[Free-sklyarov-uk] a win for sanity! and free speech

[David Haworth]

--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 04:20:37PM +0000, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> [quoting someone else]
> > However, what the constitution says is: (Art I sec 8 clause 8)
>=20
> >   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;
>=20
> Interestingly, the above doesn't explicitly provide for the `right to
> control works' to be *transferrable*: the rights are to be secured `to
> Authors and Inventors', so Congress at least had the option of making
> those rights non-transferrable.  They might, thereby, have secured the
> rights against such coercion as is routinely used to oblige authors to
> sign over those rights to their publishers.  This failing might well
> undermine even pre-DMCA legislation.
>=20
> The status of copyright in the U.S. might prove to be shakier than we
> thought ...

What's more, it doesn't explicitly allow congress to enact copyright
laws. Only to promote the progress of science and the useful arts
by doing so. If the copyright laws can be shown not to promote the
progress of science etc., they ought not to be constitutional.

Furthermore, the extension of copyright after death ought to be
unconstitutional.

If the US Justice system truly were just, the whole lot would crash
& burn.

Dave


--=20
David Haworth
Baiersdorf, Germany
david.haworth at altavista.net

--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (SunOS)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7631vHM6a+0rWdYoRAlzhAJ4hYE6oyisjwyn7yUmGpv/Lwv7IBACdGO9Y
hVIOOekMV9bK+LccFjCWibs=
=TpPN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--17pEHd4RhPHOinZp--