Art. 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature & their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding... years but for no longer term & no other purpose.
(There are more references in his letters and writings but I don't have it all at my fingertips.) A further point: since property rights were so essential to the founders, why did they have to have a separate clause for Copyright and Patent, if it were just another case of property? More evidence that the founders didn't consider Copyright and Patent to be property is the matter of the time limitation. Now, I'm assuming that you are familiar with the history of Western law concerning property. Let me ask you: what kind of property can only be owned for a limited period of time (the founders used a period of 14 years) before becoming public property? Would our founders have decided that, after 14 years, all farms would be taken from their owners and made public property? I think not. And this is the primary practical difference between property and monopoly rights: property is exclusively yours (and your heirs') FOREVER, a monopoly (in this case, an artificial one) is only yours for a short time. Why do you think that we have all these ridiculous extensions of Copyright term? It's because people have started to consider Copyright to be a property right (and property belongs to you FOREVER).
On a less practical and more logical note (but a much more meaningful one also) ideas cannot be owned. It simply doesn't make sense because the whole concept of ownership is wrapped up in the scarcity of resources. If someone takes my car, I'm deprived of its usage. If someone uses my idea, I'm NOT deprived of its usage--we can BOTH use the idea! And if that person tells someone else, they can use it too! It's great! (BTW, Jefferson also spoke about this somewhere--sorry can't track down the reference right now.)
In short, a good summary of Copyright and Patent would be: we're going to let you corner your market for a FEW (!) years but then you have to get the hell out of the way and give other people a chance.
Only if you take them both as absolutes, and believe that countries can't sign onto any international law treaties without giving up all of their sovereignty.
Does agreeing to abide by state and federal law mean that individuals give up all their individual rights and freedoms? No, of course not.
I never said it did. But it isn't quite that simple anyway: which local customs, morals, and rights are you willing to give up so that someone from the other side of the world can have what they think is right? Likewise, what are they going to give up and what are you going to gain?
Furthermore, what set of laws make sense in: Manhattan and Topeka and Mogadishu and London and Moscow and Tokyo and Jakarta and Mecca and in every other town? I submit to you that the set is empty. Even our own national legislature has gone to far in normalizing law. The Constitution originally gave local governments a lot more freedom to do what was right in their own jurisdiction than what is granted now. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been especially abused to exert illegal power on a national level, for example.
Well, there's the term 'paternalism'. Or possibly, 'corporatism'. (NOTE TO LEFTIST SLASHDOTTERS: corporatism does NOT mean 'favoring corporations'. It means union of public and private sector in one corpus (body).
2) Working another job, which makes it impossible to devote large amounts of time. Solution: see #1.
Wrong. There are people who have done exactly this. In fact, many great composers did other things to live. Most were performers who composed in their spare time. Antonio Vivaldi was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote music in his spare time. Mahler conducted for a living and wrote in his spare time. Charles Ives, one of the most intruiguing composers of the twentieth century, was a freaking *Insurance Salesman* for pete's sake!
Not only do we have these examples, but we also have examples of artists in other fields doing things like this in their spare time and producing great works of art.
What it comes down to is: how badly do you want to create art? If you want it enough, you'll do it in the time you have. You just have to cut out some of the other things (like vegetating in front of a television).
No software is ever 'owned'. In fact, no copyrighted work is 'owned'. The correct way of describing this is that a Copyright is 'held'. There's a good reason for this: Copyright is NOT a property right--it's a MONOPOLY right.
Hey, it worked wonders for our Founding Fathers; why not us as well?
Good try; but England of 1776 didn't have the technological resources that America of 2002 has.
Our Founding Fathers also had a lot more guts than we have now. Most people won't get off their comfy chair and leave their reruns of Friends to overthrow a rather prosperous society and start living like frontiersmen.
Oh, and last but not least, it's immoral. (Yes, it was immoral back then too.)
And the US is obviously not a rogue nation, because we respect international law.
We don't? Oh, then we're not a rogue nation because we respect other nations' sovereignty.
Has anyone ever noticed that national sovereignty and international law are mutually exclusive? This poster appears to be supporting both. When the rubber meets the road, where do most Slashdotters stand on this issue? I think they stand firmly on the side of international law. And that seriously scares me.
This is MY main problem with it. I use UNIX because I like it. Microsoft demonstrates absolutely no appreciation for the UNIX culture and history. In fact, they actively insult the UNIX community as often as they possibly can. I think that's why MOST of us don't like Windows.
The minute that a TV show becomes too hard to watch because I refuse to be anchored to my TV day and night is the minute that I stop watching TV.
For me, the minute that a TV show becomes intelligent, meaningful, and engaging enough for me to spend an hour watching it is the minute I start watching TV again.
Re:You know, every time I an article about the RIA
on
Web Radio and the RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Funny
How long does it take each morning to realize that your name is Paul and not John?
I completely agree. if there is an artist i like i go buy their cd to support them.
That would be pretty cool if the musicians actually got a share in the profit. With major record labels, they get very little of the profit. That's the REAL problem here.
Errr, can you explain how "They" (chills, fear, it's THEM--the evil miserly RICH!) are going to ruin the GPL by running Linux? Or did your class envy just cut off the circulation to your brain?
I don't understand why you have a problem with her statement.
I don't know about the original poster but my problem with it is that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Copyright and Patent are artificial monopoly rights rather than property rights.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this, a group project?
