I'm saying that while Madison wanted to enable the privileges of copyright and patent to be granted the clause he inserted was not sufficient to empower Congress to grant them.
His clause went unchallenged precisely because it simply empowered Congress to secure authors'/inventors' rights, and there was nothing controversial about securing rights since that was the whole point of the Constitution, viz "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
It's just a matter of time. You'll be many years older by the time there are so many artists using non-label, non-copyright exchange mechanisms that you'll finally concede that ok, perhaps artists no longer need copyright, no longer need to sell copies at monopoly protected prices.
But, by that time there will be no labels and no copyright and we'll have forgotten why we ever needed to convince the copyright exploiters and supporters that they and their 18th century privilege are dispensable and disposable.
Undoubtedly, copyright was attractive to printers in many states prior to 1787. Madison himself was a fan.
However, that so many were aware of this monopoly should make you wonder why the Constitution didn't explicitly empower Congress to grant it, especially when Jefferson suggested later to Madison to write that "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose." http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents
All knew full well the difference between rights and monopolies. See the Declaration of Independence. And, therefore, all knew full well the difference between securing an individual's rights, and granting monopolies such as were 'enjoyed' in England. This is why Congress was empowered to GRANT Letters of Marque, but to SECURE the author's exclusive right.
Madison was ethically obliged to recognise only the rights people were born with, and to only empower Congress to secure them - not to abridge them. This is why the clause is worded as it is. It would not have been ratified had it explicitly empowered Congress to GRANT monopolies.
To understand just how antithetical monopolies were you should read http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=377:unequal-protection-jefferson-v ersus-the-corporate-aristocracy in order to see why Madison couldn't empower Congress to grant them (however much he wanted to) and the most he could do was put a clause in that he might later insinuate empowered the granting of copyright - that he could pretend secured the author's exclusive right to their writings (against copying by burglars) rather than as it actually did, annulled the people's right to copy (the writings they had purchased).
Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few... They... consequently are instruments of injustice.
The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
5) Section 8 makes no reference to the granting of copyright or patent. It is assumed that the granting of copyright and patent was in Madison's mind when he wrote it, but even if this is true (probably) this clause does not actually empower Congress to grant those privileges. In any case, one cannot go by Madison's intent, because the Constitution is an explicit piece of writing ratified on the basis of its words, not what Madison had in mind to assume the power to enact three years later.
The notion that copyright was created for the benefit of the public is a pretext - a lie.
Privileges are created for the benefit of those privileged and those granting the privilege (to whom the privileged will be beholden - the state).
You've got to smell something fishy in any law that has to emphasise that it is in the public interest.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about copyright, but people are hypnotised otherwise.
If Mike is interested in challenging received notions about copyright, then there is nothing to be gained by accepting the pretext that copyright is intended to benefit the public.
Sure, copyright is ever more draconian, but don't confuse its minimal impact upon individuals of the 18th century (whose communications facilities were voice and, for the elite, writing) with what its impact would be upon individuals in the 21st (laser printers, etc.).
It would be just as wrong to bankrupt or imprison pirates for printing copies of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe today* as it would have been to do the same in 1719.
* No, copyright's term has not been extended to life + 300 years - yet.
The privilege of persecuting individuals for their liberties, sharing and building upon their own culture is an injustice - do not accept it. Abolish it.
Like all folk who think the biggest problem with copyright is its term, it's not. It's the fact that it exists and is a clear and present danger to society - that can intimidate, fine, bankrupt, imprison, and extradite fundamentally innocent people. That should stop today, not even next year.
Thus the only ethical reform to copyright that doesn't actually abolish it is to exempt human beings from infringement.
Even so, you'll just end up with wealthy individuals and corporations suing corporations - much like the complete farce that occurs with patents. Nevertheless, these privileges even when applicable only to corporations are still thermodynamically ridiculous (except to lawyers).
There is no inherent conflict in natural rights. Our liberty to swing our fists is naturally delimited by another's right to life and privacy. Conversely, if another is invading our privacy and threatening our life by swinging their fists at us, then swinging our fists at them in defence is no longer a matter of liberty, but of life.
