Posted by PTravel on 12/06/06 04:39

"Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9890D279147EDBQuintal@66.150.105.47...
> "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.

Sorry. You're wrong.

>
> 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.

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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]