There are many hidden assumptions here.
ET is interested in talking with us
ET is interested in Planets
ET is carbon based.
Is it possible we a just too dumb or dangerous to bother with. Do we need to wait until we genetically engineer ourselves?
ET may have had bad experiences with other species and decided to hide. His com system may be point to point so as not to give away their existance.
Once ET can create space habitats why would they be interested in planets.
Carbon is good for encoding information in long strings and water is a carbon solvent. There are 46 relatively complex chromosomes. Is it possible to produce life with thousands of small chromosomes. Are there liquids that act as solvents for these chemical?
The whole argument about fair use is begging the question (have you stopped beating your wife, implies that you did beat your wife). Ideas like speech are inherently free. They may be limited under the Constitution under very special circumstances and for specific reasons. But when talking about one's constitutional rights it might help to look at that clause, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8
[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;
It seems that what this clause does is limit the power that Congress has to grant exclusive rights to writings and discoveries not eliminate ones rights to information. These Congressional limitations include
A need to demonstrate that the limitation will promote progress in science and the useful arts.
That the time is limited. (if the idea is obsolete before the protection expires the time is unlimited)
These exclusive rights are only for authors and inventors, rights can't be assigned to other.
It would also seem that anything not limited by law can be shared. In other words there is an implied fair use that except in limited circumstances everything is freely available to copy either in full or part. It would seem that any work for hire is excluded from protection. It is also interesting that since recordings (either audio or video) were not around at that time they are not mentioned. Since the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Congress the authority to secure for a limited time the rights to recorded material any such law would be unconstitutional.
Clearly this is a radical departure from the current state of affairs but I'm not sure how after reading the United States Constitution many of the current laws (bought and paid for by some very powerful Intellectual Property holders) can stand.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many hidden assumptions here. ET is interested in talking with us ET is interested in Planets ET is carbon based. Is it possible we a just too dumb or dangerous to bother with. Do we need to wait until we genetically engineer ourselves? ET may have had bad experiences with other species and decided to hide. His com system may be point to point so as not to give away their existance. Once ET can create space habitats why would they be interested in planets. Carbon is good for encoding information in long strings and water is a carbon solvent. There are 46 relatively complex chromosomes. Is it possible to produce life with thousands of small chromosomes. Are there liquids that act as solvents for these chemical?
The whole argument about fair use is begging the question (have you stopped beating your wife, implies that you did beat your wife). Ideas like speech are inherently free. They may be limited under the Constitution under very special circumstances and for specific reasons. But when talking about one's constitutional rights it might help to look at that clause, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 [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; It seems that what this clause does is limit the power that Congress has to grant exclusive rights to writings and discoveries not eliminate ones rights to information. These Congressional limitations include A need to demonstrate that the limitation will promote progress in science and the useful arts. That the time is limited. (if the idea is obsolete before the protection expires the time is unlimited) These exclusive rights are only for authors and inventors, rights can't be assigned to other. It would also seem that anything not limited by law can be shared. In other words there is an implied fair use that except in limited circumstances everything is freely available to copy either in full or part. It would seem that any work for hire is excluded from protection. It is also interesting that since recordings (either audio or video) were not around at that time they are not mentioned. Since the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Congress the authority to secure for a limited time the rights to recorded material any such law would be unconstitutional. Clearly this is a radical departure from the current state of affairs but I'm not sure how after reading the United States Constitution many of the current laws (bought and paid for by some very powerful Intellectual Property holders) can stand.