Copyrights lasting beyond the death of the creator are unconstitutional

[Swordsmyth]

Congress is only allowed to grant copyrights (an artificial monopoly) to the authors themselves:

Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [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 may even be unconstitutional to allow the transfer (as opposed to licensing) of copyrights at all.

 

[acptulsa]

So, you think heirs inheriting things of value is unConstitutional?

So I suppose you think everything a dead person owned should belong to the government? How very commie of you. Or maybe you're just a useful idiot who thinks the government will willingly proclaim it public domain? Pollyanna.

 

[Swordsmyth]

So, you think heirs inheriting things of value is unConstitutional?

So I suppose you think everything a dead person owned should belong to the government? How very commie of you. Or maybe you're just a useful idiot who thinks the government will willingly proclaim it public domain? Pollyanna.

Copyrights and patents are artificial monopolies created by the government and our Constitution only authorizes them for the creators.
The creations return to their natural state in the public domain when their protection runs out, they always have and they always will, not to the government, that's just a very clumsy strawman you created.
Many libertarians oppose the existence of IP protection at all.
IP lasting for the life of the creator and beyond is obscene and is the creation of the Corporatists.
It is doubly obscene when far more beneficial patents only last for 21 years at the most.

 

[acptulsa]

Obscene? Well, I imagine some of it is...

You don't spare the hyperbole, do you?

 

[Matt Collins]

Congress is only allowed to grant copyrights (an artificial monopoly) to the authors themselves:

Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [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 may even be unconstitutional to allow the transfer (as opposed to licensing) of copyrights at all.

It shouldn't be called copyright, it should be called "copy privilege". Government can't give rights, it can only give privileges. That's the first problem with it.

And yeah, "infinity -1" is not what the Constitution describes. Fortunately though it looks like Disney has given up on continuing to push for copyright extensions. They were the main driver behind the continued expansion.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It shouldn't be called copyright, it should be called "copy privilege". Government can't give rights, it can only give privileges. That's the first problem with it.

And yeah, "infinity -1" is not what the Constitution describes. Fortunately though it looks like Disney has given up on continuing to push for copyright extensions. They were the main driver behind the continued expansion.

Now we need to get them shortened.

 

[pmbug]

Congress’s power to secure copyright and patent is expressly granted in the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 Intellectual Property Clause. It confers on Congress a power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." In order to better grasp the meaning of this power and the rights it is designed to secure, attention undoubtedly should be paid to that repository of American constitutionalism widely regarded to be second only to the Constitution: namely, The Federalist Papers.

Such attention to The Federalist Papers is not merely a matter of historical interest, although the history is certainly interesting. Rather, it is a matter of enhancing our present day understanding of why our Founders thought copyrights and patents important and deserving of protection in our Constitution. James Madison, writing in the guise of "Publius" in Federalist No. 43 provided that work’s lone direct reference to Congress’s power to protect intellectual property rights.

This paper explores what Federalist No. 43 has to say about IP rights, and the relationship of this particular number to the theory of American constitutional government contained in other Federalist Paper numbers. The paper is the fifth in a series exploring foundational principles of intellectual property rights.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2389728

(Link contains a button to view the paper as a free PDF)

From the paper:

... In subtle and succinct fashion, Federalist No. 43 identifies the ultimate source for copyright and patent in an individual’s natural right to the fruits of his or her own labor. Madison regarded copyright and patent as forms of property that government is established to protect ...

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2389728

(Link contains a button to view the paper as a free PDF)

From the paper:

Nobody here is saying IP shouldn't exist.

 

[pmbug]

You were trying to make the case that copyright is Constitutionally limited to the original author. I presented argument from one of the dudes that helped shape the Constitution that copyright should be considered as property - presumably with all the standard rights to lend, lease or assign as any other property.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You were trying to make the case that copyright is Constitutionally limited to the original author. I presented argument from one of the dudes that helped shape the Constitution that copyright should be considered as property - presumably with all the standard rights to lend, lease or assign as any other property.

Presumably not, because it is an artificial construct of the law that had to be added to the Constitution and the Constitution only allows it to be secured for the creator.
Lending, leasing, and licensing, would fall within the language of the Constitution, but not transfer.

 

[acptulsa]

Presumably not, because it is an artificial construct of the law that had to be added to the Constitution and the Constitution only allows it to be secured for the creator.
Lending, leasing, and licensing, would fall within the language of the Constitution, but not transfer.

Um, like, dude, lending, leasing and licensing are all three ways of transferring.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Um, like, dude, lending, leasing and licensing are all three ways of transferring.

Transfer here indicates a permanent change of ownership.

 

[Invisible Man]

Nobody here is saying IP shouldn't exist.

I am.