Slashdot Mirror

Hundreds of cartoon characters were created in the early and mid 1900s. Only a few became successful and one of them was Mickey. Why should Disney make that asset available free to the public because the luck, creative and technical skills in pulling off a creative masterpiece is a lot? Why do creators of copyrighted work owe free stuff to the public? Do members of the public mail at least one dollar bill per year to failed artists? No. But artists are supposed to be charitable to the public somehow.

So end this scam called limited times for copyrighted work. Disney and M. Mouse were valuable a few decades ago, are valuable today and will remain valuable a 100 years from today.

I really hope that's sarcasm. I can't really tell. Sorry, but it just doesn't read well in print without some kind of sarcasm tag or a whole lot of exclamation points or something to indicate it.

In the event that it's not, you do realize how stupid, ignorant, and deluded you are, right? The text of the constitution that authorizes copyright reads:

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;

Notice the parts about promotion and limited that I highlighted? Yeah...copyright is a contract between the public and the artist. They get to make something, profit from it for a while, then we get to make something new out of it or just make it part of our culture and share it with others all we want. The current state of copyright has perverted that.

The problem with terms like these is that they make it seem as if the parties aren't filled with these scumbags, but they are; the parties themselves are evil. This isn't just a few people; it's the entire parties.

Read George Washington's Farewell Address.

Despite what they teach kids in Elementary School, The United States is not a "2-Party System". It wasn't created that way and hasn't been that way since. There have always been more than 2 active parties, and while there have usually been 2 "main" parties, they haven't always been the same 2 parties.

Political parties, for the most part, are bullshit. They're little more than gangs made large. While most democracies may have them, I have yet to see any argument that they've actually, in the long run, benefitted anybody.

Article 4: It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

We were in debt to the king, so they pretended to give us our freedom as long as we pay them all of our wealth and back debt. We had no money though... It gets better in 1933!

Our Founding Fathers who were far, far, far more intelligent, well-read, and thoughtful than 99.9% of US citizens now alive new the absurdity of direct democracy which is why we have a Representative Republic.

So well-read and thoughtful that many of them were slave-holders, and they wrote slavery into the Constitution, thought the vote should only go to white male land-owners, passed the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts...

Yes, the Constitution was a step forward, hooray USA. But let's lose the worship of the "Founding Fathers".

Ironically, one large reason we have public education here in the U.S. is to make voters competent to vote and self-govern.

Remember when they actually believed in their whole First Amendment thing? Yeah, that hasn't been the case since Nixon apparently.

That hasn't been the case since Adams. The 1st Amendment has always been toothless. But notice you don't necessarily need an Internet to make yourself heard. It certainly isn't helping much now.

In the end, no universal conclusions, judgments or definitive statements can be made about the Sons of Liberty. Were they a terrorist organization? The British certainly believed they were. After all, the Sons were advocating overthrow of the status quo government and independence for the thirteen colonies. Were they a patriotic organization? Many American colonists certainly believed they were. The Sons represented to them the American freedom fighter personified, fighting for their rights and ultimate independence. It should be noted that the Loyalists also had their version of Committees of Correspondence and Sons of Liberty namely: the United Empire Loyalists.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html Note the date is from 1996

Hope you don't find out what happened in 1789. It was a major scandal! Huge!! We would call it ThanksgivingGate.

Both houses of Congress conspired to request that the President proclaim a day when all Americans "unite" to pray to the one God in "A DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER."

And can you believe it? That Constitution-trampling president back then, George Washington ("Father of the Country," my foot!), enthusiastically obliged!

Here's what he wrote.

Wonder why there wasn't a grassroots movement of citizens to impeach President Washington? Didn't they know anything about Separation of Church and State back then? The Founding Fathers obviously needed the help of 0bama, the ACLU, and a cadre of Ivy League Constitutional scholars to lecture to them on what the Constitution really means.

"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

teabaggers

Instead of attacking my point (reading the DoI) you decide to attack a "group" based upon prejudices you have. You're not refuting the point I made.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

equate unelected tyranny with LOSING THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FUCKING MINORITY

If you'd read the DoI like I suggested, you'd find the complaints leveled at King George and England have a great deal in common (not exact) with the complaints Libertarians like me have against both GWB and BHO leaders. While I wasn't a big fan of WJC and the (R) congress that created surplus in Fed Treasury, I'm kind of looking back at that time with nostalgia.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

Seriously, read it. I doubt you have or else you wouldn't have gone down the road of logical fallacies (including the liberal left's favorite "appeal to emotion").

I'm guessing you won't bother to, just as you addressed my perfectly valid point with your nonsense.

Your right. Oh wait, no your not. Nice try though.

As does Thomas Paine and Publius.

I'm not a big fan of the GOP but I never heard a GOP Senator suggest withholding highway funds to blackmail the states into outlawing texting while driving.

I suppose it's been a while, but what about the Reagan administration's National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which threatened withholding highway funds to blackmail the states into raising their drinking ages from 18 to 21?

