Secret trade agreement will require searches of laptops, MP3 players,and cellphones at airports

Larry writes:

They also had in mind the idea that slaves weren't real people. Ideas
change.

Have ideas changed so much that one segment of the population is entitled to
work once, and get paid forever (along with its descendants)?

An engineer builds a bridge, but he does not get paid each time someone drives
over it. A dentist implants artificial teeth, but he doesn't get paid each
time his patient eats. And yet a person who writes a song will get paid for
use of that song for the rest of his life, and so will his descendants.

Is that the type of fairness that the writers of the Constitution had in mind?

richard writes:

Consumers are not made aware of this license requirement until AFTER
the sale and the package is opened.

Contracts like this are invalid.

Let's say you buy a CD that is of Beethoven's music. Does M$ have the
legal right to restrict your enjoyment of this uncopyrighted music?

Beethoven's music is in the public domain ... but specific performances of
that music recorded on CD are protected by copyright, unless copyright has
expired (which it is never, ever likely to do again, now that the law is
changed each time expiration dates approach).

Again, it is an illegal attempt by M$ to control how you
enjoy music.

Microsoft is not the villain here; the villains are the IP holders pressuring
Microsoft to serve them, instead of Microsoft's paying customers.

IMHO, that is in direct violation of the copyright laws.

Which laws? The relatively simple copyright laws in the U.S. were rewritten a
few years ago to make them ten times more complicated and a zillion times more
favorable to large corporate IP holders.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Scout writes:

Right, which is why I can make a copy of the CD for use in my car........

That was never governed by fair use.

The various music and motion picture groups have long held that wasn't
fair use. I don't recall the outcomes any more, but they were pushing at
one time for an added charge for blank media that would then "pay" them
for such illicit usage. When I was following it, Congress had turned
them down a couple of times on their "tax". Don't know it that
particular mess resurfaced.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Larry writes:

They also had in mind the idea that slaves weren't real people. Ideas
change.

Have ideas changed so much that one segment of the population is entitled to
work once, and get paid forever (along with its descendants)?

Apparently since this reflects no change. That particular segment was
carved out in the original constitution.

a
Is that the type of fairness that the writers of the Constitution had in mind?

Apparently since they were the ones that specifically put in the
wording.

Kurt Ullman writes:

The various music and motion picture groups have long held that wasn't
fair use.

They are right, in this case. That doesn't mean that it's illegal.

Kurt Ullman writes:

Apparently since this reflects no change. That particular segment was
carved out in the original constitution.

The writers of the Constitution intended copyright to be temporary and of
short duration, long enough to allow creators of IP to benefit financially
from their work in the same way that others do. It was not intended to be an
immortal golden goose.

Apparently since they were the ones that specifically put in the
wording.

No, they didn't put that in the wording. This is what they said (in reference
to powers granted to the legislative branch of the government):

"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; [...]"

It's hard to imagine that "limited times" extended a hundred years beyond the
death of the authors and inventors in question. Indeed, it's hard to see how
it could even cover their lifetimes. Clearly, something less than the
lifetime of the concerned parties was intended, otherwise it wouldn't have
been written this way.

Strictly speaking, one could even say that protection is limited to written
material and discoveries or inventions.

In any case, Congress (bribed by large corporations) long ago distorted the
principle beyond recognition.

Larry writes:

It absolutely is.

And there's no reason a dentist, or engineer, or anyone else, couldn't
get paid in the same way if they negotiated that into their contracts.

How can it be absolutely fair if dentists, engineers, and others must
negotiate it into their contracts, whereas it is provided by law for artists?

Larry writes:

How can you say this? Some work, somewhere, is always nearing its
expiration date.

That matters not if continual extensions are granted before the actual
expiration date is reached.

It's not like every copyrighted performance was performed on the same day.

Things being created now will still be restricted even after your
great-grandchildren are dead.

So the "villians" are people who are trying to get paid for their labor?

The villains are people who are trying to get paid for someone else's labor.
Music and movie companies are not the creators of content, just the copyright
holders. And they want to be paid forever, again and again, not just once,
like everyone else. So not only do they live off someone else's work, but
they want to be paid for it in perpetuity.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

Apparently since this reflects no change. That particular segment was
carved out in the original constitution.

The writers of the Constitution intended copyright to be temporary and of
short duration, long enough to allow creators of IP to benefit financially
from their work in the same way that others do. It was not intended to be an
immortal golden goose.

You know this how? As I mentioned they did not specific any kind of
time leaving up to the legislative to decide how long is long.


Apparently since they were the ones that specifically put in the
wording.

No, they didn't put that in the wording. This is what they said (in reference
to powers granted to the legislative branch of the government):

"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; [...]"

Which is exactly my point. They did not set down a specific time,
thus leaving explicitly leaving the ability to define "limited time" to
the Congress. In other areas where they desired specificity, they
included actual language outlining what they wanted. From terms of the
president to composition of the Senate to overriding vetoes.


It's hard to imagine that "limited times" extended a hundred years beyond the
death of the authors and inventors in question. Indeed, it's hard to see how
it could even cover their lifetimes. Clearly, something less than the
lifetime of the concerned parties was intended, otherwise it wouldn't have
been written this way.

Nope. If they wanted something specific, they would have included
something specific. You are arguing that their lack of specificity
suggests they had something specific in mind.


Strictly speaking, one could even say that protection is limited to written
material and discoveries or inventions.

In any case, Congress (bribed by large corporations) long ago distorted the
principle beyond recognition.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Mxsmanic wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Apparently since this reflects no change. That particular
segment was carved out in the original constitution.

The writers of the Constitution intended copyright to be temporary
and of short duration, long enough to allow creators of IP to
benefit financially from their work in the same way that others do.
It was not intended to be an immortal golden goose.

You know this how?

From the explicit use of the words FOR LIMITED TIMES.

As I mentioned they did not specific any kind of time
leaving up to the legislative to decide how long is long.

Apparently since they were the ones that specifically put in the wording.

No, they didn't put that in the wording. This is what they said (in
reference to powers granted to the legislative branch of the government):

"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; [...]"

Which is exactly my point.

Nope.

They did not set down a specific time,

They did however specify FOR LIMITED TIMES.

thus leaving explicitly leaving the ability to define "limited time" to the Congress.

And 100 years after the author is dead doesnt qualify.

In other areas where they desired specificity, they included
actual language outlining what they wanted. From terms of the
president to composition of the Senate to overriding vetoes.

Lot easier to be explicit with that.

It's hard to imagine that "limited times" extended a hundred years
beyond the death of the authors and inventors in question. Indeed,
it's hard to see how it could even cover their lifetimes. Clearly,
something less than the lifetime of the concerned parties was
intended, otherwise it wouldn't have been written this way.

Nope.

Yep.

If they wanted something specific, they would have included something specific.

Wrong.

You are arguing that their lack of specificity
suggests they had something specific in mind.

Wrong.

Strictly speaking, one could even say that protection is
limited to written material and discoveries or inventions.

In any case, Congress (bribed by large corporations)
long ago distorted the principle beyond recognition.