I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a…
Ignorance of the law is an excuse if the law costs a license fee. That's the biggest problem.
I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a…
Copyright isn't a right. Unlike actual rights it can be nullified by legislation, without recourse. Those nonprofits you mention operate just fine without holding copyright in many cases.
Copyright is simply the right to the fruits of one's own labors to be exclusive for some amount of time. I'd say that's a moral and ethical right. Just because you write novels or develop software rather than build houses or cars doesn't mean you should be deprived of making a living because others are free to duplicate your work with little to no expense, expertise, or time spent doing so.
Copyright isn't a right. Unlike actual rights it can be nullified by legislation, without recourse. Those nonprofits you mention operate just fine without holding copyright in many cases.
Copyright is simply the right to the fruits of one's own labors to be exclusive for some amount of time. I'd say that's a moral and ethical right. Just because you write novels or develop software rather than build houses or cars doesn't mean you should be deprived of making a living because others are free to duplicate your work with little to no expense, expertise, or time spent doing so.
Here is the difference: The constitution authorizes the legislature to grant limited-term monopolies to inventors and creators. But that isn't an obligation, and there is no underlying constitutional right. "Limited" could mean a week. It's completely up to the legislature.
In contrast, a law authorizing property seizure without compensation, or even an expiration date on property rights, would be unconstitutional. All copyright and patent protections expire.
I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a…
> But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders.
I don't see a problem with that. Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. If the government wants to revoke that privilege that is their prerogative.
I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a…
> But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders. I don't see a problem with that. Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. If the government wants to revoke that privilege that is their prerogative.
> Copyright is a privilege granted by the government.
AFAIK, it's actually "Copyright is a privilege RECOGNIZED by the government.".
I'd be surprised if if was the other way around in the US.
I can see troubling consequences that arise from both sides' arguments. If private companies can hold copyrights on portions of the law, that inhibits access to those laws, and I think any reasonable person would agree that citizens have a basic right to access the text of laws and legally binding regulations, and paywalls or other restrictions conflict with that right. But if the government can essentially revoke a…
> But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders. How about: a) voluntarily giving up copyright if you want your text to become law. or b) not making law out of propriety, private, copyrighted works. The reality is that secret laws are bad. We've known this as…
Lovely link! I find the subject of Roman law fascinating.
I'd argue that the reception of it throughout the centuries after the fall of the Roman state (most importantly it's dissemination) helped formed the basis of the modern European identity.
Also, fun fact: Roman law has been heavily studied in Japan since after it entered Japanese law as part of the Meiji restoration, so today Japan is one of the centers of Romanist studies.
Copyright is simply the right to the fruits of one's own labors to be exclusive for some amount of time. I'd say that's a moral and ethical right. Just because you write novels or develop software rather than build houses or cars doesn't mean you should be deprived of making a living because others are free to duplicate your work with little to no expense, expertise, or time spent doing so.
Here is the difference: The constitution authorizes the legislature to grant limited-term monopolies to inventors and creators. But that isn't an obligation, and there is no underlying constitutional right. "Limited" could mean a week. It's completely up to the legislature. In contrast, a law authorizing property seizure without compensation, or even an expiration date on property rights, would be unconstitutional. A…
They only expire because of an overwhelming public interest. Otherwise the very idea of them being property that can be created, bought, and sold would allow their owners the same rights as other property owners. They can expire your novel because it's useful (hopefully) to culture, but they can't expire your physical book except under exceptional circumstances.
Here is the difference: The constitution authorizes the legislature to grant limited-term monopolies to inventors and creators. But that isn't an obligation, and there is no underlying constitutional right. "Limited" could mean a week. It's completely up to the legislature. In contrast, a law authorizing property seizure without compensation, or even an expiration date on property rights, would be unconstitutional. A…
They only expire because of an overwhelming public interest. Otherwise the very idea of them being property that can be created, bought, and sold would allow their owners the same rights as other property owners. They can expire your novel because it's useful (hopefully) to culture, but they can't expire your physical book except under exceptional circumstances.
I don't think that makes sense. They expire because they are disclosed, i.e. published, manufactured and sold, etc. Without a government granted and enforced monopoly, creators and inventors would have no protection against being immediately copied without compensation. There is no question of a "right" in this. It's a government granted monopoly, explicitly authorized in the constitution because, otherwise, such monopolies were considered abhorrent. In that, it is a unique part of the US constitution, and does not resemble in any way the rights protected by other parts of the constitution.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse". "Oh, you want to see the law? That'll cost you."
Why pretend we're a representative republic with strong ties into democracy (CIA world factbook)? We're an oligopolstic, corporcrato-plutarchy. Welfare for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Companies get numerous socialist programs to help fund their bottom line, yet average and poor receive little and are berated for it. Drug test welfare recipients? Can't do that to the CEO, can we? You're more "equal" rich ag…
Shit like this is why people don't take HN seriously.
> But if the government can essentially revoke a private individual or company's copyright merely by incorporating otherwise protected text into legislation, that can have adverse effects on copyright holders. I don't see a problem with that. Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. If the government wants to revoke that privilege that is their prerogative.
> Copyright is a privilege granted by the government. AFAIK, it's actually "Copyright is a privilege RECOGNIZED by the government.". I'd be surprised if if was the other way around in the US.
The US constitution states otherwise. It says that Congress is allowed (not required) to grant limited time copyrights to promote the useful arts and sciences. That seems to make it quite explicit that copyright is granted by the government and not just recognized by it.