Michaelwagner Wrote: > Let's be clear on another thing. > > Some form of copyright was in the US constitution. I don't think the > recording industry in it's current form was around back then.
Yes, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says "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...". That's it. The first Congress in 1790 was left to interpret that phrase into legislation and did so by establishing a copyright of 14 years plus the possibility to register for 14 more. That law has been amended dozens of times so that the current protection is for seventy years after the death of an author. The result is a copyright term that is well over 100 years vs. the 28 envisioned by the authors of the Constitution. The length of copyright is only half the story, however. Individuls used to be protected by fair use, which allows individuals to use works they have purchased for their own personal use any way they choose to. These rights were further supported by the first sale doctrine which allows individuals to dispense with copyrighted works they have purchased as they see fit, including to sell them (this is how we're allowed to sell used CDs and DVDs and used books). Unfortunately, fair use and the first sale doctrine are being constantly eroded. The entertainment industry wants to eliminate both of them and they are having quite a bit of success. The bill they authored that became the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, for instance, made it illegal for you tamper with something you have purchased even if that tampering is for your own personal use. This allows the entertainment industry to sell you something today and change what you can and cannot do with it tomorrow or the next day, whenever they see fit. You no longer own the things you buy. You no longer are allowed fair use or in some cases, the advantages of the first sale doctrine. This is immoral. No one who is deeply familiar with the state of intellectual property in this country outside of those paid by the entertainment industry supports the rampant degredation of our rights that has been occuring over the last 40-50 years. Is it wrong to violate an immoral law? That's a tricky question. Legally yes, but morally? Each of has to decide for ourselves. Finally, allow me to point out that there is almost no one active in the movement to protect individual intellectual property rights that wants to stop financially supporting the artists that produce content. In fact, we want them to get their just dessert for their work and creativity. These two principles are not mutually exclusive. -- icky2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ icky2000's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3428 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18642 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
