoly so the publisher is the only source. That means other publishers cannot "go around" them and freelance artists cannot duplicate their work which limits their ability to employ themselves, thereby forcing them to get other jobs.
Incorrect. The content creator is granted a monopoly on the content that they create. Copyright law gives the content creator enormous latitude with those rights.

They can transfer the right to distribute to a publisher. E.g. book authors normally retain their copyrights, and only grant distribution rights to book publishers.

They act as their own publisher. E.g. musicians operate their own publishing companies, and negotiate production and distribution deals with labels.

The content creator can do everything. They can self-publish, self-distribute, self-market, and so on.

The content creator can deliberately decide to let people duplicate at will. E.g. anyone can sell Linux, they could even sell an exact duplicate of Red Hat if they want. You can also rewrite the code, as long as you abide by the license, which dictates that the source code is open.

Any content creator who thinks that corporate distributors suck has lots of options, and far more options today than they had 20-30 years ago (pre-Internet).

There is a huge amount of work in the public domain, too. Meaning you can sell every single Jane Austen book without needing to pay a royalty; you can even turn them into a zombie book, copyright your new version, and sell the movie rights (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) - IMDb). Or, in some cases, you can license someone else's content and sell it (e.g. almost every rap/hip-hop track ever; radio play; licensing music for movie use etc).

All of this has very little to do with employment in the arts. In fact, being an employee can in some cases screw the artist, because that usually means they are conducting "work for hire," in which case they give up their copyrights and lose all the control and protections I listed above (and more).


Whenever anybody contradicts what the Constitution says, even the author himself, we should go with what the Constitution says.
Hello? McFly? One of the authors of the Constitution itself explicitly stated that the Copyright Clause was written to protect copyright and patents. Your argument would be laughed out of court.

If you don't believe me, go test it. Go ahead, knock off a bunch of camcorder DVDs of the new Avengers movie, sell them openly on the streets. I'm sure your case will be a great success.
 
So, the Constitution doesn't say Copyright but everybody wants to assume it does, and, by pointing this out, I'm the one who's "willing to say anything"???
Do you really not understand what the Federalist Papers are, and their role in US law?
 
Well then *bzzt* I'm not wrong.


Ya by making it illegal to copy which is unfair and unjust because it's anti-competitive and it violates our real property rights, i.e. my right to use my own tools and materials to copy whatever I think I can sell. An equal right to copy anything is a basic and essential real (physical) property right and the hallmark of a free market.


How do you know this, we've never discussed it?


Yes, I know this.


It's because of copyright that content is so extremely competitive and heavily guarded and that's why there are so few full-time jobs for content creators.


Publishers own the content. The ownership of content is a monopoly so the publisher is the only source. That means other publishers cannot "go around" them and freelance artists cannot duplicate their work which limits their ability to employ themselves, thereby forcing them to get other jobs.



Except the Copyright Clause doesn't actually mention copyright.

Whenever anybody contradicts what the Constitution says, even the author himself, we should go with what the Constitution says.

If it isn't your music/video/book why do you believe you have a right to it?
 
So, the Constitution doesn't say Copyright but everybody wants to assume it does, and, by pointing this out, I'm the one who's "willing to say anything"???

You're making a specious argument. Frankly, the clause on its face is clear enough. In case there was any doubt, and really there shouldn't be, Federalist 43 bolsters the obvious:

"A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. ''The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress. "
 
Without IP, most of our economic problems would not exist.

That's because we wouldn't have much of an economy, and we'd probably all be starving.
 
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'?

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.
 
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'?

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."

Patents cover the things in the 2nd set of quotes: writings and discoveries. By the same token isn't an IP something of a discovery or a work of art depending on what it is or does?

You are picking nits due to lack of a stronger argument.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • Ronny Wellner screencap094.jpg
    Ronny Wellner screencap094.jpg
    80.5 KB · Views: 20
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom