Posted by J. Clarke on 12/08/06 05:01

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:04:14 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in
> news:elagvr02264@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:22:55 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
>>>
>>> And that is the point I'm making, is that the original
>>> concept of copyright was to incease the learning of Science,
>>> and useful arts, which is the practical application of
>>> Science (today called engineering), not to protect works of
>>> entertainment.
>>
>> Note that there was no distinction between books by content.
>>
> Not in the law itself, but one must include the authority for
> creating the law, the Constitution, That stated to promote the
> progress of Science. and the title of the law "An act to promote
> Learning.... ...
>
> I sorta take that as excluding "To promote the progress of
> Politics...
>
>> Also consider that the Founders understood full well the value
>> of swaying people's minds by all means at their disposal.
>> When does a work of literature cease to be an entertainment
>> and become a tool of political activism?
>
> Neither entertainment nor political activism are mentioned in
> the Law nor the Constitution, but Science, Useful Arts and
> Learning are enumerated. And literature has a connotation of
> fiction, whether in poetry, prose or drama, making it a
> different subset of books from books on Science..

So let's see, a bunch of people who just staged a successful revolution
don't consider politics to be a "useful art"?

Typical technician's viewpoint. I used to think that way.

>>> --
>>> Bob Quintal
>>>
>>> PA is y I've altered my email address.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> 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]