Like the title says, I'm doing a video about copyright law and why it's bogus.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on May 24, 2013, 01:00:21 AM
Like the title says, I'm doing a video about copyright law and why it's bogus.
In general, it would be the Amendment that repealed Section 8.8, since that's the bit that grants the Federal Government the power to grant Copyrights (and patents, in the same clause).
The idea of unlimited duration is clearly bogus, since the grant is specifically for a limited period. You can also argue that copyrights are not allowed for all possible works, since it specifies that the purpose of the power is to further the "Science and useful Arts", excluding from copyright anything that cannot be placed under the category "useful". Another feature is that it only refers to writings, not to other types of works. If you get one of the duffusses who try the argument that the US constitution, under the sane standards of interpretation Libertarians usually use with it, doesn't allow for the US Air Force to exist, they leave themselves open to having to accept that movies, TV shows and audio recordings cannot be copyrighted in the US under the same (excessively strict) interpretation.
Quote from: Lord T Hawkeye on May 24, 2013, 01:00:21 AM
Like the title says, I'm doing a video about copyright law and why it's bogus.
the fact that, as evensgray said, it often covers things that do not follow the general concept of copyright and patents as understood in 1787. (warning: what follows does not reflect my opinion on copyright and patents in general):
for some context of what the founders had in mind when they wrote the relevent clause, you can look up the copyright law that was passed during Queen Anne's reign in 1709 (the statute of Queen Anne). Prior to that, the government had in the 16th century granted the stationer's company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationers%27_Company) the privilege of requiring all lawful books to be placed in its register. this could only be done by members of the company. making matters worse, copyright protection was
eternal. so the incentive to pay the author was removed, freedom of speech was often suppressed, and well, creatively spinning off of earlier works was difficult, to say the least.
the new statute limited copyright terms to just 14 years for all future works (renewable IFF author is still alive). after that the book or other material is placed in the public domain.
basically, what the framers had in mind was a compromise: they didn't want to stifle creativity and free speech, but at the same time, they didn't want the authors to be deprived of the chance to make profits from the books they wrote or maps/charts created. And this is reflected in the copyright act of 1790: it is, save for the addition of clauses extending protection to maps and charts, literally identical to the statute of Anne.
the current copyright acts, especially the DMCA, do a bit more than that,
and for all practical purposes lasts well beyond the profitable period of time for the author (i.e. well after death).