Posted by Bob Quintal on 12/06/06 00:44

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
news:_EXch.10189$yf7.3856@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
> news:4573e69e$1@clear.net.nz...
>> Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies
>> on to a video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question
>> of whether copyright infringements really harm the copyright
>> holders is now a hot topic. See, for example, the article
>> titled:
>>
>> Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the
>> copyright holders?
>>
>> http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
>>
>> What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should
>> copyright holders take a broad view and tolerate copyright
>> infringements on youtube as is suggested in this blog?
>>
>> See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
>
> 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.
>
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.

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.





--
Bob Quintal

PA is y I've altered my email address.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Back to original message]