6 ms·

After reading this, it seems that this could be a clear case of a law that should be struck down on constitutional grounds -- Article I section 8, "To promote t

• btown 14y ago
  The full line is "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." derekp7, I wish that the case was that simple, and that 17 USC 801(b)(1)(d) would be struck down. I'm afraid it's not that simple, though. IANAL, much less a constitutional lawyer, but I'll play devil's advocate and look at a possible rebuttal by the communications industry: "The existing industries provide a time-tested way of asserting artists' rights (which itself promotes the progress of 'useful Arts'), by way of providing a stable system for the collection of royalties, and preventing distribution of materials, when such distribution is not desired by rights holders. An entity which seeks to interrupt the continued operation of this stable system could plausibly reduce the security upon which rights holders have come to rely. Therefore, Congress is within its rights to ensure the survival of this system as a means of implementing Article I section 8." So it's not an open-shut case. The argument would have to be made that "disrupting the progress" of communications innovators, does more harm than ensuring the security of existing rights holders does good. I think everyone reading this site believes that, but I'm afraid it might not hold up legally.