3 ms·

They're not, but that "free speech" thing is from a time when copyright didn't matter much.

by pgeorgi 14y ago

chc 14y ago
In America at least, copyright was part of the Constitution before freedom of speech was. You may say that it is now outmoded, or that the current implementation is a horrifying mutation of the original intent, but it's hard to argue that copyright is some late comer whose purpose is to trample our long-cherished freedom of speech.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  Right, but there was some resistance to "copyright" wasn't there? I mean, Thomas Jefferson was quite against it, on free speech grounds, and only agreed because of the "limited term" thing. Thankfully, Disney and other Immoral MegaCorps have found a way around the "limited term", and the US Supreme Court managed to find a way to agree with that hack, so we've now got "intellectual property" overriding free speech. How long can this go on?
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    Not very long, actually. If I want a movie, its easy to get. If I want a CD of music or a song, its easy to get. If I want a program for my OS, its easy to get. If I dont want to pay any money for said virtual goods, they're still easy to get. And we are now, at a decent clip, adding 3d physical goods to the market of 'easy to get'.
- sp332 14y ago
  Some of the authors of the constitution wanted to add the bill of rights when it was first passed. Others disagreed, and the compromise was to agree to add the bill of rights as a serious of amendments (individually ratified by the states) soon after. But note! The controversy was not whether those rights should be protected, or not. The debate was whether the rights had to be expressly written down, or whether they were obvious enough to go without saying. So the bill of rights was added later because it was considered unnecessary by many of the founders.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  Copyright is not part of the constitution. That's flat out wrong. What's part of the constitution is congress' ability to create copyright or patent laws. There's absolutely no imperative to have these laws, and as others have pointed out, there was opposition against this power from several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson. It strikes me as either uninformed or dishonest to assert/imply that copyright is a constitutionally granted right.

They're not, but that "free speech" thing is from a time when copyright didn't matter much.

by pgeorgi 14y ago

They're not, but that "free speech" thing is from a time when copyright didn't matter much.

chc 14y ago

In America at least, copyright was part of the Constitution before freedom of speech was. You may say that it is now outmoded, or that the current implementation is a horrifying mutation of the original intent, but it's hard to argue that copyright is some late comer whose purpose is to trample our long-cherished freedom of speech.

bediger4000 14y ago
Right, but there was some resistance to "copyright" wasn't there? I mean, Thomas Jefferson was quite against it, on free speech grounds, and only agreed because of the "limited term" thing. Thankfully, Disney and other Immoral MegaCorps have found a way around the "limited term", and the US Supreme Court managed to find a way to agree with that hack, so we've now got "intellectual property" overriding free speech. How long can this go on?
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  Not very long, actually. If I want a movie, its easy to get. If I want a CD of music or a song, its easy to get. If I want a program for my OS, its easy to get. If I dont want to pay any money for said virtual goods, they're still easy to get. And we are now, at a decent clip, adding 3d physical goods to the market of 'easy to get'.
sp332 14y ago
Some of the authors of the constitution wanted to add the bill of rights when it was first passed. Others disagreed, and the compromise was to agree to add the bill of rights as a serious of amendments (individually ratified by the states) soon after. But note! The controversy was not whether those rights should be protected, or not. The debate was whether the rights had to be expressly written down, or whether they were obvious enough to go without saying. So the bill of rights was added later because it was considered unnecessary by many of the founders.
slowpoke 14y ago
Copyright is not part of the constitution. That's flat out wrong. What's part of the constitution is congress' ability to create copyright or patent laws. There's absolutely no imperative to have these laws, and as others have pointed out, there was opposition against this power from several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson. It strikes me as either uninformed or dishonest to assert/imply that copyright is a constitutionally granted right.