Comment Re:There is no 'I told you so' more poignent (Score 1) 291
Good, maybe even brilliant point. You might have just put yourself up on an elite level with the likes of Richard Epstein at the University of Chicago Law School, a noted if not the preeminent Takings Clause legal scholar, assuming this is an original thought. Indeed, copyrights and patents are restrictions on the real property of those who are not given the grant of exclusive monopoly distribution. Real property is prohibited from being shaped in ways that copy ideas, including transferring the shape of hard drives to contain information electronic bits that copy copyrighted songs. Every time copyright length is increased, it certainly is a takings issue diminishing the value of all real property, transferring value from one group of citizens (the public domain) to another group of citizens (copyright holders) without compensation. No, it actually transfers public domain property into the hands on an exclusive monopoly minority. At a minimum, the law should demonstrate that increasing the length of copyright increases the progress of the useful Arts, and I doubt those increases ever have even pretended to offer such justification.
Copyright Takings is a new legal argument that could possibly get some good mileage at the appeals level, especially including at the Supreme Court with the recent new appointees. Current copyright law is unconstitutional on many different levels. And that argument can certainly be applied to all copyrighted works that have had the length of exclusive monopoly extended from previous shorter copyright term lengths. It could be useful in a challenge of laws like the DMCA and the past copyright extension acts, as additional argument on top of the constitutional challenges on the grounds of excessive fines and non-contemporary limited copyright term lengths.
Your post does deserve a +5 interesting mod.
Copyright Takings is a new legal argument that could possibly get some good mileage at the appeals level, especially including at the Supreme Court with the recent new appointees. Current copyright law is unconstitutional on many different levels. And that argument can certainly be applied to all copyrighted works that have had the length of exclusive monopoly extended from previous shorter copyright term lengths. It could be useful in a challenge of laws like the DMCA and the past copyright extension acts, as additional argument on top of the constitutional challenges on the grounds of excessive fines and non-contemporary limited copyright term lengths.
Your post does deserve a +5 interesting mod.