Actually Jefferson likely would have been appalled by the fact that the Federal Government is so heavily involved in education.

I agree Jefferson was much more in favor of state systems (George Washington, to the contrary, was in favor of a national education system). But that's still not really libertarian, which would argue we shouldn't have universal free public education at all. On the state level, Jefferson pushed tirelessly for an expansive system of free public schools in Virginia (mostly unsuccessfully), and was heavily involved in setting up the state-run University of Virginia.

And I'm not sure quite how solid Jefferson's opposition to federal involvement was: he actually proposed a constitutional amendment in 1806 that would place education "among the articles of public care" so that the federal government could "come in aid of the public education".

Yeah, nothing to see here move on.

Except that the copyright system in the U.S. wasn't created as a social welfare system for artist: it was created to encourage production which would enter the public domain soon enough.

Imagine if the estate of William Shakespeare still got a cut of every print and performance of his works. Would we every see them in high schools? How about Dickens or Twain? What if literature coursebooks had to pay huge sums of money for the right to republish thousand-year-old manuscripts?

Think I'm being disingenuous? I'm not. I should be able to freely use, remake, dramatize for the theater, and cut up over half of the movies on this list, but I couldn't find any listed as public domain in my ten-minute attempt. The Presley estate shouldn't still be making money off of music written and recorded fifty years ago, if indeed the estate is the entity holding the rights. Automatic extension has made it virtually impossible to know who actually holds the rights when you care enough to license that seventy-year-old movie for inclusion in your film.

The original Copyright Act offered protection for fourteen years, with an optional extension of another fourteen years. I don't see the problem with that or why it needed to be changed.

After reading his piece, I have a hard time arguing that it should be handed over to some international body.

That's because, like him, you're a nationalist xenophobe.

I mean, the argument boils down to this: America has the First Amendment, therefore we are the only entity capable of not censoring the internet via withholding access to an arbitrary (though ubiquitously popular) namespace. The insinuation is that other countries do not have the First Amendment and therefore, all of them collectively would present the possibility of such (questionably effective) censorship.

Well, how does this argument stand up against the real (though non-American and therefore unreliable) world? Let's take the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19.

        * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Well, that's just a UN Resolution with no binding effect, and only reflects a general sense of the body rather than something they all commit to, right? As Rabkin says, "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition." Well, let's take the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty that 150 countries signed 30 years ago:

Article 19

      1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
      2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

But none of these statements ensuring freedom of speech compare to the sheer Holy Writ that is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here.

Because the United States has never, ever, ever, contemplated restrictions on free speech, proving just how trustworthy we are with the world's speech. Of course, Rabkin does not offer any specific examples of un-contemplatable restrictions on speech imposed by other First World nations, nor does he bother to prove the point that the U.S. has never done anything similar (because he can't).

Nor is he at all concerned with people in other countries who may also enjoy free speech, including speech that isn't legal in the United States -- the compelling need is not to ensure the freedom of the world's people, but as he makes clear: "If we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards." Aha! It's the bogeyman of "foreign standards", which all good Americans rightly fear, because they are all, by virtue of being foreign, simply inferior to our own standards (whatever they may be).

But what disgusts me most about Rabkin's screed is that someone capable of putting his name on something so baseless, undefensible, xenophobic, fear-mongering, and full of straw-man arguments, was accepted to a doctoral program, and printed in a major magazine. Of course, it's The Standard, what did I expect? Not well-thought out global technology pieces, that's for sure.

Social Contract Theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. REF

Hobbes argues that we will do ANYTHING to avoid the State of Nature and will always, rationally, pick absolute authority.

I can not be told better, from the same article:

According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in oneâ(TM)s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Lockeâ(TM)s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

Humans are essentially free, and were free in the State of Nature, but the âprogress' of civilization has substituted subservience to others for that freedom, through dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves through comparisons with others. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the purpose of politics is to restore freedom to us, thereby reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together. So, this is the fundamental philosophical problem that The Social Contract seeks to address: how can we be free and live together? Or, put another way, how can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others? We can do so, Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the collective or general will, created through agreement with other free and equal persons. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, and in contrast to the ancient philosophers, all men are made by nature to be equals, therefore no one has a natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements or covenants.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison on Shay's Rebellion (a violent opposition by ~1200 farmers regarding free trade agreements with Spain on the Mississippi River. Farmers feared the agreement would affirm sovereignty of Spanish traders):

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. REF

In another letter criticizing the (not yet ratified) constitution:

I do not like... the omission of a bill of r

You fail it.

See http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jefferson.html for info on Jefferson and patents. Note in particular:

"Jefferson, a strong proponent of equality among all people, was not sure if it was fair or even constitutional to grant what was essentially a monopoly to an inventor, who would then be able to grant the use of his idea only to those who could afford it. His feeling that all should have total access to new technology was one of the reasons he never took out a patent on his own inventions."

