In Reply to: I thought I did answer it posted by shivohum on February 14, 2001 at 22:39:34:
Your interpretation of artists rights simply isn't the historical reasoning. It's clear than artists DO create value, and do have a right to what they created.
You can argue all you want about 'natural this', but all you've done is assert, not argue.
The U.S. Constitution specifies that certain intellectual properties rights may be created by Congress for a utilitarian purpose:
"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;"
This implies that intellectual property is not a natural right but one that is granted or taken away depending on how useful it is to society. This is fundamentally different than with the right to own physical property, or, even more strikingly, the right to express oneself.
Also notice that durations are placed on the ownership of intellectual property. There has been no historical analogue to this with truly natural rights. And the duration keeps changing, too... every time Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain, Disney lobbies and copyright gets extended.
There may be certain people who think that intellectual property is or should be a natural right, but that has not been the official U.S. tradition.
> You can argue...but all you've done is assert, not argue.
If you say so ;-).
IP rights are MORE than the US Constitional Rights.
US *IS NOT* the world.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: