On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 06:31, Paul Wise <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 01:45 +0100, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > > > Because the principle of the copyright existence is about protecting > > the authors' exclusive of that {business, commercial, marketing} > > rights. > > The purpose of copyright is allegedly (in the USA) "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.".
A nice political manifesto. However historically it was - a nice idea someone suggested to their queen - a way to control and exercise the censorship - a regalia for someone: salt, pepper, copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright (*) Among almost in every different implementations, copyright had one thing in common: - protecting authors' exclusive rights of restrict anyone to use their work without the author consent Translated in modern words the authors' exclusive of {business, commercial, marketing} rights over their work. The idea of fair use came much later to boost social benefits more than made authors rich but one thing was innovative in copyright since the beginning - a monopoly established in favour of a class of "many individuals" I used "many individuals" here because "people" came from latin "plebis" and using "people" in this context would not be etymologically nor historically correct. Moreover, because a monopoly established in favour of individuals is a "right" like the right to have the property of something real - this explains the roots of the "intellectual property" term - and this right is establish by a law, then two things happen: 1. if the law is not respected by almost all the people then it is not enforceable in a trial for the principle that has not been accepted by those it is supposed to rule over and to enforce it over one in particular, it is a very nasty discrimination while almost all are left free to not abide by that law. 2. if an author does not exercise a right for a long period of time enforcing it then that right is lost for the principle of "usucapio" in latin This explains why someone - once has been informed that because they did not enforce a part of their right for a very long period of time, then that part of their right has been lost - tried to reclaim also those parts of their right. Unfortunately when the {speaking, intention, actions} are not properly aligned a late attempt is much worse than accepting the status quo. The way to hell is paved with good intentions and poor implementations. CONCLUSION I am very happy to know that the US copyright law has a very nice political manifesto but the way in which a law is applied, defines its principle. The application defines the law's aim or written with other words: the good that is going to protect and promote. [sarcasm on] After all, the U.S. are very notorious for free schooling and universities, right? [sarcasm off]. NOTE (*) there is much more interesting and complete material about the history of copyright, especially in the London public library. Best regards, R-