Sure. From a letter by Thomas Jefferson:
(There are more references in his letters and writings but I don't have it all at my fingertips.) A further point: since property rights were so essential to the founders, why did they have to have a separate clause for Copyright and Patent, if it were just another case of property? More evidence that the founders didn't consider Copyright and Patent to be property is the matter of the time limitation. Now, I'm assuming that you are familiar with the history of Western law concerning property. Let me ask you: what kind of property can only be owned for a limited period of time (the founders used a period of 14 years) before becoming public property? Would our founders have decided that, after 14 years, all farms would be taken from their owners and made public property? I think not. And this is the primary practical difference between property and monopoly rights: property is exclusively yours (and your heirs') FOREVER, a monopoly (in this case, an artificial one) is only yours for a short time. Why do you think that we have all these ridiculous extensions of Copyright term? It's because people have started to consider Copyright to be a property right (and property belongs to you FOREVER).
On a less practical and more logical note (but a much more meaningful one also) ideas cannot be owned. It simply doesn't make sense because the whole concept of ownership is wrapped up in the scarcity of resources. If someone takes my car, I'm deprived of its usage. If someone uses my idea, I'm NOT deprived of its usage--we can BOTH use the idea! And if that person tells someone else, they can use it too! It's great! (BTW, Jefferson also spoke about this somewhere--sorry can't track down the reference right now.)
In short, a good summary of Copyright and Patent would be: we're going to let you corner your market for a FEW (!) years but then you have to get the hell out of the way and give other people a chance.
Does agreeing to abide by state and federal law mean that individuals give up all their individual rights and freedoms? No, of course not.
I never said it did. But it isn't quite that simple anyway: which local customs, morals, and rights are you willing to give up so that someone from the other side of the world can have what they think is right? Likewise, what are they going to give up and what are you going to gain?
Furthermore, what set of laws make sense in: Manhattan and Topeka and Mogadishu and London and Moscow and Tokyo and Jakarta and Mecca and in every other town? I submit to you that the set is empty. Even our own national legislature has gone to far in normalizing law. The Constitution originally gave local governments a lot more freedom to do what was right in their own jurisdiction than what is granted now. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been especially abused to exert illegal power on a national level, for example.
Well, there's the term 'paternalism'. Or possibly, 'corporatism'. (NOTE TO LEFTIST SLASHDOTTERS: corporatism does NOT mean 'favoring corporations'. It means union of public and private sector in one corpus (body).
Wrong. There are people who have done exactly this. In fact, many great composers did other things to live. Most were performers who composed in their spare time. Antonio Vivaldi was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote music in his spare time. Mahler conducted for a living and wrote in his spare time. Charles Ives, one of the most intruiguing composers of the twentieth century, was a freaking *Insurance Salesman* for pete's sake!
Not only do we have these examples, but we also have examples of artists in other fields doing things like this in their spare time and producing great works of art.
What it comes down to is: how badly do you want to create art? If you want it enough, you'll do it in the time you have. You just have to cut out some of the other things (like vegetating in front of a television).
And that's pretty darn cool, if you ask me.
No software is ever 'owned'. In fact, no copyrighted work is 'owned'. The correct way of describing this is that a Copyright is 'held'. There's a good reason for this: Copyright is NOT a property right--it's a MONOPOLY right.
Good try; but England of 1776 didn't have the technological resources that America of 2002 has.
Our Founding Fathers also had a lot more guts than we have now. Most people won't get off their comfy chair and leave their reruns of Friends to overthrow a rather prosperous society and start living like frontiersmen.
Oh, and last but not least, it's immoral. (Yes, it was immoral back then too.)
We don't? Oh, then we're not a rogue nation because we respect other nations' sovereignty.
Has anyone ever noticed that national sovereignty and international law are mutually exclusive? This poster appears to be supporting both. When the rubber meets the road, where do most Slashdotters stand on this issue? I think they stand firmly on the side of international law. And that seriously scares me.
Discuss.
Well, fallout causes cancer doesn't it?
Correct. But this isn't about ASCAP. It's about the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
This is MY main problem with it. I use UNIX because I like it. Microsoft demonstrates absolutely no appreciation for the UNIX culture and history. In fact, they actively insult the UNIX community as often as they possibly can. I think that's why MOST of us don't like Windows.
FWIW, Mac OS X was created by NeXT well over 10 years ago so your comment isn't really accurate.
I have seen way too many job descriptions like this on monster.com to laugh.
For me, the minute that a TV show becomes intelligent, meaningful, and engaging enough for me to spend an hour watching it is the minute I start watching TV again.
How long does it take each morning to realize that your name is Paul and not John?
Is this like posting your IP address to see how solid your machine is?
That would be pretty cool if the musicians actually got a share in the profit. With major record labels, they get very little of the profit. That's the REAL problem here.
Yep, except I think that the record labels take WAY more than 50% of the profit. I once heard that 1% goes to the musicians.
Why do I get the impression that Taco is drunk (or getting there)?
Err, isn't that what I just said?
Of course, these people can't install or configure Windows for themselves either--it comes preinstalled.
Errr, can you explain how "They" (chills, fear, it's THEM--the evil miserly RICH!) are going to ruin the GPL by running Linux? Or did your class envy just cut off the circulation to your brain?
I don't know about the original poster but my problem with it is that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Copyright and Patent are artificial monopoly rights rather than property rights.
Sounds a lot like the RandOS to me. :-)