No, it was to ensure remuneration. Just because the words of the statute don't mention it explicitly doesn't mean that it was not the driving force. If it weren't for the money, we could just skip the entire debate.
No, it was to promote science and useful arts. Ensuring renumeration by offering a limited monopoly is the means to this end but most certainly not the end unto itself.
Copyright protects the livelihood of the creators of works of knowledge or creativity to ensure that they may do so with the knowledge that they will receive just remuneration for their effort.
Maybe once, originally.
In a way, its no different than the ownership of real property - you can't pick up real property and move away with it, and anybody can walk on it.
No, it is completely different than the ownership of real property. Copyright is a temporary monopoly on an intellectual work so a creator can temporarily receive just renumeration, but then said work is surrendered to everyone so that everyone can use it, improve upon it, refine it, for additional profit and to give society as a whole a greater wealth.
Meanwhile, "real property" is something that is owned for as long as the owner wishes, to be used for whatever the owner wishes.
I'll let that sink in for a moment. Climate is driven by the Sun's energy. The Sun's energy is reduced. The climate, with less energy from the sun, should get colder. But, it didn't.
Now, the trend of global dimming is reversing. And, the climate is warming up faster than it should purely from global brightening. Many scientists believe that the ice age we should have gotten in the 1970s and 1980s was masked by global warming happening back then. But, now, we just have global warming.
I won't lie: there may be people who are jumping of the bandwagons to keep them in the spotlight. I don't know this James Hansen. The one thing to point out is that at least is willing to change his views to match the evidence. Unfortunately, that's a very rare thing today.
No, seriously. Hear me out.
There are two ways to do a project: follow a proper process to determine who should do a project (advertising the project, getting tenders, proposal analysis), or corruptly award the project to a campaign contributor. Let us make one assumption: end result is of the same or similar cost, quality and delivery date between the two companies. I consider that to be a fair statement, as most "process" chosen candidates simply game the process until they win, and then inflate costs and delivery dates after the fact. If cost( proper_process ) + cost( properly_chosen_company ) > cost( corruptly_chosen_company ) + cost( corruption_incidentals ), why not go with corruption?
After living in Chicagoland for half a decade, I have to admit that Shit Got Done in Chicago. It may have been morally bankrupt, but it worked.