What few realise is that our liberty is abridged (our right to copy annulled) by the privilege of copyright (since 1709).
You're missing the white elephant. It's not a matter of fixing the DMCA, nor even a matter of fixing copyright. It's a matter of abolishing copyright - repealing the Statute of Anne and every enhancement and ancillary law since.
Don't confuse YouTube's policies with copyright. That said, YouTube has probably confused its own policies with copyright.
There is nothing a priori WRONG with infringing copyright.
Failing to realise this is probably where YouTube gets the idea of 3 strikes from.
Copyright is a privilege that means the holder can sue the infringer IF THEY WANT TO. If the holder has no issue with an infringement of their privilege then they simply do nothing, e.g. if they really like what someone has done with their published work. This is why copyright infringement is not wrong, not even illegal.
Unfortunately, the copyright cartel has hyped up infringement so much (they now class it as a 'cybercrime') that everyone now assumes that all copyright infringement is WRONG - a violation of a poor starving artist's human right.
YouTube similarly now supposes that all detected 'likely-to-be-infringements' are wrong (2 of which they so generously forgive with warnings).
Therefore YouTube is not a primary place for artists to publish their work that builds upon the work of others. A secondary place, perhaps - create a new account per work.
The Pirate Bay's Promo-Bay might be worth checking out.
Artists used to take their copyright infringing derivative works to record labels who'd do all the clearance for them. Self-publishing artists today are going to have to avoid any facility still contaminated by the 18th century privilege established by the Statute of Anne.
How many times have people insisted that artists cannot sell music direct to their fans, but must forever be restricted to selling copyright protected copies at monopoly prices?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language", containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history." The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
So, if you want to understand the meaning of the Progress clause, this is a good place to start.
As to property, privacy is a natural right (the individual's innate power to exclude others from the spaces they inhabit and the objects they possess) and it is from privacy that possessions and thence property derives. We are at liberty to exchange our possessions, and the truth of our exchanges establishes the transfer of title.
Of course there are some things decreed to be property that are not naturally so, e.g. radio frequencies. However, this does not invalidate the natural rights of the matter.
It allows Congress to grant a monopoly to the authors and inventors to the fruits of their labors for a limited time.
Yes, a lot of people have been brainwashed to believe this - that because Congress did grant copyright, that therefore it must have been empowered by the people in The Constitution to grant this privilege... empowered by the people to secure their liberty - and then immediately abridge it in the state's interest.
It takes programming, bordering upon hypnosis, to read "secure the exclusive right" as "grant copyright" or "annul the right to copy in the majority to leave it in the hands of the few".
Check out http://archive.feedblitz.com/528094/~4007566 for some background reading with respect to monopolies and The Constitution. From that you should see why it is essential to understand the difference between a natural right to be secured and a privilege/monopoly granted by the state.
That Madison wanted to grant copyright is beside the point. The point is, he could only insert a clause that empowered Congress to secure a right. If he'd written the clause to empower Congress to grant the monopolies of copyright and patent it would have been struck out - or the Constitution would not have been ratified. Only after ratification did he /Congress legislate the Statute of Anne as a fait accompli.
Yes, IP Maximalists will laugh - they are incorrigible. However, we shouldn't waste our breath fighting Maximalists. We should be educating each other, and letting the people see that copyright is an instrument of injustice.
Just as with slavery, people need to understand that such injustice is not necessary to produce cotton for their clothes, nor food for their tables, nor must people sacrifice their liberty that musicians may make music or that storytellers may write stories. The confiscation of our liberty is necessary only for the cartel's monopolies. To persuade a man to collect cotton, or a musician to make music, it is sufficient to pay them an equitable amount of money. See Kickstarter for a glimpse of how a musician's fans can exchange their money for the musician's music (without having to exploit or enforce an anachronistic and unethical 18th century monopoly).
People need to see the injustice of copyright (Richard O'Dwyer et al) and that it is necessary only to publishing corporations - not artists.
