Search results

Genuinely, where? IMO. That case simply reaffirmed the constitutional framework that had existed in the U.S., with one explicit carveout. Prior to that there were supposedly 3 states that did make mention of natural rights with respect to copyright, but such language didn't make it into the...

You keep repeating this, but I never once put it through AI. I happened to agree with AI on that point only because that was my independent conclusion. Just because AI says it doesn't mean it is wrong. I did read the intro though (and more). I have no idea if you read more than me or not. I...

It went completely over my head lol.

That's fair. I assumed that, and possibly it was justified at the time given the intense pushback we got for sharing our perspectives on it. Why do you keep doing this, especially when you didn't even read the 50 page piece? That's cool. From what I've read I've not found the reasoning...

Article is pretty clear on it's purpose. "The purpose of this Article is to explore the notion of literary property, to determine whether literary property may be equated with copyright, and, if so, to assess what the implications might be for modern copyright law as it adapts to newly...

I'm not surprised. My point isn't whether it's hidden in a footnote or note, it's the footnote explains the full context and while on the surface some of that terminology may seem like it agrees with your stance, when you actually dig into what is really meant by those terms, that notion is...

Thanks for the tacit admission that you didn't read the article either. I read a decent portion as well and I didn't consult AI on it's meaning.

This is the quote in question "The full extent to which literary property can be said to safeguard an author’s natural right over his own work may be a matter of pure academic speculation.4 What appears certain, however, is that literary property predates statutory copyright and protects an...

I have serious doubts you read the whole article.

I didn't ask the AI on this one, but i'm in agreement, footnote 4 seems fairly damning to the articles basic premise.

IMO. Democracy isn’t a natural right. Thus no voting is either. But I think this will quickly stray a bit too far into politics so I’m goina leave this tangent there.

Right. The whole point is that establishment of any particular non-perpetual timeframe undermines the natural/moral right theory for copyright laws. If it was a natural/moral right then a timeframe makes no sense.

Protecting the authors does not necessitate the protection is founded on natural/moral rights. This is why every reference of protecting them is coupled with, "it's of great benefit of society to do so."

I didn't. The information in the Statute of Anne 1710 agrees with me on this. AI initially said this, and after reading the Statute of Anne myself, I independently agree. No one mentions theft in these statutes or their reasoning or arguments in support of it. You don't seem to understand...

No, it already did that long before you mentioned it.

It's also a bit ironic that the early history of copyright was to censor works, as established both via my AI search and @Justice and Rule referenced site. Nothing at all to do with moral or legal rights at that time.

Federalist Paper no 43 "To the People of the State of New York: THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers: A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective...

"Has problems". No not really. I already take everything on the internet with a grain of salt including AI and google search results. I've found not much has really changed in terms of needed carefulness for correct/incorrect information. That said, I'm not writing an academic or legal...

Was surprised because it sounded like it was but from knowing you it would have been something I had thought you'd have disagreed with.

Isn't the point of pointing that out this way to dismiss whatever it says in entirety out of hand? What other purpose does this objection with no additional context serve? Which part? That it's a moral right? Virtually no major philosopher comes close to agreeing with that. That the...