2 ms·

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 refere

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.

bumby 3y ago
>She makes a nuanced argument here. Are we referencing the same video? I do not believe there is a nuanced argument in a < 1 minute cartoon. It's a very sophomoric argument predicated on a misunderstanding. The reason why I put the specific law verbiage in my first reply is to underscore the fact that the law regarding intellectual property is not about her central claim in the video (having access to a good) but about providing an incentive to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." >I provided a reference so you can confirm the context for yourself. People seem to have the misconception that the founding fathers were a monolith. They weren't. They had varying opinions on virtually every issue in the Constitution. But what matters is what was codified into law. If law could be undermined by finding a founding father with a dissenting opinion, the Constitution would have been in tatters years ago.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  I don't think Jefferson's opinion was dissenting? After having been protected for a limited time, works fall into the public domain where they remain in perpetuity. I think he got everything he wanted! Well, until the mid-20th century, at least.
  - bumby 3y ago
    I don’t disagree that there’s a good argument that the copyright system has been corrupted. That’s a different argument than is made in the video, which is about the indivisibility of intellectual property.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      AFAICT the video is a modern take on Thomas Jefferson's arguments. What do you mean by "the indivisibility of intellectual property." ?
      - bumby 3y ago
        Indivisibility refers to the fact that an unlimited number of people can consume intellectual property, which differentiates it from tangible property. In the video, she uses multiple copied bicycles to illustrate the point. I think Jefferson was making a more nuanced point, namely that someone should not be given exclusive ownership of an idea in perpetuity, and specifically rails against the concept of inheritability of intellectual property. But he also carved out a caveat that “Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society” That falls right in line with what the constitution conveys. There is nothing contradictory between Jeffersons words and what ended up in the constitution as I read it. With all that said, again, it doesn’t necessarily matter what a single founding father thought. What matters is what they codified into law as a group, and if society has modified that law.

bumby 3y ago

>She makes a nuanced argument here. Are we referencing the same video? I do not believe there is a nuanced argument in a < 1 minute cartoon. It's a very sophomoric argument predicated on a misunderstanding. The reason why I put the specific law verbiage in my first reply is to underscore the fact that the law regarding intellectual property is not about her central claim in the video (having access to a good) but about providing an incentive to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." >I provided a reference so you can confirm the context for yourself. People seem to have the misconception that the founding fathers were a monolith. They weren't. They had varying opinions on virtually every issue in the Constitution. But what matters is what was codified into law. If law could be undermined by finding a founding father with a dissenting opinion, the Constitution would have been in tatters years ago.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
I don't think Jefferson's opinion was dissenting? After having been protected for a limited time, works fall into the public domain where they remain in perpetuity. I think he got everything he wanted! Well, until the mid-20th century, at least.
- bumby 3y ago
  I don’t disagree that there’s a good argument that the copyright system has been corrupted. That’s a different argument than is made in the video, which is about the indivisibility of intellectual property.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    AFAICT the video is a modern take on Thomas Jefferson's arguments. What do you mean by "the indivisibility of intellectual property." ?
    - bumby 3y ago
      Indivisibility refers to the fact that an unlimited number of people can consume intellectual property, which differentiates it from tangible property. In the video, she uses multiple copied bicycles to illustrate the point. I think Jefferson was making a more nuanced point, namely that someone should not be given exclusive ownership of an idea in perpetuity, and specifically rails against the concept of inheritability of intellectual property. But he also carved out a caveat that “Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society” That falls right in line with what the constitution conveys. There is nothing contradictory between Jeffersons words and what ended up in the constitution as I read it. With all that said, again, it doesn’t necessarily matter what a single founding father thought. What matters is what they codified into law as a group, and if society has modified that law.