Why do so many American think that their government can be easily overthrown by a rabble with guns?

It's a penis thing... And they don't know history.

Everyone in this country has the same opportunity I had. I grew up dirt poor, worked my ass off and made a nice life for myself and my family. I didn't get crap handed to me, I earned it. Why should you or anyone be able to tell me I have to give my money to someone who doesn't work to get what they want? If you can't succeed in the US it is because you're lazy, period. Not because you don't have chances, that is what this country was built on. I did it with a GED and a felony conviction (x4). So don't give me your bleeding heart liberal crap about giving people chances. When you come talking about taking my money out of my family and give to someone else then you are violating what this country was built on. You are hurting my pursuit of happiness, my liberty and my life. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

Yes, it's true that some individual people do benefit from business process and software patents, but they do nothing to encourage innovation. In fact, they end up stifling innovation. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, not stifle it.

Do you actually believe this? Patents, from the very beginning, were devised to protect existing technology. Vested interests write the law, not some non-existent altruistic ideal handed down from the heavens.

Yes because patents were meant to encourage progress. Originally Thomas Jefferson, who didn't like corporations, opposed patents however his friend James Madison convinced him they could encourage progress.

The original intent of copyright law was to help stimulate scientific and artistic development by protecting an artist's initial investment, not to provide them income for the rest of their lives.

The first Copyright Act in 1790 only provided protection for 14 years:

How do you get from 14 to 95???

Uh no, sorry. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/copyright/ (with photographic proof) Original copyright law was 14 years, extendable one time for an additional 14 years. The original penalty for violation of the copyright law was, turn over the infringing material to the copyright holder for them to destroy, and pay 50 cents per page you had to turn over. The act was signed by George Washington and went into effect in 1790, and DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL until 1891 when copyright protections were granted to non-citizens. Currently, copyright does not expire until 70 years after the death of the creator. Research has been done to suggest that 12-14 year copyrights are optimal, as it allows the creator to get a bunch of money out of it, and then after it goes out of print due to lack of salability (NES games?), it returns to the public domain relatively quickly so anyone interested can get ahold of it. This is how it should be, but its not.

"ou really ought to read the Constitution before you comment on it, you know. It only grants Congress the power (though not the requirement) 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". It in no way mentions "intellectual property"."

Oh, I've read it. I have also read any number of Supreme Court decisions that interpret that and related aspects of the Constitution. The US Constitution is a living animal. Lots of things that don't necessarily compute as "property" are called such by the Supreme Court, on a Constitutional basis. One of these things is IP. You can play games with the exact wording all you want, but the passage you quote gave the right to create Intellectual Property as we know it, AND, once that right has been granted it becomes a PROPERTY RIGHT in the same vein as the land you live on. Property rights cannot be revoked by the Government without Due Process -- which is where the 4th Amendment comes in... etc.

"The authorized copyrights and patents are nothing like land deeds, which are 1) issued by states, 2) perpetual, 3) issuable to anyone, not just "authors and inventors" (I didn't create the land my house is on, after all) and 4) not are required to promote the public good. This is because the framers had the good common sense to understand that ideas are not like physical property."

#1 is not really correct -- maybe a piece of paper is issued by the state government giving you deed to the land, BUT, the RIGHTS to that land are protected by the Federal Government in the 4th and 14th Amendments.

#3 is not entirely correct -- gaining land possession through squatters rights is a parallel to "authors and inventors" (you build on the land and live there and it becomes yours). Besides, the IP rights are transferrable.

#4 is entirely false -- while the constitution may not describe real property as "for the public good," they also certainly didn't feel that it was necessary to do so. It was to be understood. They went out of their way to protect those property rights through the various due process procedures mentioned. Additionally, (once again) the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto writes extensibly about how the public good is served by strong protection of property rights.

Nonetheless, the parallel isn't really to be drawn on a direct basis -- the similarities are in what YOUR RIGHTS to the property are designed (and do) accomplish (and the means for those rights to be sold, leased, shared, etc.).

Jefferson may not have believed that Ideas could be property, but he did support the concept of Patent Rights for the same reasons that I do: to encourage invention through financial incentive. "Jefferson, always the scientist, warmed to his duties and became more open to the idea of patents when he saw how many inventors put forth their ideas as a result of the new system of protection, claiming that "it had given spring to invention beyond my conception. " (cited)

As for Dowling, I would mostly agree with the decision in that case. Theft, in regard to copyright and other forms of IP would usually occur when someone else undertook an enterprise to PROFIT from your IP. The rights are not related to the physical media that may contain the IP, but rather to the idea itself. From your own link: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." As I've said, the SCOTUS recognizes IP as property.

