Definitely a big part of it.

I think they would lose the copyright on steamboat willy, not on anything with Mickey in it. The problem is he is also a trademark.

Because the Constitution demands it. So you need to start jumping up and down about THIS issue, too, and not just gun rights.

This has been going on for a long time?

If you recall songwriter Jim Croce, I recall a book where his widow stated she got nothing, his Music Publishers got it all.

That is so but I rarely, rarely, rarely see other people on the right saying things like these two did:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=867282

And that didn't last long.

That's cause rebubs are for the most part just as much in the pockets of big business as are dems. Different pockets but in just as deep.

I don't take issue with this. If thats what you were asking

So you only care about what the constitution says when it suits you?

I don't take issue with the wording of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

if thats what you were asking.


I take issue with the entire wording of the 17th Amendment as it has done more harm than good, I question the utility of the 3rd Amendment but not because I condone quartering soldiers in my home

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should more clearly be applied to gender, and I take issue with the fact that this is open to interpretation.


so anyway, are we talking about a section of the constitution or how we feel about the whole thing?

in general this particular discussion on copyright doesn't engage me because I don't take issue with this.

Disney is owned by the tribe...Why don't you blame them?

Section 4, 14th amendment

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
WTF?????

You do realize that article is 2 years old, right? Has anything entered public domain since then?

Today is Public Domain Day 2013, No Published Works Entering PD in U.S.A. Until 2019

http://www.infodocket.com/2013/01/01/to … this-year/

hahaha, they are saying they don't want to be obligated to pay for fighting rebels. For instance, the confederacy had to issue new currency and bonds, everyone that bought bonds lost all their money (the south went bankrupt, and would have gone bankrupt whether there was a war or not), once the south was reincorporated back into the union, the union federation wanted everyone to know that they lost their money, so don't try to get it back.

I am not opposed to it, but the Constitution doesn't demand the right not be renewable, or specify what limited time is.

It is in my mind a clause for protection of rights, not one to build a collection of public domain materials.

If someone let's their rights expire, it is their choice.  It would not be mine.

That's true, but that wouldn't fool you constitutionalist patriots, now would it?

The truth is the complete opposite of what you believe.

You are so wrong that you literally could not be more wrong.

If you were right there would be no limits stipulated at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

I could live with the 1886 Berne Convention rules. You want to roll everything back to that? I say let's do it.

The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War. The stated object of the act was the "encouragement of learning," and it achieved this by securing authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" the copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790

Where did you get that idea?

what are you even talking about, what do you want people to say?

its like we are playing charades in here.

congress hasn't abridged the constitution with how they manage copyrights, we can disagree with the current laws but your argument implies that it has something to do with that section of the constitution. which nobody here agrees with, unless you just wish to amend that part of the constitution, which there isn't really a movement for...

I want to see a bunch of right-wingers jumping up and down on their radio and TV shows talking about how extending copyright terms indefinitely is really a way of creating limitless copyright terms, which is unconstitutional.

Is that too much to ask?

You guys do a fine job of bring up dumb shit to discuss, so we just sit back and wait for you to get your panties in a wad and post.  It's much easier and we spend less time researching crap, allowing us to actually have jobs and make money.

That said, I agree with your OP and points made on the never ending extensions.  As noted in followup posting, the democrats have a much greater hand in this than conservatives.  Look in you own backyard before worrying about your neighbor's.

Suggest you email or call into their shows.  Feel free.

The low information voters outlook of what the Consdtitution says is unbelievely amazing.  It is the liberal left that is always trying to bend it to fit whatever whim of the moment they have.  If they actually read it and tried to understand it, never mind that will never happen!!


Article 1, sect 8 defines what the Congress CAN DO.  It is part of the "ENUMERATED POWERS"  the things that they are allowed to do.  If you don't like what they do, vote them out!!

The 1 st and 2nd Amendments as well as most of the Bill of Rights was added to clearly define WHAT THEY CANNOT DO!!   


Even a liberal should be able to comprehend:

   9 th Amend:    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


   10 th Amend:  The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'll bet you are trying to make some kind of point with all of this. Care to share it with us?

Copyrights are for limited periods. Any attempt to circumvent this or extend it should be vigorously fought by our resident Glenn Beck viewers.

How simple can it be??   Congress has the enumerated power to control copyrights.   It is within thier
Constitutional powers!!!  "Limited" is not specified in the Constitution but defined by the will of Congress.

One year or a thousand it is their decision.  Probably one of the few things they do that actually have a constitutional bassis!!!!!!!!

Why is the term limited at all?