4 ms·

Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution says, “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times

by bumby 3y ago

Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution says, “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.” The intent of limiting "copying" is that it protects the incentive of people to create, and through creation, progress of "science and useful arts." This video takes an overly simplified view of intellectual property. Imagine you spend a decade researching and developing a new tech product; as soon as it's to market everyone gets to copy it and, at least from a financial standpoint, you get nothing. That means most of the advancement will be left to those who already have the times and means to be scientific dilettantes, like the 18th and 19th centuries.

appplication 3y ago
I understand there is a whole contingent of humanity to which the constitution is holy gospel, but the thoughts of a small group of men 250 years ago on the issue is not really relevant to modern conversation on how to handle digital rights.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Do you have a non-ad hominem response to the point that was made?
  - appplication 3y ago
    If you felt that was an ad hominem, know that was not my intent. I do think it is a very salient point to bring up that when those words were written the concept of digital ownership and copying did not exist, nor did any meaningful parallels to such.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It's ad hominem against the people who think the Constitution is good. That's even more irrelevant to the point than the other ad hominem, which is against the people who wrote it. If the principle doesn't hold up now, say why. What you're saying is salient is absolutely not. It's just "old thing bad". If it's bad it could've been written yesterday or a thousand years ago; same if it's good. Why do you think it's bad? Or do you only think in ad hominem?
      - Dutchie987 3y ago
        When the world changes through time, perhaps the rules of society can or even should change with them. The fact that some rules were applicable in the past is not a guarantee those same rules can be used immutable in perpetuity. As I see it, the Constitution should be re-evaluated once in a while and adapted to the modern world. There are (again, just my opinion) a lot of rules in there that were very useful and important in the past but shouldn't be in there anymore, or even state the exact opposite of what they do now.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Again, you're not really saying why. What about this example is relevant? This just sounds a bit like a memorised response.
        Dutchie987 3y ago
        Fair enough. I think copyright (and by extension intellectual property) is not all that important to promote the arts, and the actual implementation in the law is (in my opinion) very flawed. In the modern age it costs nothing to duplicate knowledge. That should be reflected in law. I'd like to see society work towards making life in society better. One of the ways to do that is to give freely to society. If we recognize intellectual property at all (I'd rather we'd not) then the time to reverting to public domain should be significantly shorter.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > I think copyright (and by extension intellectual property) is not all that important to promote the arts The obvious counter is: if I spend 5 years writing a brilliant musical, and someone else takes the script and score and produces it worldwide, where is my incentive to make such a brilliant thing? You seem to be promoting a world where people with resources can steal the best and latest free ideas out there and commercialise them. I don't see how that would work. > One of the ways to do that is to give freely to society. People can give freely right now. You're talking about forcing people to not be in control of their work.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      There is very little salient difference between digital copying and physical printing of books, in the last hundred years. The cost of printing a book has been next to nothing for a long time compared to the rights to publish that book.
- bumby 3y ago
  I (for one) don't think it's gospel. Gospel implies immutable. There are mechanisms to change it. I would suggest using those mechanisms as a more appropriate choice than just disregarding long-standing law.
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Your framing is a bit one sided. One of the framers of the constitution also said this: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. " -- Thomas Jefferson [1] This is the core of the message that Nina Paley is trying to get across here. My understanding is as follows: Copyright in the US was always intended as a balance. You get an exclusive right to your works for a limited time (to encourage you to publish them in the first place) , and in return the works are supposed to enter the public domain afterwards (to enrich society in general). Throughout the 20th century this "limited time" kept getting stretched and stretched to the point where people worried it'd become indefinite. Currently the balance is a bit off-kilter imo, and could use a bit of re-tuning. But it has always been about some sort of balance. [1] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12...
- bumby 3y ago
  I don't disagree that the balance has shifted. But that shouldn't be conflated with saying intellectual property rights do not exist. I also think there is a hierarchy of principles. In this case, the constitution is the fundamental law of the U.S. and trumps any (potentially out-of-context) quip by someone, even if they are one of the authors of that document.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    I don't think anyone (lest of all Nina Paley) has said that "intellectual property rights do not exist". She makes a nuanced argument here. I provided a reference so you can confirm the context for yourself. It is not a random quip, but part of a larger thought framework. It clearly explains (part of) this particular framer's intent when writing the constitution. In general, framer's intent does seem to (sometimes) be taken into account by judges. I agree with you that the us constitution has turned out to be very well thought out. I do happen to disagree with 20th century legislators who very much went against the intent of the constitution here, only managing to keep to the letter by a hair.
raspyberr 3y ago
Yawn. Stuff from the 1920s is only now entering the public domain. Argument doesn't stand when copyright is extended to such absurd lengths.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  I think that the stuff with which you grew up should enter the public domain around the time you're an adult. Anything you were watching or reading while growing up is a key part of your culture, and I don't think it's reasonable for it to be kept in the hands of a few people. For me the proper range should probably be around 20 to 30 years, but I'd be willing to entertain special restrictions in certain conditions. Beyond that, I think that we don't do enough for the sake of preservation. I think for software to have full copyright protections it should be required to preserve a copy of the source code in the library of congress. And any library or tool licensing from the era should be restricted to the same duration as the copyright.
  - raspyberr 3y ago
    I would lean towards 10 years but only because leaning towards an extreme number would probably result in a reasonable number like 20/30/40 anyway. The only part of copyright that I haven't convinced myself of is whether being able to pass "ownership" of ideas down to your children is something that should be important or not.
- bumby 3y ago
  I don't disagree with this. The process of copyright law can be corrupted, but it doesn't negate the validity of intellectual property rights. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
kdfjgbdfkjgb 3y ago
Or the government could just pay people to do the work that would benefit society, instead of private investors looking to make a profit.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Profit comes from useful things. People wanting to buy your thing is a much better signal as to what's a good thing to work on than a bureaucrat's inkling.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    People often buy things even if there are better free alternatives because they don't know any better. Otherwise nobody would be using the utter garbage that is Microsoft Teams, for example.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Yes, it's not a perfect signal. It just beats a bureaucrat guessing. Ironically of course, Teams comes free with most corporate licences. You have to pay more to use alternatives, but the IT bureaucrats have deemed it was best for you. The reason alternatives exist is they're worth paying for.
  - bumby 3y ago
    The problem is that many 'useful things' are predicated on past discoveries that weren't particularly useful at the time they were made. That's why government (an organization with a particularly large risk tolerance) is a good mechanism for paying for fundamental science. I think the dichotomous thinking of public/private is more harmful than helpful.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You're introducing that dichotomy right now. And you're forgetting the millions of advances that happen in private companies to push forward the state of the art. Look at Tesla, or SpaceX, or Hitachi, or BMW, or Microsoft, or IBM, or Xerox, or Astra Zeneca. Incredible advances happening all over, sometimes not realisable for decades, but occasionally commercialised and rolled out if it's beneficial to enough people for the cost.
contravariant 3y ago
I suppose it would be a problem if scientific progress only happened by the 'scientific dilettantes' who managed to gather sufficient funds ahead of time. I can't imagine how bad things would be if most scientists couldn't live from the royalties on scientific articles.
- bumby 3y ago
  If they patent their invention, they can get paid. Scientific articles, in general, are copyrighted. But scientists don't have to publish. One of the points I was making is that intellectual property helps ensure scientific progress is democratized.

