Posted by PTravel on 12/04/06 23:17

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xk617s377.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> writes:
>> Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
>> entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether
>> infringements
>> are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a right to
>> exclude.
>> Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among other things, amending
>> the Constitution and ignoring several hundred years of intellectual
>> property
>> jurisprudence.
>
> No amendment to the constitution would be needed to make all
> copyrights expire 24 hours after being issued, or to stop issuing them
> altogether.

True, but that's not going to happen. Why in the world should a copyright
expire after 24 hours, or not issue at all?

> The scope of exclusivity has also changed steadily over
> the centuries since the Constitution was written, and that too could
> be set back to where it was without an amendment.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "set back to where it was." However,
again, there is no reason to limit exclusivity, nor is it likely to happen.

[Back to original message]