|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/07/06 18:39
<bob.quintal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165512765.005456.294960@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Dec 6, 8:02 pm, "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>> "Bob Quintal" <rquin...@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in
>> messagenews:Xns9891C30E89FCABQuintal@66.150.105.47...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
>> >news:EJrdh.19510$9v5.11072@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>> >> "Bob Quintal" <rquin...@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.Copyright has always been a property interest,
>> > and has always been
>> assignable. The purpose of copyright has always been as an incentive to
>> creation -- authors are encouraged to write if they know that they will
>> be
>> able to benefit from the fruit of their labors.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> 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?It means "works of
>> > authorship," defined as original (but not novel)
>> expression.
>>
> I'd like to see a citation for that definition. The Article of the
> Constitution and the Laws enacted in the 18th century are, to anyone
> who reads them with a knowledge of the language as written at the time,
> fairly clear.
Apparently not, since you've gotten it wrong.
Here's a paper from the University of Texas. I'm unfamiliar with its
author, but the analysis is both interesting and accurate:
www.utexas.edu/law/news/colloquium/papers/Brachapaper.doc
>
> Amendments and new laws dating from 40 years later have corrupted the
> original intent. This was by the addition of musical scores to the
> catalogue of copyrightable items.
Musical scores were not added to the Copyright Act 40 years ago. Music has
been protected by copyright in the US since 1831.
>
>>
>>
>> > Wikipedia's definition implies it does,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts
>
> Wikipedia isn't an authority on the law.
>
> Neither is the opinion of a shyster in the employ of the MAFIA (Music
> And Film Industry Associations)
I don't work for any music or film industry clients. I do however know what
I'm talking about, whereas you clearly don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.timhunkin.com/90_useful_arts.htmimplies that useful
>> > arts are things like engineering drawings, texts detailing
>> > manufacturing operations, etc.I have no idea who or what is
>> > timhunkin.com. I gave you the original title
>> of the Statute of Anne, which clearly is broader in scope than
>> engineering
>> drawings.
>>
> I responded yesterday in a separate posting providing a link to, quotes
> from and rationale why I have grounds to assert that the Statute of
> Queen Anne was intended to apply only to information of Scientific and
> Technical value.
Your "rationales" were based on your erroneous construction of the meaning
of the language.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> 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.Sorry, you want legal cites from
>> > me, retain me and I'll write you a memo.
>> You're the one asserting that the scope of copyright was originally
>> limited
>> to engineering drawings. If you provide proof of your assertion, I'll
>> consider it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> --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.You didn't.
>> > It is, however, the topic of discussion in this thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.The scope of patent is different than the scope of
>> > copyright. Publication
>> is a reserved right of copyright. It is not a reserved right of patent
>> and,
>> indeed, makes little sense in that context.
>>
>> > 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.Yes, that's right. And your
>> > point?
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>
> OBJECTION! What I believe is, contrary to how you have rephrased my
> statements,
> That the intent of the original Statute of Anne and of the Constitution
> was to protect the "learned men" or "Authors and inventors" from the
> predatory practices of the publishers, by giving said authors and
> inventors some control over their works. Assigning those rights of
> control to the predatory publisher vermin runs contrary to that goal,
> therefore was not intended by the legislation.
I'm not going back through this thread -- anyone who is interested can do
that. However, everything I've attributed to you, you said.
>>
>> > You are making baseless assertions here, PTravel,No, I making
>> > assertions based on my understanding of copyright law. I've
>> studied copyright law, I'm licensed to practice law and, in fact, I do
>> and
>> have done so for the last 15 years as an intellectual property attorney.
>
> Oh, so are you a shill for the MPAA or RIAA?
No, I'm not. I don't work for either, or any businesses that are members.
>
> Sounds like it.
Only to you.
>
>> According to the California State Bar, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit
>> Courts
>> of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm qualified to argue the law.
>> You
>> don't have to accept my credentials and, as I said, I'm not inclined to
>> spend my time looking for citations that refute an erroneous premise that
>> I've never heard before.
>>
> Typical head-in-sand stand. Translated from the legalese.
> I won't even consider evidence that contradicts my pious beliefs.
You haven't offered any evidence. Read the paper that I cited.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|