Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23
Interesting for you to bring up the Constitution then try to claim free speech is the reason we even have copyright. As I've said before, it was put there to advance the sharing of information with a side effect of you being able to profit on your content and not the other way around.
"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."
Not only was it meant to be for a limited time (10 to 20 years at the time) but those that added that little tidbit most likely wouldn't have given two shits about porn being pirated. It was so people could keep writing books and making maps which help society as a whole.
True pirates are assholes and idiots but twisting the purpose of copyrights then claiming that they are doing the same is absolutely fucking hilarious.
|
Exactly where did I say that free speech is the reason we have copyright? You're the first person I've ever seen say that giving authors a limited economic monopoly on their works was just a 'side effect'. I would argue that it was an integral part. While neither of us was present at the signing of the Constitution, I would just have to disagree with you on that matter. Using the word "securing" in that section is also important...they aren't just saying "write some shit and if you make a buck...bonus!"...they are saying Congress has the power to SECURE that right for you, that's important to note. Even earlier historic stuff hinted at you being entitled to the fruits of what you produce. In 561 A.D. King Diarmaid of what is now Ireland said in what might be the earliest battle over what would become 'copyright' "to every cow, it's calf, to every book, it's child-book", he didn't say "just make more calves and STFU". Here much more recently Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor famously referred to copyright as "the engine of free expression"
I think your assessment that copyright was only meant for writing books and making maps is flawed. So if they didn't take into consideration things they couldn't have possibly imagined then those things don't get to enjoy that law? So by your reasoning then you would say that anything invented post-1776 shouldn't have copyright protection? Of course it didn't say "blu ray movies and hentai too".