'chrismcb', you wrote, "Note that it also refers to Authors and Inventors, it doesn't refer to people or corporations or groups, or anything. Just 'Author' and 'Inventor.' "

But the Constitution starts out with "We the People..."

I think that if we continue down the road of imputing personhood to every kind of grouping of persons, then we are in big trouble; and I think that if we continue down the road of conferring the rights that people have to every kind of grouping of persons, then we are in even bigger trouble.

A group of persons is not a person, just as a pack of wolves is not a wolf, a computer is not a transistor, and a brain is not a nerve cell. A group of persons has emergent properties that make is substantially different from an individual person. A person has a conscience, but large a group of thousands of persons does not. A person can put their own self interest aside and think of the greater good, but it is very unusual for a group to do that. If one were to anthropomorphize a group of persons, the group could usually be characterized as selfish and unfeeling - the characteristics of a sociopath.

Do we want the protections of the Constitution to automatically extend to such things, without some careful consideration?

And since I think you are being ironic, I think you will agree that that is part of the point I am making. The Constitution is about the powers of government over people, and the rights of people. Nowhere does it say "business" or "corporation". (I believe that corporations of sorts did exist at that time, especially in Europe, although US corporate law was still someone non-existent I believe but I could be wrong.) Regardless, the assumption that the Constitution's provision "...securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings..." is about anything other than people is an extrapolation and should be subject to question.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it equate protections of rights pertaining to intellectual works as "property".

The term "property" implies that it can be sold, that it can be inherited, that it can be owned - and owned by non-persons at that. Nowhere does the Constitution say these things, nor does it even use the term "property" in this context.

Rather, it says that Congress shall have the power "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." And that is all it says on the matter.

Note that it says "Authors and Inventors". It does not say businesses: if it had meant to include businesses, it would have said so, but the Constitution starts out with "We the People", and it is about the rights of people and the powers and limitations of government over those people (much less corporations or unions, which are not people: a group of persons is not a person any more than a human body is a cell). And note that the Constitution uses the term "exclusive Right": it does not use the term "property". A right is akin to a lease. It is not ownership of the object in question. Thus, in the term "intellectual property", the "property" is merely a lease of sorts granted to Authors and Inventors (people) - for a limited time. That does not automatically imply inheritance to me, nor does it automatically imply that it can be bought and sold as we assume that property can: those are extrapolations of the "rights" intended and we should question those extrapolations and not take them for granted: do they actually promote science and the useful arts? I therefore think that the term "intellectual property" implies extrapolations that might not have been intended.

Copyright and patent law (these terms are also not in the Constitution) have made huge leaps beyond what the Constitution intended. That is why we are off track.

BeanThere wrote, "But what you are referring to, let's be open about it, is using financial clout to purchase politicians."

Yes, that is the central problem with our system. The role of money in elections. It is too easy to influence politicians. Before every election they have $1000 plate dinners and one by one contributors tell the candidates what they want in return for their donation. It is a horrible system. Elections should be about votes, not about donations. Volunteers should go door to door, rather than all the campaign advertising in the media. There really needs to be a way to stop the advertising but I don't know a way, especially since the Supreme Court equated paid advertising by an organization as "free speech". (That case was a couple of decades back.)

BeanThere wrote, "Wow - you've never really been a shareholder or member of any real organization, have you? You'd know that the moment you have more than one person, you already start having disagreements."

I have. I was on the board of the company that I founded some years back. But I understand your point. You are right that shareholders debate and don't agree on the mission. But my point was that it is not one person one vote. The more stock you have, the more votes you have. Thus, a corporation is dominated by the largest shareholders, with a single-minded mission to make money. Corporations take on a life of their own in that they have a strong tendency to act in any way available to further their goals, irrespective of considerations for the greater good or anyone else. Just as a mob has "mob behavior", a corporation (or a union or non-profit) has emergent behavior.

You wrote, "Its one reason the was a debate on whether or not corporation should be allowed."

Really? That's fascinating. I did not know that. Can you point to a reference to this? Is it in some of the Federalist Papers?

You are right, there were groups. But today those groups have become extremely powerful. Communication is much more effective today and large groups use it much more effectively than ever before. Manipulation of people has become a science.

Sex for money should not be illegal. It is an overreach of local government in my opinion. It is between two consenting adults. The government has no legitimate business in it, just as the government has no legitimate business telling someone they cannot use drugs. Should Keith Richards have been prevented from using drugs? Perhaps then he would not have written such great music. It is his choice. I don't choose it myself, but who am I to say that someone else should not choose it? As long as they don't hurt anyone or drive while under the influence.

Yes, I suspect it was about expression of ideas. Certainly ideas are the foundation of everything else, so protection of freedom to express ideas must be the core protection. Then again, ideas are often best expressed graphically....

Yes, you are right in a sense, in that the former violates a sense of fairness and rationality. It is offensive for that reason - the idea is offensive as you say - whereas the second is offensive because it is a pejorative. There is a difference. But then again, censorship of pejoratives would silence a great amount of valuable literature and art.

Yes, I agree. I don't know the solution. I only know that there is a problem. Perhaps it comes down to holding accountable the individuals who make decisions within organizations. After all, every communication by an organization is initiated by an individual. The problem is that organizations have aggregated power, and they are single-minded in their mission, whereas individuals can weight social benefits versus personal benefits. Organizations tend to be amoral - even sociopathic - and are therefore not "good citizens". And even worse, organizations use money to amplify their influence far beyond the influence of individuals. I don't know the solution though.

Yes, good points.

I agree it is a slippery slope. But there actually are standards. E.g., one cannot libel someone. And if you yell "fire" in a theater and there is no fire, you will be kicked out. But you are right that we must be careful about such standards because they can indeed be used to censor ideas. The censorship of ideas and of whistle-blowing are the main concerns in my opinion.

Indeed. The 1st Amendment protects us from government, but who protects us from powerful groups, such as companies, unions, etc.? We really need a supplemental "Bill Of Rights" to address organizations of people and how individuals are protected from those organizations. You are perceptive, that so-called intellectual property is the currency of power of the 21st century, and will be the primary instrument of oppression. We are seeing it take shape now. Small startups are hard pressed to create _any_ product that does not infringe on _some_ patent held by some large company with a patent portfolio.

Yes, our culture equate free speech with art and any form of expression. I am not sure that was the intent. But I don't know. To me, I would value the expression of an idea, such as "the government is corrupt" as much more important than the ability to express it in a rude way such as "fuck the government". But that is my personal value.