Posted by J. Clarke on 12/07/06 01:30

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:13:49 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:

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

Wikipedia is someone's opinion, just like here.

> http://www.timhunkin.com/90_useful_arts.htm implies that useful arts are
> things like engineering drawings, texts detailing manufacturing
> operations, etc.

Basing that on the Dewey Decimal library classification system, which
postdates the Constitution.

>> 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.

Try <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html>.

>>> --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.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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,
>
>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>

--

--John

to email, dial "usenet" and validate

(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[Back to original message]