In this case, they found that an illegally-made copy of a copyrighted work doesn't equate to run-of-the-mill theft. The man, Dowling was convicted of multiple counts of interstate transportation of stolen property. This was overturned on appeal (obviously) on the grounds that the copyright infringement did not equate to run-of-the-mill theft or conversion (most likely because the

"ou really ought to read the Constitution before you comment on it, you know. It only grants Congress the power (though not the requirement) 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". It in no way mentions "intellectual property"." Oh, I've read it. I have also read any number of Supreme Court decisions that interpret that and related aspects of the Constitution. The US Constitution is a living animal. Lots of things that don't necessarily compute as "property" are called such by the Supreme Court, on a Constitutional basis. One of these things is IP. You can play games with the exact wording all you want, but the passage you quote gave the right to create Intellectual Property as we know it, AND, once that right has been granted it becomes a PROPERTY RIGHT in the same vein as the land you live on. Property rights cannot be revoked by the Government without Due Process -- which is where the 4th Amendment comes in... etc. "The authorized copyrights and patents are nothing like land deeds, which are 1) issued by states, 2) perpetual, 3) issuable to anyone, not just "authors and inventors" (I didn't create the land my house is on, after all) and 4) not are required to promote the public good. This is because the framers had the good common sense to understand that ideas are not like physical property." #1 is not really correct -- maybe a piece of paper is issued by the state government giving you deed to the land, BUT, the RIGHTS to that land are protected by the Federal Government in the 4th and 14th Amendments. #3 is not entirely correct -- gaining land possession through squatters rights is a parallel to "authors and inventors" (you build on the land and live there and it becomes yours). Besides, the IP rights are transferrable. #4 is entirely false -- while the constitution may not describe real property as "for the public good," they also certainly didn't feel that it was necessary to do so. It was to be understood. They went out of their way to protect those property rights through the various due process procedures mentioned. Additionally, (once again) the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto writes extensibly about how the public good is served by strong protection of property rights. Nonetheless, the parallel isn't really to be drawn on a direct basis -- the similarities are in what YOUR RIGHTS to the property are designed (and do) accomplish (and the means for those rights to be sold, leased, shared, etc.). Jefferson may not have believed that Ideas could be property, but he did support the concept of Patent Rights for the same reasons that I do: to encourage invention through financial incentive. "Jefferson, always the scientist, warmed to his duties and became more open to the idea of patents when he saw how many inventors put forth their ideas as a result of the new system of protection, claiming that "it had given spring to invention beyond my conception. " (cited) As for Dowling, I would mostly agree with the decision in that case. Theft, in regard to copyright and other forms of IP would usually occur when someone else undertook an enterprise to PROFIT from your IP. The rights are not related to the physical media that may contain the IP, but rather to the idea itself. From your own link: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." As I've said, the SCOTUS recognizes IP as property. In this case, they found that an illegally-made copy of a copyrighted work doesn't equate to run-of-the-mill theft. The man, Dowling was convicted of multiple counts of interstate transportation of stolen property. This was overturned on appeal (obviously) on the grounds that the copyright infringement did not equate to run-of-the-mill theft or conversion (most likely because the copyright owner was never actually dispossessed of those r

Silly me, if I had just had the foresight to use google before posting this, I would have found this page:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

My apologies for clogging up the forum and thanks to Jim Walker for his essay!

The Articles of Confederation did exist from 1777 to 1788 and however strongly oriented towards the independence and power of the states does include language like this:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce...

The Constitutional language is sparse:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. Article I Section 9

The suspension of habeas corpus is a policy decision - a decision to be made by the legislature and the executive in a time of great danger. The writ remains as it has always been - a "privilege" and not a "right."

Maybe you should actually read your link. The text you quote is the "complete text of the original twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution", which does not appear in the final passed ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the wording you quote was something which was ultimately rejected by the framers.

Not a great basis for the rest of your rant.

The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans

No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, then:

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons."

Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789. Amazing! And those bastards in Washington have just ignored this fundamental right of South Africans, Samoans, Libyans and Mongolians since the very founding of the Republic. Most of the planet has been disenfranchised for the last 220 years, apparently.

Not only that...did you notice they didn't make a distinction between criminals and free citizens? So all felons worldwide -- Nazi war criminals, Stalin's secret policemen, Pol Pot and his henchmen, Idi Amin's murdering thugs, and South African apartheidists -- have always been entitled to vote in American elections, too.

For that matter, they didn't make a distinction between adults and children, either! So this business of not letting people vote until they're old enough to, say, read and write, is totally unconstitutional.

Although...I suppose a cynic might say that the context of the Bill of Rights matters, and that only an idiot would assume the "persons" the document addresses are meant to be understood as all people everywhere, anytime as opposed to, say, the "people" specifically addressed in the opening sentence ("We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...")

"press" as defined under federal law is extremely broadly defined.

