5 ms·

I beg to differ, the Constitution clearly specifies why copyright should exist: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Tim

I beg to differ, the Constitution clearly specifies why copyright should exist: "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." How does retroactively adding copyright to public domain works in anyway "promote" it's already been accomplished. This the same argument that was used Eldred vs. Ashcroft where this argument also failed. It was a bad ruling then and it's a bad ruling now. If we want to have this decided by the lawmakers then we should amend the Constitution to grant this power.

Volpe 15y ago
Perhaps, because the world doesn't begin and end with the US east and west coast. If you ignore the fact this is still under copyright overseas, you are setting the precedent that they can do the same in return. No?
- joering1 15y ago
  the problem is that many times the world follows US laws and regulations and applies those locally (also: student being deported to US based on broken UK law that UK itself wasnt interested in prosecuting)
rayiner 15y ago
What "promote the progress of science and useful arts" is such fuzzy language, deferring to the legislature's idea of what promotes that progress is as reasonable a decision as imposing the Court's own view. Of course adding a given public domain work back into copyright doesn't promote the creation of any specific work, but harmonizing American copyright law with European laws, generally, might arguably promote creation of works. The key phrase in the clause is that: [The Congress shall have Power]* to... [secure] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. *) Article I, Section 8. Like the other enumerated powers, the language of the Constitution gives Congress a lot of leeway in exercising that specific power.

Volpe 15y ago

Perhaps, because the world doesn't begin and end with the US east and west coast. If you ignore the fact this is still under copyright overseas, you are setting the precedent that they can do the same in return. No?

joering1 15y ago
the problem is that many times the world follows US laws and regulations and applies those locally (also: student being deported to US based on broken UK law that UK itself wasnt interested in prosecuting)

rayiner 15y ago

What "promote the progress of science and useful arts" is such fuzzy language, deferring to the legislature's idea of what promotes that progress is as reasonable a decision as imposing the Court's own view. Of course adding a given public domain work back into copyright doesn't promote the creation of any specific work, but harmonizing American copyright law with European laws, generally, might arguably promote creation of works. The key phrase in the clause is that: [The Congress shall have Power]* to... [secure] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. *) Article I, Section 8. Like the other enumerated powers, the language of the Constitution gives Congress a lot of leeway in exercising that specific power.