Not as such. Rather, I’d like to be a proponent of optimal copyright law. A lot of fundamental law in America is expressed in very strong terms, evoking concepts like justice and freedom and unalienable rights. In contrast, the provision giving the new Congress the power to enact copyright laws is rather practical. The purpose of copyright is:
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.
So, it’s not that Authors and Inventors have a right given by God (or “Providence”), it’s that a government grant of a temporary monopoly is supposed to have practical effects—“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
Not as such. Rather, I’d like to be a proponent of optimal copyright law. A lot of fundamental law in America is expressed in very strong terms, evoking concepts like justice and freedom and unalienable rights. In contrast, the provision giving the new Congress the power to enact copyright laws is rather practical. The purpose of copyright is:
So, it’s not that Authors and Inventors have a right given by God (or “Providence”), it’s that a government grant of a temporary monopoly is supposed to have practical effects—“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
This calls for cost-benefit analysis.