Given how influential Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlets were in spreading the movement towards the Revolution, I would think that one sided, heavy handed, idealogical rantings would be Constitutionally protected. DailyKos is the modern day equivalent of the political pamphlet, and should be protected as such. If there is going to be any kind of strong Democratic leadership/ideology to emerge places like the DailyKos are going to be important in sorting out a unified Democratic vision. Right now the only thing they have going for them is that they aren't the Republicans. That lack of cohesiveness and vision is how Kerry lost in 2004.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestone s/commonsense/

If I take something from you against your will, that isn't a free market. That is anarchy.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

Today everyone can (in general) create a copy of any information completely on his own, because even the cost of generating the master copy is fastly approaching zero. With scanners, photocopiers, burners, computers and the thorough digitalizing of any information you can get information in any form you like, and you are instantly able to create a master copy which in turn can be copied without limit. Today everyone is a printing press owner (ok... some people have still to rent it in a copy shop or internet cafe), and the necessity to sell some of your copies afterwards to pay for your initial costs has disappeared. People who have to get paid for operating a printing press to earn a living are in competition with billions of people who don't need payment for it, but can also operate a printing press. Thus the very base of copyright has disappeared. The competitor of the printing press owner is no longer in danger to get bankrupt just because the first printing press owner starts to copy the same works of art. The treat of mutual destruction has dissappeared and thus the finely spun system of copyrights and licenses is hollow and no longer based on economics, there is just some morality left in it. From an economic point of view paying a creator for his work of art is now purely voluntarily, because no one can force you with economic means (e.g. the treat of competing with you).

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;

I note that anonymous cowards are the only persons who tend to reply to these posts.

The coward posting the parent has obviously not read any history. Similar things have happened in the US and we have teetered on the edge of outright dictatorship a number of times. I would point out the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that were passed by the President's party and signed by the President in a time of "crisis" where it was felt that the United States would soon have to defend itself in a war with France. The Sedition Act of 1918 was passed by the President's own party and signed by the President during a time of actual war.

What you are assuming is that I am arguing for a Democratic or Republican cause. I suppose I could say I have never been a Federalist, having not lived back in the 1700s. And I am not sure if I am a Woodrow Wilson Democrat, not having lived in World War I and knowing that the Democratic Party back then stood for things that today's Democratic Party does not stand for, including racial segregation, Jim Crow laws in the South and other beliefs not tolerated in today's society.

What I am talking about is how a particular party overreaches when it sees no impediment to its power. In this case, the Republican Party has given the Executive Branch incredible power to violate the individual civil liberties of any person, whether citizen or non-citizen for its own ends without any check from another branch of government, including the Judiciary. In fact, if you read the law setting up the tribunals, these military courts have no relation to civilian courts and there is no provision for an appeal to any civilian court (something that an ordinary private or seaman does have under our military court system -- though rarely used).

Furthermore, when I speak of a political party, I am also referring to my father's comment, equating the actions of one political party in power in the US with the actions of one political party in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. When it comes right down to it, John Adams was handed the same extraordinary power to go after anyone he didn't like with impunity -- just as Hitler did. This gave Adams absolute dictatorial power over Americans as well as foreign nationals living in the country in the same way that the law currently gives GW Bush absolute power to imprison, detain, torture and hold any person he can lay his hands on and call "enemy combatant."

I am as troubled by this as I am of Woodrow Wilson's powers as stated in the Sedition Act of 1918 and for the same reason: It is an agressive challenge to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution -- something these Presidents and the members of Congress who passed these laws have sworn to uphold, protect and defend.

Now, I realize the poster was just "shooting from the hip," but a clear, dispassionate consideration here is urged.

I note that anonymous cowards are the only persons who tend to reply to these posts.

The coward posting the parent has obviously not read any history. Similar things have happened in the US and we have teetered on the edge of outright dictatorship a number of times. I would point out the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that were passed by the President's party and signed by the President in a time of "crisis" where it was felt that the United States would soon have to defend itself in a war with France. The Sedition Act of 1918 was passed by the President's own party and signed by the President during a time of actual war.

What you are assuming is that I am arguing for a Democratic or Republican cause. I suppose I could say I have never been a Federalist, having not lived back in the 1700s. And I am not sure if I am a Woodrow Wilson Democrat, not having lived in World War I and knowing that the Democratic Party back then stood for things that today's Democratic Party does not stand for, including racial segregation, Jim Crow laws in the South and other beliefs not tolerated in today's society.

What I am talking about is how a particular party overreaches when it sees no impediment to its power. In this case, the Republican Party has given the Executive Branch incredible power to violate the individual civil liberties of any person, whether citizen or non-citizen for its own ends without any check from another branch of government, including the Judiciary. In fact, if you read the law setting up the tribunals, these military courts have no relation to civilian courts and there is no provision for an appeal to any civilian court (something that an ordinary private or seaman does have under our military court system -- though rarely used).

Furthermore, when I speak of a political party, I am also referring to my father's comment, equating the actions of one political party in power in the US with the actions of one political party in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. When it comes right down to it, John Adams was handed the same extraordinary power to go after anyone he didn't like with impunity -- just as Hitler did. This gave Adams absolute dictatorial power over Americans as well as foreign nationals living in the country in the same way that the law currently gives GW Bush absolute power to imprison, detain, torture and hold any person he can lay his hands on and call "enemy combatant."

I am as troubled by this as I am of Woodrow Wilson's powers as stated in the Sedition Act of 1918 and for the same reason: It is an agressive challenge to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution -- something these Presidents and the members of Congress who passed these laws have sworn to uphold, protect and defend.

Now, I realize the poster was just "shooting from the hip," but a clear, dispassionate consideration here is urged.

I find Independents the most level headed. They used to working with others and don't have an US vs THEM mentality, since they would be completely isolated themselves. There are people on both sides that are shrill and deafening.

As Washington warned against the party system. "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestone s/farewell/

One good arguement I've heard is that the Bill of Rights were added on to explicitly provide for rights that were not clearly stated in the Constitution. All Amendments except the second have been argued by everybody as being individual. So, if nine are individual, then why would the second not be? And, the other nine deal with stemming the excesses of Government against the individual--which is the very issue raised here with the wiretap lawsuit. Wouldn't the private ownership of firearms also serve in that capacity?

If I want to make it public domain and publish it on my website, that's my decision too. It's reasonable, and quite frankly moral, for my wishes regarding my work to be respected.

Only for 28 years.

I couldn't agree more. I get so tired of the "You're being paranoid" responses when you try and oppose something that on the surface seems reasonable. The creep effect of censorships is the most difficult thing to overcome.

if you think it's all hooey read up about the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/se dition/

One of the first laws our country ever passed made unpopular political speech illegal...

reminds me of that very old ben franklin engraving - join or die.

That's all we know for sure? One of the greatest theologians ever, who understood Jesus' message and Christianity extremely well and explained aspects of it in letters to many different churches "was familiar with the story of the tomb"? Is that really all you'll give him credit for?

Pretty much.

First, Paul's talent as a theologian isn't at issue. What is at issue is this: What is the source of his teachings?

As you well know, Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Instead, he claims to have had a vision in which Christ appeared to him and told him to preach the gospel. Paul wasn't one of the twelve apostles, and in fact had a fractious relationship with them. As a believer, you have to work under the assumption that modern Christianity is correct. So Paul has to be an authentic source of teachings, and therefore couldn't have been an interloper trying to reshape Christianity to fit his own views.

I'm under no such compulsion, so you would have to demonstrate some reasons for me to believe that Paul was simply expounding the message of Christ, instead of co-opting it.

You misrepresent what I said when you ask, "Is that all you give him credit for?" I said that Paul demonstrates little familiarity

Oh, so DeGrasse's blockade of the Chesapeake that prevented Cornwallis from getting reinforcements or escaping from Yorktown didn't happen?

You know, I always get a kick out of how our efforts to create a sane society can lead to insanity. A morally bankrupt cretin can screw you to the wall, with the law on their side. If you find this outrageous, and use a little bad language, you end up on the wrong side of the law, and can find yourself fined and/or in prison.

Outrage and indignation do not in and of themselves connote insanity, and acting on those impulses does not automatically constitute unethical behavior. How do you think revolutions are started?

Jefferson's thoughts about Shay's Rebellion provide an interesting perspective.

It's funny that I made this long post about the reasoning behind patents and the benefits, and made a small side comment about "No benefits of trade secrets except the inventors pocketbook", which was not meant in any way to be part of the argument of the rest of post. And yet you've kept harping on it as some fundamental point. It was a short little side comment. For the record (again): Yes, in the context of the current patent system avoiding a patent can have economic benefits for the consumers because they are expensive. This is not an argument against patents as a concept, it is an argument against patenting in the currently implemented system.

Now that that topic is (hopefully) over with, and the real issue of the merit of the concept of patents can be looked at, you've provided no counter-argument. All you've said is:

"No matter -- I still disagree with the reasoning. What you call a "reason", I call blatent self-entitlement to the property of others. The kind of thing thieves do -- it's just that these particular thieves were in power when they did it, so it's supposed to be a 'good thing.' "

This is not an argument, it just says that you disagree (for some reason) with the reasoning that incentive (in the form of a limited time monopoly) for public dissemination of inventions is not conducive to promoting progress. Why you would disagree with that I'm not sure. Again, this is not my reasoning you are disagreeing with, it is the reasoning (and experience, as discussed below) of those who came up with the patenting system. Why you think secrets are better at promoting progress than publication is something I can't understand, and you haven't provided any argument. But that's your prerogative.

As far the comment about "thieves in power", I hope you have read the works of Thomas Jefferson. He long toiled over patents. He hated them, and realized the unnaturalness of a monopoly over an idea. But he also realized they were a necessary evil because of "the power they had to encourage invention". This was a man widely known for his views on democracy and equality, and was a true humanitarian. I really hope you do not think he was a thief with power bent on "blatent self-entitlement to the property of others".

