Your original post said "if Congress so wishes", hinting that Congress could simply decide not to grant a patent/copyright on the color of your shoes of if they had oatmeal for breakfast or whatever. That is what I was referring to... I said "MERE WHIM".
I would love to hear why even outrageously discriminatory copyright grants would violate the Fourth Amendment.
I could see it being considered a seizure. Granted, it's a little bit of a stretch, but I can see making the argument.
There is no 'Capitalism'. There is classical Liberalism, and there are other 'systems' that depart from it in degree, some more than others.
OK. That was just silly. "Capitalism" would be one of those "other systems" that you mention.
Classical Liberalism (free market) economics is far better than what we have now, but it has its limits and there is a happy medium between the excesses of our current system and those of the TRULY Free Market. There should be some limited governmental regulation, but NOTHING to the degree we see today in the US.
Agreed. But there should be a limit on how long people can "sit" on an invention. If after 5 years, you've made little or no progress to get it out to the public, the patent should be revoked.
For copyrights, I'd be willing to extend that 5 year limit a little because you can't put too short of a timer on creativity. But yes, once it is released to the public, the copyright should be finished in 10 years, maybe 15.
But for patents, once it's released to the public (RtP), 5-10 years max. Software should be shorter (maybe a max of 5 years from RtP) since software changes so fast.
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
There is no Constitutional *mandate* to grant copyrights and patents at all, but once Congress chooses to allow even one copyright or patent, they must do so on grounds that are fair and equitable for everyone.
Congress cannot merely grant copyrights and patents to whomever they choose based on mere whim. That would violate so many Constitutional provisions... Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause. There may be more, but that would be sufficient for someone to force Congress to apply their copyright/patent rules fairly to everyone.
Article 1, Section 8 says:... "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
A copyright that lasts for 200 years (or even 20 years in our modern society may be too long... 10 years, I think is OK) is NOT conducive to progress.
Translation: they knew it was wrong, but did it anyway to serve their personal interests. Just like Bush and every other politician before and after.
::sigh:: There is no doubt that the Southern delegates to the convention were serving their own self-interests, but it is unfair in the extreme to attribute their actions to the entirety of the Founding Fathers. Most of them were opposed to slavery, but the decision was either accept it for the time or not have a Constitution at all, continue to descend into chaos and lose everything they won in the war. It was a trade-off... we got the Constitution, which gave the country stability (in a very chaotic time) and remains the greatest political document every created. In return, we had to accept that certain people were going to continue an immoral and horrible practice. Or would you rather we divided on this issue to begin with?
The anti-slavery faction at the convention fought over this issue for months and months. It was no easy decision and they agonized over the decision the entire time. It was so divisive that the convention was on the verge of failure a number of times. You do a disservice to these great men who sacrificed so much to give us the freedom we enjoy today when you equate what they did with what modern politicians do. They were statesmen... we haven't had a statements in a LONG time.
Worst possible course of action ? By actually enforcing the law he had sworn to protect ?
First off, let me say... Yes, the North had the moral high ground on the slavery issue. But there is a right way to accomplish something and a wrong way. The north treated the south as subordinate states and did serious damage to the Federalist traditions of this nation. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of treating the south as equals and coming to some agreement that would eliminate slavery peacefully, the north passed unilateral legislation that unfairly burdened the south. The south did not secede on a whim, they were given good cause to secede. Lincoln only exacerbated an already tense situation.
We could debate the simplicity and clarity of the document, but I have no interest in doing so at this time. I will just state that I actually think it is remarkably simple and clear if it is interpreted as a limiting document. If it is interpreted as a document that merely grants power, then it gets all sorts of confusing. People often think that the only limits on the Federal Government are those laid out in the Bill of Rights. It's sad.
As for the slave issue, this country was on the verge of collapse just a few years after the War of Independence... we NEEDED a Constitution or we would crumble and be conquered by another nation. The Founding Fathers recognized these very real dangers and so compromised with the South on the issue to accomplish the more urgent need. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers recognized that allowing slavery was hypocritical and wrong, but they left it to another generation to resolve. Of all possible solutions to the problem, Lincoln chose the worst course of action. It's unfortunate, but it's over now, so we move forward.
