3 ms·
> 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. Th
by 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 agoChicken-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 agoYou 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.