Being a very predictable lot, power-players never know their charade has been penetrated until they see the fires from the torches brandished by the large mob on their lawn Then they start acting all bent out of shape and misunderstood.... sound familiar?
Indeed; that's exactly what happened with SOPA/PIPA.
We'll be waiting forever - our intransigent AC poster provides nothing but ad hominems and unsubstantiated assertions. Our side of the argument presents citations from laws, quotes from Supreme Court decisions and from the founding fathers, along with reasoned arguments.
If he cannot respond to reason with reason, there is no debate, only diatribe from his side.
Karl has spent a lot of time patiently explaining to you why you are wrong, even digging up one of Jefferson's original statements on the subject, yet you insist on holding on to your repudiated arguments.
Copyright is NOT property. It is a grant, a prerogative, a privilege, given by the People to those who "create". That grant allows the author to profit from his writings, exclusive of others (a monopoly), but is time-limited. As per the Constitution, Congress is given the power to administer this grant on behalf of the People.
Copyright ALLOWS the author to benefit financially, but that is secondary to the benefit accrued by the people in encouraging the author to continue creating. Clearly, the copyright "bargain" is meant to benefit society as its primary goal.
Should this bargain no longer benefit society, the People have the Constitutional power, through Congress, to modify it or even do away with it.
All of this is documented history. Please do a little bit of research, starting with the Federalist Papers and the letters exchanged between Jefferson and Madison.
Lastly, Mike consistently makes the point that the copyright monopoly pendulum has swung too far to the wrong side of the bargain and society is no longer receiving the benefits that were intended. The majority here agree and have provided cogent arguments why that is true.
and then goes on to enumerate these powers. Coupling the above with Clause 8, it says:
"The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts"
and it continues by specifying HOW that will be accomplished:
"by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
So, when read in this manner, it only gives Congress the power to grant exclusive rights, not the power to judge which writings or discoveries should get them.
Missing from Porter's NYT article is that in addition to the 5.8 million physical Adele albums that were sold, there were 1.8 million digital sales of the same album. In contrast, there were 14.247 million sales of her digital tracks.
The numbers are similar for all the top artists and seem to show a preference for tracks over albums.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dgingras.
Re: Re: Re: I think you got this backwards...
Indeed; that's exactly what happened with SOPA/PIPA.
Re: Re: Re: Karl makes perfect sense
If he cannot respond to reason with reason, there is no debate, only diatribe from his side.
Karl makes perfect sense
Copyright is NOT property. It is a grant, a prerogative, a privilege, given by the People to those who "create". That grant allows the author to profit from his writings, exclusive of others (a monopoly), but is time-limited. As per the Constitution, Congress is given the power to administer this grant on behalf of the People.
Copyright ALLOWS the author to benefit financially, but that is secondary to the benefit accrued by the people in encouraging the author to continue creating. Clearly, the copyright "bargain" is meant to benefit society as its primary goal.
Should this bargain no longer benefit society, the People have the Constitutional power, through Congress, to modify it or even do away with it.
All of this is documented history. Please do a little bit of research, starting with the Federalist Papers and the letters exchanged between Jefferson and Madison.
Lastly, Mike consistently makes the point that the copyright monopoly pendulum has swung too far to the wrong side of the bargain and society is no longer receiving the benefits that were intended. The majority here agree and have provided cogent arguments why that is true.
That's not what the Constitution says.
"The Congress shall have power"
and then goes on to enumerate these powers. Coupling the above with Clause 8, it says:
"The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts"
and it continues by specifying HOW that will be accomplished:
"by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
So, when read in this manner, it only gives Congress the power to grant exclusive rights, not the power to judge which writings or discoveries should get them.
Billboard report
Missing from Porter's NYT article is that in addition to the 5.8 million physical Adele albums that were sold, there were 1.8 million digital sales of the same album. In contrast, there were 14.247 million sales of her digital tracks.
The numbers are similar for all the top artists and seem to show a preference for tracks over albums.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dgingras.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt