| ▲ | jmward01 a day ago |
| The actual text of the US constitution maybe? Article I Section 8 Enumerated Powers Clause 8 Intellectual Property 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;
Seems like the idea is to promote innovation by making sure it is for a limited time only seems pretty ingrained in the idea. |
|
| ▲ | tmtvl a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| If it says 'for a limited time', then wouldn't tying itmto the lifetime of the author be unconstitutional? Because strictly speaking it's impossible to predict whether an author's life will end. |
| |
| ▲ | bitwize a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Decided in Eldred v. Ashcroft. As long as Congress stipulates a non-infinite copyright term, it's constitutional. Given that the chance of a human being eventually ceasing to live has been 100% so far, it's legitimate to assume that life + n years is still a finite period of time. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | samatman a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's in fact trivially easy to predict whether an author's life will end. Watch: I predict an author's life will end. I give it very high odds indeed. | | |
| ▲ | tastyfreeze a day ago | parent [-] | | Corporations can hold copyright and can be undying. | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 a day ago | parent [-] | | If the author is a real person, it's life of the author plus. If it is a corporation it is a fixed amount of time. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cess11 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Progress of Science and useful Arts" isn't utilitarian in the sense "benefit society as a whole". |
