4 ms·
You speak of intentionality beyond the explicit reality of the data involved as some great irrationality in their statement, but we literally have a correspondi
by Greed 1y ago
You speak of intentionality beyond the explicit reality of the data involved as some great irrationality in their statement, but we literally have a corresponding term for that. Spirit of the law. If the law were as black and white and ends-oriented as you're implying it is, we wouldn't need judges for the interpretation of it. The fact that they have prioritized the underlying authors affected over the traditional interpretation of the law here is not the condemnation you think it is.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoI think you're missing the deeper point. Whether or not the Copyright Office intends to assert authorial essentialism, it's doing so in effect. And when metaphysical language about "creative essence" becomes encoded in policy and enforced by courts, it's not just metaphor. It's law. Calling it "spirit of the law" doesn't let them off the hook. If you enshrine a metaphysics that treats human-authored works as ontologically distinct kinds of data, imbued with some persistent essence that radiates rights regardless of use, you're not interpreting the law, you're institutionalizing a theology of authorship. And yes, I care less about their intentions than about the system they're building. That system is now enforcing metaphysical categories with legal teeth. That's the problem.
- whattheheckheck 1y agoHumans don't own anything. Ownership is a construct. It's all made up.