It really irritates me when people point to the slavery issue to say that there was all sorts of confusion built into the Constitution. That is utterly bogus. Yes, the principles of the Individual Liberty are at odds with the principles of Slavery, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The rest of the Constitution makes perfect sense and it is deceptive to suggest otherwise.
If you ever hope to understand the Constitution, you must read it (and interpret it) in the context of the time and circumstances in which it was written (yes, I am *mostly* a contextualist), only when you understand what the document meant when it was written can you even begin to understand how it should be interpreted today.
If you're looking for consensus, you won't get it... So, study the issue and come up with your own interpretation and try to get others to accept it.
From my years of study on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that it merely meant that which, within the scope of the Federal Powers (laid out in the subsequent 17 paragraphs) and under the limitations placed upon the Federal Powers (laid out in Article 1, Section 9), was beneficial to the general public.
This should be contrasted with "Special (or Specific) Welfare", which is something that would only benefit one portion of the populace.
You have no clue what "General Welfare" means, do you? It doesn't mean "Do whatever the hell you want", which is how it is currently interpreted.
If it did mean "Do whatever the hell you want", then why have 17 follow-up paragraphs detailing exactly what congress can do? Why even give the illusion of states' rights if "General Welfare" means what you say it means?
Idiots like you are what ruin this nation. Go fuck up some other country.
I think what he's saying is that we need to know in what ways we would be using the technology, so it at least has an economically viable proposal. Jack Terrier crap is actually one of those viable proposals that would have to be figured into the whole process... but if all evidence points to very limited use, then we would just be wasting money on a fruitless endeavor. Prove to me that this is economically viable (however you want to do that), and then I'll willing hand over my money. The other way around is just bad business.
It has always been transferable, all the way back to the first real copyright law, the British Statute of Anne, in 1710, and in the first US copyright law, the 1790 Copyright Act. Remember, copyrights are not directly valuable to authors. They're basically publishing monopolies. The author makes money by selling the right, or licensing the right, to a publisher.
You are correct. A copyright is ownership of property, and just like all property, you cannot say to have all Rights to it unless you also have the Right of Transfer. Transferability is an essential element of true ownership.
I do not have a problem with transferring the right, I have a problem with indefinitely extending the right.
Ummmm.... No. Copyright is a government granted right given to you that prevents me from copying your stuff. You're mixing the EULA in with Constitutional Law. Never a good idea.
I would actually tend to agree that video games should not be pirated, but other products I do not have so much of a problem with. For instance, music and movies... Have you seen the commercial they put at the beginning of some movies where it has the stunt coordinator or some such schmuck talking about how piracy could cost him his job and make his kids go hungry. I don't buy it. Movie studios still own the copyrights on movies made 50, 60, 80 years ago. That is FAR too long for anyone to hold a copyright.
The Constitution gives Congress the 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"
But when people can "renew" these copyrights indefinitely, progress is not being promoted, but stifled.
Actually, we haven't noticed the marked difference in behavior when he simply watches TV. He can get a little cranky, but when he plays video games, he becomes more aggressive.
All I'm saying is that MY son responds that way and that other parents should be aware of the POSSIBILITY that your child is the same way. The point is: be OBSERVANT and don't think that every kid is going to react or behave in the same way... or even remotely similar ways.
Did you even read my post? He is mean and disrespectful when he plays video games and NOT mean and disrespectful. When he plays (as in plays outside, plays with toys, uses his brain playing... you know, play) he is very respectful.
I used two different definitions of the word "play" and thought/.ers would be able to determine which definition I was using.
As a parent of three children, I can say that I notice a marked difference in my children's behavior when they spend their free time playing video games. Video games detach you from the rest of the world and for little kids, that is not healthy. On those days that we let our 7 year old play video games, he responds more angrily to requests from both of his parents. On days where we make him (heaven forbid) PLAY, he is obedient and happy.