You could make a good start by ceasing to rubber stamp the belief that The Constitution empowered Congress to grant monopolies such as copyright and patent. As much as Madison may have wanted it to, it didn't. It only empowered Congress to secure the individual's exclusive right to their writings and inventions.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Statute of Anne (copied as the US Copyright Act, 1790 - see http://btlj.org/data/articles/25_3/1427-1474%20Bracha%20050911.pdf ) granted a privilege. It did not secure the unalienable right of an individual. See Paine: Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few... They... consequently are instruments of injustice.
That's a non-sequitur. Why, simply because a monopoly has ended, will movie lovers such as you refuse to pay good movie production companies good money to make good movies?
You have been hypnotised by the cartel to believe that without those monopolists getting extremely wealthy on monopoly profits (Hollywood accounting that gives them the lion's share of revenue from movie goer to movie maker) movies will no longer be made. If you remove the monopoly you simply remove the monopolistic middlemen, you do not remove the demand or the supply. While there remains a demand for movies and a supply of people able to make them (at far better value for both vendors and customers given free market pricing) then there will be an exchange of movies for money.
Try checking out http://vodo.net as one of many ventures exploring film production/distribution/financing without monopoly.
Re: Re: Further down the rabbit hole
I'm saying that while Madison wanted to enable the privileges of copyright and patent to be granted the clause he inserted was not sufficient to empower Congress to grant them.
His clause went unchallenged precisely because it simply empowered Congress to secure authors'/inventors' rights, and there was nothing controversial about securing rights since that was the whole point of the Constitution, viz "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
See also http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=289
As to "calling foul" the copyright and patent legislation was a fait accompli and what Framer would openly gainsay Congress at that point?
Further down the rabbit hole
Larry, you obviously recognise that copyright has some problems, but you haven't gone very far down the rabbit hole. Try The 18th Century Overture.
Reminds me of Orange Unsigned Act
See Saving on A&R.
Re:
It's just a matter of time. You'll be many years older by the time there are so many artists using non-label, non-copyright exchange mechanisms that you'll finally concede that ok, perhaps artists no longer need copyright, no longer need to sell copies at monopoly protected prices.
But, by that time there will be no labels and no copyright and we'll have forgotten why we ever needed to convince the copyright exploiters and supporters that they and their 18th century privilege are dispensable and disposable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Undoubtedly, copyright was attractive to printers in many states prior to 1787. Madison himself was a fan.
However, that so many were aware of this monopoly should make you wonder why the Constitution didn't explicitly empower Congress to grant it, especially when Jefferson suggested later to Madison to write that "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding --- years, but for no longer term and for no other purpose." http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/patents
All knew full well the difference between rights and monopolies. See the Declaration of Independence. And, therefore, all knew full well the difference between securing an individual's rights, and granting monopolies such as were 'enjoyed' in England. This is why Congress was empowered to GRANT Letters of Marque, but to SECURE the author's exclusive right.
Madison was ethically obliged to recognise only the rights people were born with, and to only empower Congress to secure them - not to abridge them. This is why the clause is worded as it is. It would not have been ratified had it explicitly empowered Congress to GRANT monopolies.
To understand just how antithetical monopolies were you should read http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=377:unequal-protection-jefferson-v ersus-the-corporate-aristocracy in order to see why Madison couldn't empower Congress to grant them (however much he wanted to) and the most he could do was put a clause in that he might later insinuate empowered the granting of copyright - that he could pretend secured the author's exclusive right to their writings (against copying by burglars) rather than as it actually did, annulled the people's right to copy (the writings they had purchased).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Arguments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
4) Section 8 does not empower Congress to annul the right to copy, or thereby abridge an individual's liberty, or similarly GRANT a privilege that does so - because it ONLY empowers Congress to SECURE the author's natural exclusive right to their writings (not GRANT copyright per the Statute of Anne aka US © act 1790).