People have long toiled over this problem and have seen what patents can do when implemented correctly. These are people interested in the most benefit to society, and not to themselves. You probably also think I'm self-interested and greedy in my support for the concept of patents, but I have no patents nor any plans to obtain any. But I do understand the reason behind them and the rampant ignorance in society about why they exist and why they are the lesser of two evils. We are better off with patents, properly implemented, than without. I'm very much for patent reform; the current situation is insane. But it is a result of poor implementation, not the concept of patents as a whole.

This might be a good place to bring up the old suggestion that anything out of print for a year become public domain. A newspaper publisher could then maintain their copyright by setting up a method of reprinting old issues. But most of them wouldn't find this lucrative enough, and would just let the copyright expire. Then the LoC could include most newspapers after a year.

While I approve the impulse, I think this would be a nightmare to maintain, particularly if the "expire after a year" idea was applied to all copyrighted material. If applied to books, that means that anything that is not successful enough to need reprinting every year would soon go out of copyright, thereby making it much more difficult for anyone to even make a pretense at supporting themselves through writing. Our very first copyright legislation, the Copyright Act of 1790 provided a term of 14 years, extensible to 26 on application; that's how long the founding fathers (many of whom were in Congress at that point) felt was necessary to adequately fulfill the Constitution's requirement to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in Section 8 Clause 8. You could argue that they were just copying the Statute of Anne (1710) which set forth the same period of protection for copyrighted works; but I would argue that if they had felt that a longer or shorter period of coverage was required, they'd have changed it. Anyway, having the copyright expire after one year out of print would drastically reduce the coverage period of any work that failed to stimulate instant and ongoing demand.

Furthermore, how would we apply "out of print" to works that are copyrighted but never printed? Take software. You can download programs that are years old -- shareware, old open source stuff, etc -- long after the original copyright holder has lost all interest in the program. Is that "in print" or not?

All that said, I can see you reason for wanting to apply such a rule specifically to newspapers, and perhaps to other current-events publications whose value declines rapidly with age (news magazines, etc). If the rule was limited to those sorts of publications, I guess I'd support it. Though I should point out that leaving those sorts of things under copyright for a somewhat longer period of time has two benefits: recycling material from an old article that is copyrighted is plagiarism; but doing so from a public domain article is perfectly kosher. Letting the news into the wild too soon might serve to decrease the originality of the news, particularly in opinion pieces. Second, some article writers sell their articles to multiple publications over time. It is sometimes easier to re-sell an article once it's been out of the public view for a while. Therefore, in order to protect the livelihoods of struggling writers, it would be better to give them a longer grace period before the work goes public domain.

One of the very real problems with copyright law is that it allows publishers to "capture" our history and prevent access to some of the most important primary documents.

I agree. I just think that your solution has a lot of side-effects that would need to be carefully weighed and balanced before it was put into effect.

Everything is reproducable once you've seen it. Thats the whole idea behind patents.

Apparently Jefferson disagreed with you:

From the Economist:
PATENTS, said Thomas Jefferson, should draw "a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not."

And this:
Jefferson, a strong proponent of equality among all people, was not sure if it was fair or even constitutional to grant what was essentially a monopoly to an inventor, who would then be able to grant the use of his idea only to those who could afford it. His feeling that all should have total access to new technology was one of the reasons he never took out a patent on his own inventions. This is consistent in his belief in the natural right of all mankind to share useful improvements without restraints. He felt that inventions can not, in nature, be a subject of property and that the promiscuous granting of patents was not only against the theory of popular government, but would be pernicious in its consequences. (Curtis, 1901) In fact he referred to patents as "embarrassments to the public" (McLaughlin, 1989).

I find the influence of the Christian -right to be one of the scariest things facing America.

However, in paragraphs 17-25 of Washington's Farewell Address, Washington warns against the concepts of parties. And if the nation must indulge them, having the dominence of two parties foster the idea of vengence between the two that care tear the nation apart. And that parties them self foster a non inclusive feeling within citizens from their own government.

George Washington said that political parties "...serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Excerpted from his farewell address. I think he's right on every single point.

You are, perhaps, confusing a "representative" government with Democracy. Under Democracy, there is one man, one vote. That's it. The deciders of all outcomes are the people.

On a local level, I have lived within a democracy; a town in New England called Epping. Under the Town Charter we had representatives who would forward, for voter approval, a yearly budget. Most of that budget was taken up by the school, and tended to pass without much comment. Everyone in town wanted a decent education for their children and most parents tended to occasionally volunteer their time at the schools (a grammer school, a middle school and a secondary, or "high" school) and that tended to keep everyone who had children aware of whether or not there was a pencil or book shortage.

Then there was the 10% or so of town funds that went to everything else, from stop signs to road repairs to repainting of the Town Hall and so on. That was gone over line item by line item with factions warring over dollar amounts like it was life or death.

It was cumbersome and we did have some really late nights but it was absolutely democratic.