by bumby 3y ago

appplication 3y ago

I understand there is a whole contingent of humanity to which the constitution is holy gospel, but the thoughts of a small group of men 250 years ago on the issue is not really relevant to modern conversation on how to handle digital rights.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Do you have a non-ad hominem response to the point that was made?
- appplication 3y ago
  If you felt that was an ad hominem, know that was not my intent. I do think it is a very salient point to bring up that when those words were written the concept of digital ownership and copying did not exist, nor did any meaningful parallels to such.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It's ad hominem against the people who think the Constitution is good. That's even more irrelevant to the point than the other ad hominem, which is against the people who wrote it. If the principle doesn't hold up now, say why. What you're saying is salient is absolutely not. It's just "old thing bad". If it's bad it could've been written yesterday or a thousand years ago; same if it's good. Why do you think it's bad? Or do you only think in ad hominem?
    - Dutchie987 3y ago
      When the world changes through time, perhaps the rules of society can or even should change with them. The fact that some rules were applicable in the past is not a guarantee those same rules can be used immutable in perpetuity. As I see it, the Constitution should be re-evaluated once in a while and adapted to the modern world. There are (again, just my opinion) a lot of rules in there that were very useful and important in the past but shouldn't be in there anymore, or even state the exact opposite of what they do now.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Again, you're not really saying why. What about this example is relevant? This just sounds a bit like a memorised response.
        Dutchie987 3y ago
        Fair enough. I think copyright (and by extension intellectual property) is not all that important to promote the arts, and the actual implementation in the law is (in my opinion) very flawed. In the modern age it costs nothing to duplicate knowledge. That should be reflected in law. I'd like to see society work towards making life in society better. One of the ways to do that is to give freely to society. If we recognize intellectual property at all (I'd rather we'd not) then the time to reverting to public domain should be significantly shorter.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > I think copyright (and by extension intellectual property) is not all that important to promote the arts The obvious counter is: if I spend 5 years writing a brilliant musical, and someone else takes the script and score and produces it worldwide, where is my incentive to make such a brilliant thing? You seem to be promoting a world where people with resources can steal the best and latest free ideas out there and commercialise them. I don't see how that would work. > One of the ways to do that is to give freely to society. People can give freely right now. You're talking about forcing people to not be in control of their work.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    There is very little salient difference between digital copying and physical printing of books, in the last hundred years. The cost of printing a book has been next to nothing for a long time compared to the rights to publish that book.
bumby 3y ago
I (for one) don't think it's gospel. Gospel implies immutable. There are mechanisms to change it. I would suggest using those mechanisms as a more appropriate choice than just disregarding long-standing law.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

