The comments made by this... "person", DO NOT reflect the views, opinions, or any beliefs whatsoever of Techdirt, its personnel, subsidiaries, affiliates, or sponsors. These opinions are their own (as morally disfunctional as they may be).
Here is a "man up" position for you. Just like you would do with a two year old. Because of all the bitching and moaning about the details, Eliminate it! Then we will give you something to really bitch about.
I have an idea. What the congress has the power to grant, the congress also has the power to take away. If they cry and whine too much because they aren’t getting rich from it (or know how to) then just eliminate copyright all together. Teach them a lesson about what a truly free market really is. If they dont like it, too bad. The general public isnt really asking their opinions and doesnt really care.
"this is in large measure why the 5th Amendment was enacted"
Your starting to get the idea (albeit slowly). The 5th amendment overrules the despotic case law which reinforced the the claims the despot had before independence. Because the issue is specifically addressed in the Constitution (5th amendment), any despotic case law to the contrary is then nullified and irrelevant. just because the law is still active in Englad does not mean it applies to the US
Now apply this to the discussion. Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution specifically states that congress has th power to;
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."
Because "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not a natural right, or previously granted right, (thus nullifying the despotic statute of Anne) Congress has the power to create that right (but not the obligation to), "for a limited time" (not on into forever), for "the "Authors and Inventors" (not for their heirs like in Anne), and (and this part is KEY) for the purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Like I said, because it is specifically addressed in the Constitution, any previous despotic case law that contradicts A1, s8 would be nullified and irrelevant. Especially since the founding fathers knew about the statute of Anne and purposely created an entry in the US Constitution to overrule and nullify it.
"That is they could follow laws of England but they don't have to."
Exactly. Also where it is specifically addressed otherwise in the constitution, then the English law should NOT be followed at all. As it is with artical 1. sec.8 of the Constitution which supersedes and nullifies (in US law) the despotic law of Statute of Anne.
Oh, as for real estate law, well, back 200-300yrs ago the despot owned everything and the "occupation" of that land was by whim of that despot. He could grant land, and also take it away, at his whim and that of his judges and "toe" suckers. These issues (and many other injustices) were specifically addressed in Constitutional law to supersede despotic case law which allowed them. So your premise that despotic case law overrules specifics in the Constitution is totally illogical at best.
As you have stated "The ratification of the Articles of Confederation, later replaced by the Constitution" just as the articles of confederation were established as a replacement to the laws of England (along with the English government itself that was replaced). The 7th amendment speaks about case law and precedent and not specifically about copyright itself. Since it was not mentioned in the 7th amendment then it is automatically covered by A1,s8 which speaks about it specifically. Sorry but specifics overules ambiguity every time.
The revolution was fought in part to release the people from the laws of the despot who made up those rules at his whim and that of those who sucked his... toes the best at that particular time. It also released the people from the precedents set forth by the judges who only held their positions at the whim of that despot and his "toe" suckers. So enforcing those laws as precedent goes totally against what the founding of democracy in this country was about. Especially since the constitution was intentionally established to replace all of that. I could see where case law would supersede where it is not addressed specifically, but since it IS addressed specifically, then despotic case law is irrelevant.
One major fault (In my opinion) in your use of the statute of Anne for this discussion. It can be summed up in with final sentence;
"May it please Your Majesty..."
Mike was commenting on A1,s8 of the US Constitution. what you refer to is something from the laws of England. If I remember correctly, our founding father fought with and defeated the English to be able to establish the US Constitution and not have to follow the laws of England. The Constitution that was written, to be followed instead of those English laws and clearly states what Mike has presented. What you are quoting is irrelevant to US law and this discussion. using your logic I could quote any law from any country as justification for claims that may or may not actually exist in the US.
Article 1,sec 8 "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."
This states that Congress has the power to (not the obligation to):
"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
This part states HOW the Congress is allowed 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."
Here is the common sense reading of it;
If "their respective Writings and Discoveries" DO NOT "PROMOTE THE PROGRESS of Science and useful Arts", then Congress DOES NOT have the power to "secure for limited time" the Authors and Inventors "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (copyrights and patents). Also if those "exclusive rights" restrict the PROMOTION of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts", then Congress does not have the power to grant those exclusive rights.
Clearly the overriding AUTHORITY (not the right) is in the Constitution for the broader and public "PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF" Science and useful Arts, and not for the individual "interest in" (exclusive Right) the Sciences and useful Arts.
Congress can only, and under certain conditions like the public interests, grant conditional rights that DO NOT normally exist. They can also take them away when they are no longer in the best intrests of the public and do not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Now I'm not one for big government BUT, better representation cant be a bad thing. It may also help with the stranglehold Government greed and corporate lobbyists/interests have on the US. With more bribe money needed to force their agendas, they may just go broke trying to do it.
