|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/07/06 01:07
"Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9891C6BC41A35BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
> news:PPrdh.19513$9v5.3031@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
>>
>> "Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9890D279147EDBQuintal@66.150.105.47...
>
>>> Copyright, in the US Constitution, is "To promote the
>>> progress of science and the useful arts". Not to promote the
>>> fine arts, the terpsichorean arts, the literary arts. Only
>>> Science and the useful arts we now call Engineering. It is
>>> the perversion of the intent of copyright by moviemakers,
>>> singers, fiction writers that has led to the nonsense you
>>> post, because something that should not be protected by
>>> copyright is therefore not subject to infringement.
>>
>> Sorry. You're wrong.
>>
> That's your opinion. Since you offer no credible rebuttal, I'll
> treat your opinion with the respect it deserves, none
> whatsoever, until you can make a case for your sorry "you're
> wrong"
As I said, you're the one who made the assertion. However, yes, that's my
opinion. I've recited my credentials which should give my opinion some
weight. What's the basis for your opinion?
>
>>>
>>> As to several hundred years of "intellectual property
>>> jutrisprudence", do some research. I'ts been about 110 years
>>> since Copyright jurisprudence has been applied to non
>>> Scientific/Engineering publications.
>>
>> The Statute of Anne, which is the first copyright statute in a
>> common law country, was enacted in 1710. It was titled, "An
>> Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies
>> of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies,
>> during the Times therein mentioned." It, along with other
>> English common law, formed the basis for American law. I
>> don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but
>> copyright, since its statutory inception, was never limited to
>> scientific or engineering publications.
>
> I think you need to reread the document without preconceptions..
> That it was limited to scholarly works is evident in a careful
> analysis of the Statute of Queen Anne itself.
>>
> In part from the Statute of Queen Anne.
>
> "For Preventing therefore such
> Practices for the future, and for the
> Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write use-
> ful Books;"
"Learned Men" write books. Illiterate ones do not. However, if your point
is that copyright originally applied to written works, I'd agree. Other
forms of expression came within the ambit of copyright well after the
Statute of Anne. It was not, however, restricted to "engineering works" as
you've claimed earlier, nor "scholarly works" as you now claim.
>
> Learned men... NOT illiterate painters.
> Useful books...NOT pretty music, NOT romance novels.
>
>
> "Be it therefore further Enacted by the Au-
> thority aforesaid, That nothing in this Act contained shall be
> construed to extend to subject any Bookseller, Printer, or other
> Person whatsoever, to the Forfeitures or Penalties therein men-
> tioned, for or by reason of the Printing or Reprinting of any
> Book
> or Books without such Consent, as aforesaid, unless the Title
> to the Copy of such Book or Books hereafter Published shall,
> before such Publication be Entred [sic], in the Register-Book of
> the
> Company of Stationers, "
>
> This implies that it is the responsibility of the author to
> register the copyright,
That's correct. It still remains the responsiblity of the author to
register the copyright if he intends to seek recourse in the courts (unless
the work in question was authored in a Berne-convention country other than
the U.S.).
>
> "That if any Bookseller or Booksellers,
> Printer or Printers, shall, after the said Five and twentieth
> Day of March, One thousand seven hundred and ten, set a
> Price upon, or Sell or Expose to Sale, any Book or Books
> at such a Price or Rate as shall be Conceived by any Person
> or Persons to be High and Unreasonable; It shall and may be
> Lawful for any Person or Persons to make Complaint thereof
> to the "
>
> Imposwes restrictions upon the publishers to prevent abuse by
> them
Of course it does. That's who distributed books. What has that to do with
your claim that copyright was limited to engineering drawings?
>
> http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html
>
>>> --
>>> 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]
|