4 ms·
I am not a legal scholar, but to me the intent of the latter half is clearly stated by the first half: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
by yohui 12y ago
I am not a legal scholar, but to me the intent of the latter half is clearly stated by the first half: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
- chrismcb 12y agoOne way to promote scientists and creators is to allow them to warn money so they can keep sciencing and creating.
- sanderjd 12y agoNobody is arguing that. What people are arguing is that if copyright does not promote the progress of science and useful arts, it fails to fulfill the intent of its existence. The follow-on argument is then that indefinitely extending copyright undermines that promotion of progress. If you buy both arguments, then you see why many people find the extensions so objectionable on Constitutional grounds. I don't think many people disagree with the first argument, because it's right there in the text (which is the point I believe your parent was making), but of course lots of people disagree with the second argument, believing that longer copyright terms better promote creation.
- throwawaykf05 12y agoThat's obvious, but the more interesting discussion (which we're really here for) lies in the unstated part of the sentence: how were the actions stated in the second half intended to result in the goal stated in the first half?