That being said, I'm a gamer, I think games are great, and I want to be able to enjoy playing games with my kids when they are older. But there is an appropriate way to do it and each parent needs to be observant about their kids behavior. If your kid has behavioral problems, try taking away video games and see if that's the cause. If your kid plays hours and hours of video games and is still the sweetest kid in town, then why change a good thing. It's all about parents being... PARENTS.
Do you really believe that Republicans and Democrats "balance" each other out? There is no "balance" in our political system. We have two "sides" both working for the same thing: MORE government intervention, MORE taxes, MORE unnecessary wars.
The only "balance" you can hope to find is in a third party because the two "major" parties are just one big party with two faces.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to hear why even outrageously discriminatory copyright grants would violate the Fourth Amendment.
I could see it being considered a seizure. Granted, it's a little bit of a stretch, but I can see making the argument.
There is no 'Capitalism'. There is classical Liberalism, and there are other 'systems' that depart from it in degree, some more than others.
OK. That was just silly. "Capitalism" would be one of those "other systems" that you mention.
Classical Liberalism (free market) economics is far better than what we have now, but it has its limits and there is a happy medium between the excesses of our current system and those of the TRULY Free Market. There should be some limited governmental regulation, but NOTHING to the degree we see today in the US.
For copyrights, I'd be willing to extend that 5 year limit a little because you can't put too short of a timer on creativity. But yes, once it is released to the public, the copyright should be finished in 10 years, maybe 15.
But for patents, once it's released to the public (RtP), 5-10 years max. Software should be shorter (maybe a max of 5 years from RtP) since software changes so fast.
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
There is no Constitutional *mandate* to grant copyrights and patents at all, but once Congress chooses to allow even one copyright or patent, they must do so on grounds that are fair and equitable for everyone.
Congress cannot merely grant copyrights and patents to whomever they choose based on mere whim. That would violate so many Constitutional provisions... Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause. There may be more, but that would be sufficient for someone to force Congress to apply their copyright/patent rules fairly to everyone.
This is the real issue...
Article 1, Section 8 says:... "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
A copyright that lasts for 200 years (or even 20 years in our modern society may be too long... 10 years, I think is OK) is NOT conducive to progress.
Capitalism is Murder.
We've talked about this before, but there is a difference between capitalism, and corporatism. The two are often confused.
What we have in America right now leans far more towards the Corporatism end of the spectrum, than true (pure) capitalism.
"abstinence"? How does not having sex help out in this situation? And it took her 10 days to recover?!? Who's she dating?
But they don't tend to use the PALMS of the hand for that activity... that is more typical of the masculine gender.
Translation: they knew it was wrong, but did it anyway to serve their personal interests. Just like Bush and every other politician before and after.
::sigh:: There is no doubt that the Southern delegates to the convention were serving their own self-interests, but it is unfair in the extreme to attribute their actions to the entirety of the Founding Fathers. Most of them were opposed to slavery, but the decision was either accept it for the time or not have a Constitution at all, continue to descend into chaos and lose everything they won in the war. It was a trade-off... we got the Constitution, which gave the country stability (in a very chaotic time) and remains the greatest political document every created. In return, we had to accept that certain people were going to continue an immoral and horrible practice. Or would you rather we divided on this issue to begin with?
The anti-slavery faction at the convention fought over this issue for months and months. It was no easy decision and they agonized over the decision the entire time. It was so divisive that the convention was on the verge of failure a number of times. You do a disservice to these great men who sacrificed so much to give us the freedom we enjoy today when you equate what they did with what modern politicians do. They were statesmen... we haven't had a statements in a LONG time.
Worst possible course of action ? By actually enforcing the law he had sworn to protect ?
First off, let me say... Yes, the North had the moral high ground on the slavery issue. But there is a right way to accomplish something and a wrong way. The north treated the south as subordinate states and did serious damage to the Federalist traditions of this nation. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of treating the south as equals and coming to some agreement that would eliminate slavery peacefully, the north passed unilateral legislation that unfairly burdened the south. The south did not secede on a whim, they were given good cause to secede. Lincoln only exacerbated an already tense situation.
