All accepted registrations through December 9 at 7:00p ET have been activated. Thank you! -M.W.
All user accounts that have been inactive since January 1, 2017 have been expunged. If you are one of these users and wish to submit a new post, please re-register. Thank you.
The classic Political Potpourri forum is back by popular demand! ~SEPARATE REGISTRATION IS NO LONGER NEEDED; ALL REGISTERED BUZZBOARD USERS ARE WELCOME TO POST!~ Be forwarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
- Posts: 1312
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am
As a preliminary matter, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution reads as follows:
[Congress shall have the power] 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.
I guess I've never read that or paid any attention to that clause before, but one thing strikes me immediately upon reading it - the purpose
of copyright laws is not to protect an individual's right to profit from his/her work; rather, the purpose is that of advancing science and art in broader society. Protecting the individual is only a means to this end.
Viewed in that light, do you think that today's copyright laws are over-broad? At what point does giving too many protections to the individual actually hamper the advancement of science and arts? I find the 70 years plus life of the author to be excessive and actually counter-productive to the original intent. Stuff should end up in the public domain in a far shorter time - I think the original 28 years seems far more reasonable.