5) Section 8 makes no reference to the granting of copyright or patent. It is assumed that the granting of copyright and patent was in Madison's mind when he wrote it, but even if this is true (probably) this clause does not actually empower Congress to grant those privileges. In any case, one cannot go by Madison's intent, because the Constitution is an explicit piece of writing ratified on the basis of its words, not what Madison had in mind to assume the power to enact three years later.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The notion that copyright was created for the benefit of the public is a pretext - a lie.
Privileges are created for the benefit of those privileged and those granting the privilege (to whom the privileged will be beholden - the state).
You've got to smell something fishy in any law that has to emphasise that it is in the public interest.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about copyright, but people are hypnotised otherwise.
If Mike is interested in challenging received notions about copyright, then there is nothing to be gained by accepting the pretext that copyright is intended to benefit the public.
I think "TechCrunch" is a typo by Alan Wexelblat.
Re: Re: YouTube isn't Copyright
Sure, copyright is ever more draconian, but don't confuse its minimal impact upon individuals of the 18th century (whose communications facilities were voice and, for the elite, writing) with what its impact would be upon individuals in the 21st (laser printers, etc.).
It would be just as wrong to bankrupt or imprison pirates for printing copies of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe today* as it would have been to do the same in 1719.
* No, copyright's term has not been extended to life + 300 years - yet.
The privilege of persecuting individuals for their liberties, sharing and building upon their own culture is an injustice - do not accept it. Abolish it.
Re: Re:
Like all folk who think the biggest problem with copyright is its term, it's not. It's the fact that it exists and is a clear and present danger to society - that can intimidate, fine, bankrupt, imprison, and extradite fundamentally innocent people. That should stop today, not even next year.
Thus the only ethical reform to copyright that doesn't actually abolish it is to exempt human beings from infringement.
Even so, you'll just end up with wealthy individuals and corporations suing corporations - much like the complete farce that occurs with patents. Nevertheless, these privileges even when applicable only to corporations are still thermodynamically ridiculous (except to lawyers).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no inherent conflict in natural rights. Our liberty to swing our fists is naturally delimited by another's right to life and privacy. Conversely, if another is invading our privacy and threatening our life by swinging their fists at us, then swinging our fists at them in defence is no longer a matter of liberty, but of life.
What few realise is that our liberty is abridged (our right to copy annulled) by the privilege of copyright (since 1709).
Copyright is an instrument of injustice and should be abolished. For a short introduction to the rights of man see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Arguments
For further reading see my comments to http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2012/04/17/mike_masnick_no_wrong_stop_that.php
(untitled comment)
You're missing the white elephant. It's not a matter of fixing the DMCA, nor even a matter of fixing copyright. It's a matter of abolishing copyright - repealing the Statute of Anne and every enhancement and ancillary law since.
YouTube isn't Copyright
Don't confuse YouTube's policies with copyright. That said, YouTube has probably confused its own policies with copyright.
There is nothing a priori WRONG with infringing copyright.
Failing to realise this is probably where YouTube gets the idea of 3 strikes from.
Copyright is a privilege that means the holder can sue the infringer IF THEY WANT TO. If the holder has no issue with an infringement of their privilege then they simply do nothing, e.g. if they really like what someone has done with their published work. This is why copyright infringement is not wrong, not even illegal.
Unfortunately, the copyright cartel has hyped up infringement so much (they now class it as a 'cybercrime') that everyone now assumes that all copyright infringement is WRONG - a violation of a poor starving artist's human right.
YouTube similarly now supposes that all detected 'likely-to-be-infringements' are wrong (2 of which they so generously forgive with warnings).
Therefore YouTube is not a primary place for artists to publish their work that builds upon the work of others. A secondary place, perhaps - create a new account per work.
The Pirate Bay's Promo-Bay might be worth checking out.
Artists used to take their copyright infringing derivative works to record labels who'd do all the clearance for them. Self-publishing artists today are going to have to avoid any facility still contaminated by the 18th century privilege established by the Statute of Anne.
Perhaps Kutiman has some suggestions?
Sell music, not copies
How many times have people insisted that artists cannot sell music direct to their fans, but must forever be restricted to selling copyright protected copies at monopoly prices?
http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=251
Selling music is the future.
