5 ms·

Wrong! At the point of creation something is granted copyright. Publishers in literature and music are right assholes who’ve created this system. Little middl

Wrong! At the point of creation something is granted copyright. Publishers in literature and music are right assholes who’ve created this system. Little middle men rent seeking. It does need reform but it is for the creators that’s why it’s tied to the creator and not date of publication. Fix your perspective buckaroo

dragonwriter 4y ago
> It does need reform but it is for the creators No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Under the Statute of Anne, it was nominally for creators (but this was lobbied for by printers after the expiration of earlier laws, and they were the prime beneficiaries in practice.) The earlier laws were explicitly for printers.
- j-bos 4y ago
  This great to know, though I'm having trouble referencing the earlier laws, can you post a link please?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Well, that's false. The actual US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 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 could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to. If public benefits happen, they are side-effects. The purpose is for authors and inventors to have exclusive rights in their writings and discoveries. They are never required to publish or advance anything for the public. This is a private protection not a public benefit for a "specific purpose".
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to The text you quote is explicit: the public benefit—promotion of science and useful arts—is the purpose. Providing benefits to creators is a mechanism for acheiving that purpose, not the purpose itself. That’s what I said before, and it remains true, and you’ve just quoted the bit of the Constitution that says it while claiming it is false.
    - 6stringmerc 4y ago
      Chicken-egg it exists and is so far from written intention by coincidentally both artists and publishers to be a mutant, it’s just such a mess.
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      You are assuming that promoting the progress of science and useful arts is for the public benefit, but it can easily happen in private. That is why public benefits are not primary. That is what I pointed out to you in my earlier post, but you continue to make that same flawed assumption.
- hyperman1 4y ago
  The earlier laws were explicitly against printers. They were for scribes, and indirectly for the church, states, and other powers that controlled the scribes and wanted to limit the spread of dissident views. At least according to most histories of copyright I've seen. Wikipedia seems to agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Early_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Early_dev...

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It does need reform but it is for the creators No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Under the Statute of Anne, it was nominally for creators (but this was lobbied for by printers after the expiration of earlier laws, and they were the prime beneficiaries in practice.) The earlier laws were explicitly for printers.

j-bos 4y ago
This great to know, though I'm having trouble referencing the earlier laws, can you post a link please?
IncRnd 4y ago
> No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that. Well, that's false. The actual US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 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 could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to. If public benefits happen, they are side-effects. The purpose is for authors and inventors to have exclusive rights in their writings and discoveries. They are never required to publish or advance anything for the public. This is a private protection not a public benefit for a "specific purpose".
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to The text you quote is explicit: the public benefit—promotion of science and useful arts—is the purpose. Providing benefits to creators is a mechanism for acheiving that purpose, not the purpose itself. That’s what I said before, and it remains true, and you’ve just quoted the bit of the Constitution that says it while claiming it is false.
  - 6stringmerc 4y ago
    Chicken-egg it exists and is so far from written intention by coincidentally both artists and publishers to be a mutant, it’s just such a mess.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    You are assuming that promoting the progress of science and useful arts is for the public benefit, but it can easily happen in private. That is why public benefits are not primary. That is what I pointed out to you in my earlier post, but you continue to make that same flawed assumption.
hyperman1 4y ago
The earlier laws were explicitly against printers. They were for scribes, and indirectly for the church, states, and other powers that controlled the scribes and wanted to limit the spread of dissident views. At least according to most histories of copyright I've seen. Wikipedia seems to agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Early_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Early_dev...