Read this post to hear the case. Comments are also interesting.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/9784/is-copyright-unconstitutional/
Is copyright unconstitutional?
Previous post: An uptick in the housing market
Next post: Open Letter to Mothers Against Drunk Driving
{ 14 comments }
Do copyrights laws violate freedom of speech and of the press? That is a tricky question!
many of the bloggers naively seem to believe that copyright was instigated to protect the interests of the artists. hook, line, sinker.
http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html
Is copyright unconstitutional? Easy answer: no.
Article 1 Section 8: “The Congress shall have 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;”
ShedPlant,
You’re right that it’s authorized in Art. 1 Sec. 8, but the question then becomes: are Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the later First Amendment come into conflict?
Inherently, I do not think that Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the First Amendment come into conflict, however since the duration and means of applying the exclusive rights are not defined by the Constitution, there are certainly aspects of Copyright and Patent law that probably do conflict with the First Amendment. One of my college courses dealt with Internet Law, and this subject came up, since the development pace of the electronics and software markets is so fast.
Jeffrey_Tucker: Is the right to a fair trial even constitutional?
ShedPlant: Um … yes? See Amendment VI.
Dustin: That doesn’t count because it can conflict with freedom of speech.
Silas_Barta: ???
Talk about false analogy. Free speech wouldn’t conflicts with the right to a fair trial. Dustin’s point is that because the First Amendment is after the main text of the Constitution, it inherently changes the Constitution. Just as other amendments made involuntary servitude illegal and gave the right to vote to non-white male property owners. What Dustin saying can only be not true if the 21st amendment didn’t reverse the 18th amendment, which it clearly did.
@AJ_Witoslawski: No false analogy at all. Free speech has long been recognized by judges to infringe, in certain instances, on the right to a fair trial. Even if you don’t agree with those judges, it’s pretty easy to think up examples of where being able to say anything you want would hurt someone’s chances at a fair trial.
Now, you can argue that such restrictions don’t “really” infringe on free speech, but you could say the same thing about IP’s “infringements” on free speech, and so on and so forth.
Now what?
If I understand the process correctly, unless an Amendment specifically states it overrides a prior enumerated power, it is an adjunct and does not supersede other statements. Copyright would therefore be explicitly permitted.
Amendments override the main body and earlier to the extent that they conflict. Thus, the twelfth amendment overrode the presidential selection process, despite never explicitly stating that text was overridden. In a similar manner, the first amendment restricts Congress’s power to create copyright and the first amendment itself is restricted where later ones conflict.
I can’t think of a better way to create a society of thieves ruled by accountants than to destroy intellectual property. Edwin Drake anybody? or perhaps Nicola Tesla…
Some people seem to think that Free Speech is an absolute right, but it meant, traditionally, that the government couldn’t license your right to get your views heard- it never meant you could say anything!
If I say something false and damaging about a person, that person can sue me in court, though the government would leave me alone.
When Ms Rowling had her copyright infringed, it was up to her to pursue the matter in the courts, but it was not up to the government to notice it, or to interpret it as a breach. Nor could the government stop her books, which were about witchcraft, and which some Christians do find offensive.
I like the comment on the original post where the guy says:
“Why innovate or create if you cannot profit from it?”
Here strawman, strawman, strawman. How can it be assumed that one can only make a profit if their work is copyrighted? Can it not then also be assumed, conversely, that copy is a form of flattery? and that the attention brought about by someone copying another should then draw even more attention to the original?
Innovation and invention will always exist. Competition will only make it better.
“My country ’tis of thee…”
You Yanks steal everything!
Comments on this entry are closed.