Posted by PTravel on 12/07/06 01:02

"Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9891C30E89FCABQuintal@66.150.105.47...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in
> news:EJrdh.19510$9v5.11072@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
>>
>> "Bob Quintal" <rquintal@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.

>
> Wikipedia's definition implies it does,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts

Wikipedia isn't an authority on the law.

>
> http://www.timhunkin.com/90_useful_arts.htm implies 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.

>
>> 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.
>>
> 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.
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.

>
>
>>> --
>>> Bob Quintal
>>>
>>> PA is y I've altered my email address.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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]