4 ms·

there has been a clear progression throughout history of protection from theft There is no provision in the constitution for the treatment of ideas as property

by sabat 16y ago

there has been a clear progression throughout history of protection from theft There is no provision in the constitution for the treatment of ideas as property, and the guys who wrote it explicitly disdained that idea. That isn't "appeal to authority" -- I'm merely pointing out that the document which is the foundation of our country forbids the laws we currently have. If you want intellectual property, amend the constitution. the word "patent troll" is an ad hominem attack meant to discourage rather than encourage discussion It's a description of a person/company that uses the patent/copyright system in ways that are against the very purpose of the laws that allow it: to encourage innovation and creativity. Patent and copyright trolls discourage it, and do nothing to improve artistic and innovative environments. "Troll" does not mean "ugly guy who lives under a bridge"; it's meant to indicate someone who trolls around looking for juicy litigation opportunities so he can cash in. You never get coherent arguments like that from people who support the abolition of all IP Never? I'd suggest you haven't read much, but how about this argument: it's illogical and unsustainable to pretend that ideas are physical objects. "Intellectual property" industries such as book publishing and music sales were actually about selling the physical media; the means to create such things were once scarce. Now that they're not, those business models must evolve or die.

mattmaroon 16y ago
You and I read the constitution very differently if you think it explicitly forbids copyrights. According to Wikipedia "the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress: '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.'" Regardless of what Jefferson may have thought, that's a pretty explicit promotion of the idea of intellectual property (with a vague notion of how long they should last for). In fact this is exactly what I mean by no logical and coherent argument. A 12 year old could read that and tell you that the Constitution expressly promotes the idea of intellectual property, and gives Congress control over the details. He could also Google for some Supreme Court cases, such as Eldred v Ashcroft, that have upheld it's constitutionality. I'm assuming you're not unintelligent, which means the only way you could come up with "There is no provision in the constitution for the treatment of ideas as property, and the guys who wrote it explicitly disdained that idea." is if you either never actually read the very clause you cited, or if you simply saw what you wanted to see. Also it's troll as in an internet troll. It had a negative connotation before it was applied in this context. Whatever the derivation, it's clearly derogatory and an ad hominem. Writers don't write because they love the idea of selling paper. As one I can tell you I'm we're mostly OK with digital distribution. See the Author's Guild's controversial settlement with Google for evidence. But that doesn't mean we want other people able to sell or distribute our work without our permission or compensation. It's not about the media and it never was, media was just a necessary evil.
- sabat 16y ago
  You and I read the constitution very differently if you think it explicitly forbids copyrights. I wonder how carefully you're reading. I've cited the copyright clause several times and even paraphrased it. It does not "forbid" copyright. It creates it as a limited monopoly on a creative work. the Constitution expressly promotes the idea of intellectual property That's a big leap. It says, in short, that since they think that advancement of the sciences and arts is important, they will allow authors and inventors a limited monopoly on their work, in order to motivate them. Nothing there implies the creation of a pretend property, not does it promote such an idea. And if you read Jefferson, who wrote extensively on the subject, you'll see that he was completely against the idea of "property" consisting of ideas. Paraphrasing him from one of his letters: how can a man own something in another man's mind?

by sabat 16y ago

mattmaroon 16y ago

You and I read the constitution very differently if you think it explicitly forbids copyrights. According to Wikipedia "the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progress Clause, empowers the United States Congress: '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.'" Regardless of what Jefferson may have thought, that's a pretty explicit promotion of the idea of intellectual property (with a vague notion of how long they should last for). In fact this is exactly what I mean by no logical and coherent argument. A 12 year old could read that and tell you that the Constitution expressly promotes the idea of intellectual property, and gives Congress control over the details. He could also Google for some Supreme Court cases, such as Eldred v Ashcroft, that have upheld it's constitutionality. I'm assuming you're not unintelligent, which means the only way you could come up with "There is no provision in the constitution for the treatment of ideas as property, and the guys who wrote it explicitly disdained that idea." is if you either never actually read the very clause you cited, or if you simply saw what you wanted to see. Also it's troll as in an internet troll. It had a negative connotation before it was applied in this context. Whatever the derivation, it's clearly derogatory and an ad hominem. Writers don't write because they love the idea of selling paper. As one I can tell you I'm we're mostly OK with digital distribution. See the Author's Guild's controversial settlement with Google for evidence. But that doesn't mean we want other people able to sell or distribute our work without our permission or compensation. It's not about the media and it never was, media was just a necessary evil.

sabat 16y ago
You and I read the constitution very differently if you think it explicitly forbids copyrights. I wonder how carefully you're reading. I've cited the copyright clause several times and even paraphrased it. It does not "forbid" copyright. It creates it as a limited monopoly on a creative work. the Constitution expressly promotes the idea of intellectual property That's a big leap. It says, in short, that since they think that advancement of the sciences and arts is important, they will allow authors and inventors a limited monopoly on their work, in order to motivate them. Nothing there implies the creation of a pretend property, not does it promote such an idea. And if you read Jefferson, who wrote extensively on the subject, you'll see that he was completely against the idea of "property" consisting of ideas. Paraphrasing him from one of his letters: how can a man own something in another man's mind?