Your framing is a bit one sided. One of the framers of the constitution also said this: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. " -- Thomas Jefferson [1] This is the core of the message that Nina Paley is trying to get across here. My understanding is as follows: Copyright in the US was always intended as a balance. You get an exclusive right to your works for a limited time (to encourage you to publish them in the first place) , and in return the works are supposed to enter the public domain afterwards (to enrich society in general). Throughout the 20th century this "limited time" kept getting stretched and stretched to the point where people worried it'd become indefinite. Currently the balance is a bit off-kilter imo, and could use a bit of re-tuning. But it has always been about some sort of balance. [1] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12...

bumby 3y ago
I don't disagree that the balance has shifted. But that shouldn't be conflated with saying intellectual property rights do not exist. I also think there is a hierarchy of principles. In this case, the constitution is the fundamental law of the U.S. and trumps any (potentially out-of-context) quip by someone, even if they are one of the authors of that document.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  I don't think anyone (lest of all Nina Paley) has said that "intellectual property rights do not exist". She makes a nuanced argument here. I provided a reference so you can confirm the context for yourself. It is not a random quip, but part of a larger thought framework. It clearly explains (part of) this particular framer's intent when writing the constitution. In general, framer's intent does seem to (sometimes) be taken into account by judges. I agree with you that the us constitution has turned out to be very well thought out. I do happen to disagree with 20th century legislators who very much went against the intent of the constitution here, only managing to keep to the letter by a hair.

raspyberr 3y ago

Yawn. Stuff from the 1920s is only now entering the public domain. Argument doesn't stand when copyright is extended to such absurd lengths.

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
I think that the stuff with which you grew up should enter the public domain around the time you're an adult. Anything you were watching or reading while growing up is a key part of your culture, and I don't think it's reasonable for it to be kept in the hands of a few people. For me the proper range should probably be around 20 to 30 years, but I'd be willing to entertain special restrictions in certain conditions. Beyond that, I think that we don't do enough for the sake of preservation. I think for software to have full copyright protections it should be required to preserve a copy of the source code in the library of congress. And any library or tool licensing from the era should be restricted to the same duration as the copyright.
- raspyberr 3y ago
  I would lean towards 10 years but only because leaning towards an extreme number would probably result in a reasonable number like 20/30/40 anyway. The only part of copyright that I haven't convinced myself of is whether being able to pass "ownership" of ideas down to your children is something that should be important or not.
bumby 3y ago
I don't disagree with this. The process of copyright law can be corrupted, but it doesn't negate the validity of intellectual property rights. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

kdfjgbdfkjgb 3y ago

Or the government could just pay people to do the work that would benefit society, instead of private investors looking to make a profit.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Profit comes from useful things. People wanting to buy your thing is a much better signal as to what's a good thing to work on than a bureaucrat's inkling.
- xigoi 3y ago
  People often buy things even if there are better free alternatives because they don't know any better. Otherwise nobody would be using the utter garbage that is Microsoft Teams, for example.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Yes, it's not a perfect signal. It just beats a bureaucrat guessing. Ironically of course, Teams comes free with most corporate licences. You have to pay more to use alternatives, but the IT bureaucrats have deemed it was best for you. The reason alternatives exist is they're worth paying for.
- bumby 3y ago
  The problem is that many 'useful things' are predicated on past discoveries that weren't particularly useful at the time they were made. That's why government (an organization with a particularly large risk tolerance) is a good mechanism for paying for fundamental science. I think the dichotomous thinking of public/private is more harmful than helpful.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    You're introducing that dichotomy right now. And you're forgetting the millions of advances that happen in private companies to push forward the state of the art. Look at Tesla, or SpaceX, or Hitachi, or BMW, or Microsoft, or IBM, or Xerox, or Astra Zeneca. Incredible advances happening all over, sometimes not realisable for decades, but occasionally commercialised and rolled out if it's beneficial to enough people for the cost.

contravariant 3y ago

I suppose it would be a problem if scientific progress only happened by the 'scientific dilettantes' who managed to gather sufficient funds ahead of time. I can't imagine how bad things would be if most scientists couldn't live from the royalties on scientific articles.

bumby 3y ago
If they patent their invention, they can get paid. Scientific articles, in general, are copyrighted. But scientists don't have to publish. One of the points I was making is that intellectual property helps ensure scientific progress is democratized.