Its just food for thought and I would like to it its merits debated.
I think Cayman Jack should just change its name to Pete or something. It could lead to bad product association. After a few drinks when someone orders a Jack and Coke, some dumb drunk bartender might get confused, hold up both bottles and ask "Which one?". Then when the customer responds "The JD, I dont want that crock of shite one", I could see where some might get the wrong impression.
"You are saying that someone who created something, that everyone wants, should for whatever reason have to be a monk and take a pledge of modesty and poverty, just to suffer as an artist?"
No, what I am saying is that just because you create something that YOU love doesnt mean that EVERYONE loves it, let alone enough to give you their hard earned money for it. Also just because You think your entitled to a certain amount of money or are entitled to a certain lifestyle doesnt mean others think the same way.
There are many things in life that most people are willing to pay for (as the article indicates), there are many things that people will "take" (or accept) if it were given to them, and there are many things in life that you couldnt pay most people to take. Your job as a creator (artist) is to create something that people WANT to pay you for. Figuring out how much money people are WILLING to pay is another part of YOUR job.
If your idea of self-worth is to high then guess what, people wont pay you. No matter how much crying, whining, and bitching about it you do. In fact this type of behavior tends to make things worse for you, by people thinking your "value" is even less than what it could be. Throwing yourself on the floor, like a 2 year old, kicking and screaming "pay me more...pay me more" doesnt make people want to pay you, it makes them want to slap the crap out of you and tell you to shut up and go away!!! Not everybody gets to be a diva, Which, by the way, is supposed to be an insult, not the twisted definition that many elitist/entitlement minded "artists" with delusions of self-worth, have mutated it to be.
If an "artitst" is "suffering", then its because of their own failures to see the realities of life and their own abilities, not the fault of "pirates" who dont buy into the "artists" delusions of self-worth.
like I said "look in the mirror" if you want to find the person with the biggest sense of entitlement. Just because you create something and think it has value, doesnt mean that it actually does. It also doesnt mean that you get to walk the red carpet with the people who do.
"They are a generation who feels incredibly entitled"
You want to talk about people who feel entitled? What about the spoiled people, like yourself, who feel the world owes them an existence just because they possibly created something that they think they should get rich off of? Wake up! If no one thinks it worth anything they arent going to pay you for the lifestyle you think you deserve. Good god, get over yourself already. NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING!!! If someone wants to support you for life be thankful, dont bitch about how no one else wants to. You say everyone wants something for nothing, well heres an idea;
LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
Using the failed logic of the *aa's. New tech companies havent started up, and existing ones arent innovating existing products, because they are afraid of bogus lawsuits that would put hem out of business or cost them more money than it would to start the company.
Normally I am a moderate. I have complete disdain, contempt, and lack of trust for both parties because of the extremists views they spew. Their "if your not with us your against us" mentality and the insinuations of my being a traitor, terrorist, or criminal for not agreeing fully with their lies, has really gotten out of control.
With that said it is really refreshing to see the Senator here making intelligent comments to the ones he is supposed to represent. Those being the people, not the corporations who are attempting to buy the votes. I commend him for listening to the people and not just to the money being counted. I have respect for his stance. A lot more than the spineless *** that I had to vote for who wouldn't take a stand on sopa/pipa because he didnt want to offend the party leaders in his re-election year. He forgets the national party leaders dont get to vote for him.
This hurts to say but "As a fellow democrat", I would be willing to stand beside him and confront the party leaders on these issues, and be willing to step forward to criticize their corruption and remind them who they work for!!! I'll also be there when they start with their corperate written rhetoric, telling me what to do and say...MAKE ME!!!
Its so nice to see a Senator who has some common sense.
Please keep it up and dont fall into their mindsets.
The problem is not that these 6 morons dont understand copyright law. Its that these 6 morons dont understand their fricking jobs!!! They are not there to say If congress wants it to be that way, it must be ok. Their job is to say when the legislative branch and the judicial branch have overstepped their mandates and passed or enforced laws that are inconsistent with existing parts of the constitution. Within the perimeters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the general public, but with protections for the individual (minority) from the will of the majority.
With the thinking of these asshats, slavery is only a simple majority vote away from being re-established. It would make more money for the corporations (and congress) and after all, slavery (as wrong and immoral as it is) was acceptable when the constitution was written wasnt it? No, I am not pro slavery. That is an extreme example to illustrate the lack of itelligence in our government!!!!
This may not be a bad thing at all. If Reid brings it to a vote "as is" on the 24th, it might get killed right then. If it does pass, the house may kill it. If it makes it to Obama, he might kill it. There's a growing pattern here.
Keep turning up the heat!!!!
Maybe they might see through the bri...err... campaign contributions and kill the bill before it can do any real harm. The courts not withstanding.