|
|
Posted by Bob Quintal on 12/06/06 23:13
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
news:EJrdh.19510$9v5.11072@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
> "Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns9890D62F9D206BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
>>> The post to which I replied argued that copyright
>>> infringement doesn't really harm the copyright holder.
>>> Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves to the
>>> author the rights protected by copyright. In order to
>>> consider "harm to the copyright owner" in determining
>>> infringement liability, a Constitutional amendment would be
>>> necessary to change Article I, Section 8's exclusion rights
>>> reservation.
>>>
>> And if you were to read the article and section in question,
>> you would have seen it states "The Congress shall have 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;"
>>
>> 1: Copyright protection is limited to authors and Inventors
>> --Not to publishers and agents.
>
> Copyright is a property interest and, as such, assignable.
>
Only by interpretation of the lawyers who were working for the
publishers, originally.
>>
>> 2: Copyright protection must promote the 'Progress of Science
>> and useful Arts'
>> --useful Arts as understood at the time the document was
>> created is called Engineering today.
>
> Sorry, no. It does not mean "engineering,"
>
What does it mean, if it does not mean engineering?
Wikipedia's definition implies it does,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts
http://www.timhunkin.com/90_useful_arts.htm implies that useful
arts are things like engineering drawings, texts detailing
manufacturing operations, etc.
> nor was copyright
> restricted as you claim.
Some proof or even examples woud go a long way in changing your
baseless assertions into a discussion.
>> --Not meant to apply to general fiction, music, painting,
>> dance.
>>
>> 3: 'for limited Times'
>> --Not forever and a day. Too long a term fails to protect
>> Science and useful Arts by preventing other than the
>> copyright holder from accessing and using the knowledge in
>> the copyrighted material.
>
> Okay, you're still not tracking here. Article I, Section 8
> does not protect a copyright owner from "relative harm."
I'm not tracking? I dont know where you got the Idea I implied
relative harm. I never used that term in my comments abovve.
It
> grants exclusive rights.
Yes, it grants the right to allow or disallow publication of the
writings or discoveries, exclusively to the authors and
inventers thereof. That includes the right to allow free
distribution of the creation, or to restrict the distribution
for a limited time, not forever and a day.
That's what we're talking about, not
> copyright terms, not your mistaken belief that copyright is
> not assignable, and certainly not the fiction that copyright
> is limited to writings about engineering.
>
You are making baseless assertions here, PTravel,
>> --
>> Bob Quintal
>>
>> PA is y I've altered my email address.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
>
>
--
Bob Quintal
PA is y I've altered my email address.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|