Comments on: Bringing McCain-Feingold to the Music Business? http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/10/bringing-mccain-feingold-to-the-music-business/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:02:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: KipEsquire http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/10/bringing-mccain-feingold-to-the-music-business/comment-page-1/#comment-7640 KipEsquire Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:47:23 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=6553#comment-7640 Prof. Vaidhyanathan, You made a First Amendment argument, not an Article I argument. Sorry if the Constitution doesn't fit your wishes. Prof. Vaidhyanathan,

You made a First Amendment argument, not an Article I argument.

Sorry if the Constitution doesn't fit your wishes.

]]> By: Siva Vaidhyanathan http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/10/bringing-mccain-feingold-to-the-music-business/comment-page-1/#comment-7639 Siva Vaidhyanathan Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:56:02 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=6553#comment-7639 The purpose of copyright is exactly as we wrote it. Sorry if the facts don't fit your wishes. Copyright is not a simple "property right." It's far more interesting and complex than that. But basically, it's about creating scarcity, creating the possibility for a market to develop, creating the potential for revenue, and thus serving as an incentive to create. Nothing about a political use of a song disturbs that incentive system. There is little case law on these points. But what exists is clear: political speech trumps copyright claims because rich political speech is a public good and moral rights are not. Kaeru is completely correct. Siva The purpose of copyright is exactly as we wrote it. Sorry if the facts don't fit your wishes.

Copyright is not a simple "property right." It's far more interesting and complex than that.

But basically, it's about creating scarcity, creating the possibility for a market to develop, creating the potential for revenue, and thus serving as an incentive to create.

Nothing about a political use of a song disturbs that incentive system.

There is little case law on these points. But what exists is clear: political speech trumps copyright claims because rich political speech is a public good and moral rights are not.

Kaeru is completely correct.

Siva

]]> By: kaeru http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/10/bringing-mccain-feingold-to-the-music-business/comment-page-1/#comment-7638 kaeru Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:44:00 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=6553#comment-7638 He's right. The constitutional purpose of copyright law is to give people incentive to create with the intention that eventually the creation may be used freely by anyone. Despite the popular designation "intelectual property" copyright and patents are not property. You do not (and cannot) own how a series of words or notes are strung together. At best, under the law, you have the privilege to decide how new copies are made and distributed. <i>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<i> He's right. The constitutional purpose of copyright law is to give people incentive to create with the intention that eventually the creation may be used freely by anyone. Despite the popular designation "intelectual property" copyright and patents are not property. You do not (and cannot) own how a series of words or notes are strung together. At best, under the law, you have the privilege to decide how new copies are made and distributed.

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

]]> By: dolphin http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/10/bringing-mccain-feingold-to-the-music-business/comment-page-1/#comment-7636 dolphin Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:11:33 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=6553#comment-7636 A law professor wrote that inane First Amendment argument? That's disturbing. I don't need a degree in law to understand that the First Amendment grants ME the right to (more or less) say what I want, but not the right to make YOU say it for me. A law professor wrote that inane First Amendment argument? That's disturbing. I don't need a degree in law to understand that the First Amendment grants ME the right to (more or less) say what I want, but not the right to make YOU say it for me.

]]>