As for the slave issue, this country was on the verge of collapse just a few years after the War of Independence... we NEEDED a Constitution or we would crumble and be conquered by another nation. The Founding Fathers recognized these very real dangers and so compromised with the South on the issue to accomplish the more urgent need. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers recognized that allowing slavery was hypocritical and wrong, but they left it to another generation to resolve. Of all possible solutions to the problem, Lincoln chose the worst course of action. It's unfortunate, but it's over now, so we move forward.
It really irritates me when people point to the slavery issue to say that there was all sorts of confusion built into the Constitution. That is utterly bogus. Yes, the principles of the Individual Liberty are at odds with the principles of Slavery, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The rest of the Constitution makes perfect sense and it is deceptive to suggest otherwise.
If you ever hope to understand the Constitution, you must read it (and interpret it) in the context of the time and circumstances in which it was written (yes, I am *mostly* a contextualist), only when you understand what the document meant when it was written can you even begin to understand how it should be interpreted today.
From my years of study on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that it merely meant that which, within the scope of the Federal Powers (laid out in the subsequent 17 paragraphs) and under the limitations placed upon the Federal Powers (laid out in Article 1, Section 9), was beneficial to the general public.
This should be contrasted with "Special (or Specific) Welfare", which is something that would only benefit one portion of the populace.
If it did mean "Do whatever the hell you want", then why have 17 follow-up paragraphs detailing exactly what congress can do? Why even give the illusion of states' rights if "General Welfare" means what you say it means?
Idiots like you are what ruin this nation. Go fuck up some other country.
Except for Canada... so... we've got the cannucks.
Either way, I'm saying there is a market there... just prove the viability before we start spending money.
I think what he's saying is that we need to know in what ways we would be using the technology, so it at least has an economically viable proposal. Jack Terrier crap is actually one of those viable proposals that would have to be figured into the whole process... but if all evidence points to very limited use, then we would just be wasting money on a fruitless endeavor. Prove to me that this is economically viable (however you want to do that), and then I'll willing hand over my money. The other way around is just bad business.
Is that what pretentious Brits call Aluminum?
Riiiight... it's the LAWYERS' fault... and it has nothing to do with people who just like to bitch and moan and want something for nothing.
It has always been transferable, all the way back to the first real copyright law, the British Statute of Anne, in 1710, and in the first US copyright law, the 1790 Copyright Act. Remember, copyrights are not directly valuable to authors. They're basically publishing monopolies. The author makes money by selling the right, or licensing the right, to a publisher.
You are correct. A copyright is ownership of property, and just like all property, you cannot say to have all Rights to it unless you also have the Right of Transfer. Transferability is an essential element of true ownership.
I do not have a problem with transferring the right, I have a problem with indefinitely extending the right.
Ummmm.... No. Copyright is a government granted right given to you that prevents me from copying your stuff. You're mixing the EULA in with Constitutional Law. Never a good idea.
The Constitution gives Congress the 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"
But when people can "renew" these copyrights indefinitely, progress is not being promoted, but stifled.
All I'm saying is that MY son responds that way and that other parents should be aware of the POSSIBILITY that your child is the same way. The point is: be OBSERVANT and don't think that every kid is going to react or behave in the same way... or even remotely similar ways.
I used two different definitions of the word "play" and thought /.ers would be able to determine which definition I was using.
The fact that it's a video game doing it isn't necessarily relevant.
But neither is it irrelevant. My point is that parents need to be paying attention and taking care of their kids emotional and mental well-being.
That being said, I'm a gamer, I think games are great, and I want to be able to enjoy playing games with my kids when they are older. But there is an appropriate way to do it and each parent needs to be observant about their kids behavior. If your kid has behavioral problems, try taking away video games and see if that's the cause. If your kid plays hours and hours of video games and is still the sweetest kid in town, then why change a good thing. It's all about parents being... PARENTS.
The only "balance" you can hope to find is in a third party because the two "major" parties are just one big party with two faces.
THAT is reality.