Selling copies is the past - we make our own copies for nothing.
Re: Re: Backwards Queries...
Constable Savage would not have hesitated to arrest for the offence of "Photographing a police office whilst on duty". See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
Updated version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ59yboiIK4
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
So, if you want to understand the meaning of the Progress clause, this is a good place to start.As to property, privacy is a natural right (the individual's innate power to exclude others from the spaces they inhabit and the objects they possess) and it is from privacy that possessions and thence property derives. We are at liberty to exchange our possessions, and the truth of our exchanges establishes the transfer of title.
Of course there are some things decreed to be property that are not naturally so, e.g. radio frequencies. However, this does not invalidate the natural rights of the matter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
Yes, a lot of people have been brainwashed to believe this - that because Congress did grant copyright, that therefore it must have been empowered by the people in The Constitution to grant this privilege... empowered by the people to secure their liberty - and then immediately abridge it in the state's interest.
It takes programming, bordering upon hypnosis, to read "secure the exclusive right" as "grant copyright" or "annul the right to copy in the majority to leave it in the hands of the few".
Check out http://archive.feedblitz.com/528094/~4007566 for some background reading with respect to monopolies and The Constitution. From that you should see why it is essential to understand the difference between a natural right to be secured and a privilege/monopoly granted by the state.
That Madison wanted to grant copyright is beside the point. The point is, he could only insert a clause that empowered Congress to secure a right. If he'd written the clause to empower Congress to grant the monopolies of copyright and patent it would have been struck out - or the Constitution would not have been ratified. Only after ratification did he /Congress legislate the Statute of Anne as a fait accompli.
Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
Yes, IP Maximalists will laugh - they are incorrigible. However, we shouldn't waste our breath fighting Maximalists. We should be educating each other, and letting the people see that copyright is an instrument of injustice.
Just as with slavery, people need to understand that such injustice is not necessary to produce cotton for their clothes, nor food for their tables, nor must people sacrifice their liberty that musicians may make music or that storytellers may write stories. The confiscation of our liberty is necessary only for the cartel's monopolies. To persuade a man to collect cotton, or a musician to make music, it is sufficient to pay them an equitable amount of money. See Kickstarter for a glimpse of how a musician's fans can exchange their money for the musician's music (without having to exploit or enforce an anachronistic and unethical 18th century monopoly).
People need to see the injustice of copyright (Richard O'Dwyer et al) and that it is necessary only to publishing corporations - not artists.
Re: Re: Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
My pleasure, TasMot. Try http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=283 for starters and then check out the further reading at the end.
Re: Let's really strive for IP Minimalism
You could make a good start by ceasing to rubber stamp the belief that The Constitution empowered Congress to grant monopolies such as copyright and patent. As much as Madison may have wanted it to, it didn't. It only empowered Congress to secure the individual's exclusive right to their writings and inventions.
See http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
The Statute of Anne (copied as the US Copyright Act, 1790 - see http://btlj.org/data/articles/25_3/1427-1474%20Bracha%20050911.pdf ) granted a privilege. It did not secure the unalienable right of an individual. See Paine: Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:
The debate should be whether you abolish government, or just the anachronistic and unethical privileges granted in a less humane era (© 1709 by Queen Anne, and © 1790 by Congress).
Re: End Copyright?
That's a non-sequitur. Why, simply because a monopoly has ended, will movie lovers such as you refuse to pay good movie production companies good money to make good movies?
You have been hypnotised by the cartel to believe that without those monopolists getting extremely wealthy on monopoly profits (Hollywood accounting that gives them the lion's share of revenue from movie goer to movie maker) movies will no longer be made. If you remove the monopoly you simply remove the monopolistic middlemen, you do not remove the demand or the supply. While there remains a demand for movies and a supply of people able to make them (at far better value for both vendors and customers given free market pricing) then there will be an exchange of movies for money.
Try checking out http://vodo.net as one of many ventures exploring film production/distribution/financing without monopoly.