|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/08/06 19:44
"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:4579bd92$0$8738$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> PTravel wrote:
>> "Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9892DFF233D73BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
>>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in
>>> news:elagvr02264@news3.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:22:55 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
>>>>> And that is the point I'm making, is that the original
>>>>> concept of copyright was to incease the learning of Science,
>>>>> and useful arts, which is the practical application of
>>>>> Science (today called engineering), not to protect works of
>>>>> entertainment.
>>>> Note that there was no distinction between books by content.
>>>>
>>> Not in the law itself, but one must include the authority for
>>> creating the law, the Constitution, That stated to promote the
>>> progress of Science. and the title of the law "An act to promote
>>> Learning.... ...
>>>
>>> I sorta take that as excluding "To promote the progress of
>>> Politics...
>>
>> Ah, now I get it. Laws and the Constitution mean what you take them to
>> mean. So it's safe to ignore history, hundreds of years of
>> jurisprudence, the Supreme Court and all others charged with construing
>> the Constitution, etc. Wow. Even Judge Bork was that much of a
>> text-bound constructionist.
>>
>> Sorry. The Constitution was NEVER intended to be understood and
>> construed at such a basic and primitive level.
>>
>
> Why is it when I listen/read Americans waxing lyrical about their justice
> system OJ immediately springs to mind?
I don't know. Could it be because of your limited experience of America and
its legal system?
What OJ has to do with construing the Constitutional limits of copyright is
entirely beyond me. What's your point?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|