If you live in the United Kingdom, I'm not sure you could call your country a Republic. And it's not really a "Constitutional Monarchy" because there is no real written Constitution. I'd call the UK system more of an "evolved" monarchy with some representative government based on the Parliamentary system and a House of Lords to stave things off a bit in a most un-representative manner. There is also the bit about "home rule" for Scotland and Wales, as well as an attempt (sadly unsuccessful so far) at the same for Northern Ireland. The "home rule" aspect doesn't really have too much bearing on the strong centralized system in the House of Commons and the Executive that is derived from it.

Please don't mistake the Republican party for espousing a particular form of government. That's a name and so is the name Democratic (as in party). The "Democratic" party traces its roots back to Thomas Jefferson, who never referred to himself as a "democrat," that word -- being associated with Jacobism in Revolutionary France -- was an epithet or a slur. He considered the form of government he espoused to be "republican."

The party which opposed Jefferson was out of New England, mostly, and was known as The Federalist Party. They completely lost their standing with the voters in the United States when they passed, and their President, John Adams signed The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and proceeded to establish a standing army to enforce them and other dictates of the Adams administration.

Because King George had sent a standing army over to the Colonies in order to enforce his unpopular acts only a few years prior to Adams' actions, the Federalist party very quickly lost power and was pretty much dissolved by 1810.

The next party to challenge the party of Jefferson was the Whig Party, which became pretty well established by 1830. It stood for protectionist tarrifs on imports, the use of money derived from the sale of Federal lands (in our territories and new States) for the improvement of those selfsame States and territories, like for road systems and levees and dams to prevent flooding. They also favored the creation of a new Bank of the United States.

Slavery became an issue by 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act divided the party even further. Disaffected Whigs like Abraham Lincoln started a new party and called themselves Republicans. Their initial platform was to oppose slavery and to oppose the dissolution of the Republic (the Union), which was being threatened by Southern States.

I would suggest that the "Republican" party, as founded by those ex-Whigs is dead, dying when Reconstruction was stopped during the Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes did not win the Electoral College or the popular vote. Hayes's election depended upon contested electoral votes in Louisi

Actually, the second progressive party in the US was the Republican Party if you define "liberal" in the way I define it (a liberal government must stand for re-election periodically and is generally and genuinely representative of the will of the voting public; the franchise is not restricted by law or custom). They were so progressive that they broke from the former party, which was the party of the moneyed elite and the banking interests in favor of human rights.

That would be the party of Lincoln.

The first progressive party was, of course, the party of Jefferson who would suggest that, at this point, the US is overdue for another revolution, complete with spilled blood. He would have considered what went on in the late 1960s and early 1970s to be a revolution that didn't quite take hold.

Jefferson opposed the Federalists, who wanted more centralized power, so much so that they passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which look a whole lot to me like the "Patriot" act of 2002. Jefferson was elected by a landslide over one-term John Adams, who signed the bill, because the public felt that the Federalists were trying to install a military dictatorship.

It was a near-run thing in my estimation.

The progressive stance of the Republicans was wholly ended by "Rutherfraud" B. Hayes, whose election was through Congress, not through the Electoral College. Congress, in this previous election must have let out a huge sigh of relief when the Supreme Court decided to ignore the Constitution and select Bush as President.

Much to the chagrin of most Republicans, Theodore Roosevelt assumed the Presidency upon the death of William McKinley and introduced progressive reforms in the United States during his Presidency.

So there is a history of progressive measures taken by Republicans.

I would assert that the Republican Party is no more. They have gone the way of the Federalist party and the Whigs in the Political scene. They have ceased to be but there are still those who call themselves Republicans without thinking too hard.

The Republican party that I grew up with was the Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. It was a moderate party that was capable of initiating detante with our neighbors as well as our "enemies." It was largely centrist and passed legislation that helped out normal Americans. It also tended to vote against spending that would break federal budgets.

These Republicans are the party of the extreme right only. They want to limit civil liberties. They want to make all entitlements go away by increasing Federal deficits to the point where the only way they can be paid for is by raising taxes -- something they wish to blame the other party on. They won't raise the taxes, they'll end the entitlements. These entitlements include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Aid to the Disabled, support for AIDS patients, all welfare programs.

They also want to allow big businesses unfettered access to "develop" land held by the US for prices that might have been charged for the land back in the 1830s. Never mind that this "development" strips the land of its current qualities and makes it into barren wasteland. This land held by the US is called "National Parks" and was set aside by Theodore Roosevelt (you will remember, he was a Republican, but a Progressive).

They also want former lobbyists in charge of enforcing federal laws regulating the very businesses they used to work for. After all, who better to understand these businesses then those familiar with their struggle against government regulations, right?

They also want to give your tax money to churches so that they can take over the role of teaching our children and serving the poor and needy and disabled (because the government is getting out of that business, you know). That way, in order for us to receive

I suppose the Republican spin on a massive surge in the number of page loads will be that their websites have gained incredible popularity.

In an attempt to close down one political party's ability to get the word out, one political party and its President were thrown out of office by the majority of Americans who did not like the idea that free speech and freedom of the press ought to be limited.