🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov10.93616.19134@ms.uky.edu> morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>. . . , but I believe that we
>should have an exclusive right <as guaranteed in the Constitution> to our
>works. 

Actually, exclusive rights to works are not "guaranteed in the
Constitution."  According to Article 1, Section 8, cl. 8, Congress has
the power to grant these rights.

"The 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[.]"

They have granted these rights, so we have them.  At the moment.
Congress also has the power to limit or even entirely eliminate such
rights.  So, while the power to grant such rights is constitutional,
the rights themselves are merely statutory, and could be repealed
tomorrow if the Congress (and maybe the President) so chose.

The majority of copyright scholars in the United States agree that
copyright is fundamentally economic in its foundations and
application, and reject the personality theories that underlie some
people's claims to their intellectual property.

Thus, if a case could be convincingly made that appropriation art was
in the economic interest of the country and that it did not discourage
the production and dissemination of new works, then and only then would
it be appropriate to modify the Copyright act to allow it.

Of course, the supporters of such a proposal would have to outspend
Time-Warner and Sony for the hearts of Congresspeople, but that's just
an implementation detail.


-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.