3 ms·

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution says, in part, "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution says, in part, "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;" I do not see the high prices for peer reviewed journals promoting the "Progress of Science and useful Arts," not do I see any other copyright helping this Progress. I do not see the ever-increasing terms of copyright being "for limited Times." I do not see any laws "securing ... to Authors and Inventors" anything. I see corporate lawyers getting rich. Given the lack of compliance with the highest law of the land in the USA, I can not describe anyone who follow copyright law as being ethical. I have to find those who promote the profits of corporations and impede the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for never-ending Times to corporate lawyers the exclusive Right to others Writings and Discoveries to be highly unethical. I think the experiment to allow someone to have "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" was a good idea in the 1780's, when publishing was largely driven by authors. Today, compulsory licensing makes more sense.

bentley 3y ago
> I do not see the ever-increasing terms of copyright being "for limited Times." Neither do I, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. > In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations in placing existing and future copyrights in parity in the CTEA. Disagreeing with the argument that a copyright once set is fixed, the majority found that the CTEA "continues the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights in parity for term extension purposes," and is a permissible exercise of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. … Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, arguing that the CTEA amounted to a grant of perpetual copyright that undermined public interests. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  There’s plenty of precedent for bad decisions from the Supreme Court.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    The Court should not legislate. It only interprets the law. A Court that legislates is a fundamental danger to democracy and the will of the people
kelnos 3y ago
I agree that the current implementation of copyright is garbage, but that alone doesn't invalidate the concept.

bentley 3y ago

> I do not see the ever-increasing terms of copyright being "for limited Times." Neither do I, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. > In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations in placing existing and future copyrights in parity in the CTEA. Disagreeing with the argument that a copyright once set is fixed, the majority found that the CTEA "continues the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights in parity for term extension purposes," and is a permissible exercise of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. … Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, arguing that the CTEA amounted to a grant of perpetual copyright that undermined public interests. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618

EvanAnderson 3y ago
There’s plenty of precedent for bad decisions from the Supreme Court.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  The Court should not legislate. It only interprets the law. A Court that legislates is a fundamental danger to democracy and the will of the people

kelnos 3y ago

I agree that the current implementation of copyright is garbage, but that alone doesn't invalidate the concept.