5 ms·

You might be confusing patents and copyright. Copyright squarely exists so that authors of can get paid. Patents exist so that the secrets behind inventions a

You might be confusing patents and copyright. Copyright squarely exists so that authors of can get paid. Patents exist so that the secrets behind inventions are revealed in exchange for a limited time protection, promoting collaboration and progress.

edanm 7d ago
Quoting the US constitution: "The Congress shall have Power... 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." It's about promoting science and art, not "paying authors". Paying authors is of course the mechanism by which art is promoted.
- kazinator 7d ago
  That clause is the basis for both copyright and patents. Note that not all Arts are "useful" and not all Arts are "Writings". Most art is not intended to be an open-ended product to be further collaborated upon and extended in order to drive progress. Protections are purely so that the creators can get paid in some shape. There is still art if they don't get paid. Copyright somewhat stifles that activity in art which consists of imitation; imitate too closely and you invite accusations of infringement. A work of art being copyrighted is not what motivates and encourages activity revolving around copying that work's style. That's what it would mean for the work to promote Art as such: the work gets studied and it style becomes part of the artistic vocabulary. This will happen copyright or not; the only difference is the conditions for compensation.
  - mapontosevenths 7d ago
    > Protections are purely so that the creators can get paid in some shape. That's not what the founding fathers said, and it's not what they wanted. Madison thought that the two things were really the same saying: "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provision for either of the cases..." — Federalist No. 43 (1788) Whereas Jefferson, who not only helped draft the consititution, but was the first patent examiner, was deeply suspicious of them and wanted a restriction on length directly spelled out at length in the constitution itself. "I like it [the Constitution], as far as it goes; but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding — years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." — Letter to James Madison (August 1789) They all agreed that the purpose was progress for everyone, not one mans enrichment. They disagreed a bit about how best to accomplish that.

edanm 7d ago

Quoting the US constitution: "The Congress shall have Power... 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." It's about promoting science and art, not "paying authors". Paying authors is of course the mechanism by which art is promoted.

kazinator 7d ago
That clause is the basis for both copyright and patents. Note that not all Arts are "useful" and not all Arts are "Writings". Most art is not intended to be an open-ended product to be further collaborated upon and extended in order to drive progress. Protections are purely so that the creators can get paid in some shape. There is still art if they don't get paid. Copyright somewhat stifles that activity in art which consists of imitation; imitate too closely and you invite accusations of infringement. A work of art being copyrighted is not what motivates and encourages activity revolving around copying that work's style. That's what it would mean for the work to promote Art as such: the work gets studied and it style becomes part of the artistic vocabulary. This will happen copyright or not; the only difference is the conditions for compensation.
- mapontosevenths 7d ago
  > Protections are purely so that the creators can get paid in some shape. That's not what the founding fathers said, and it's not what they wanted. Madison thought that the two things were really the same saying: "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provision for either of the cases..." — Federalist No. 43 (1788) Whereas Jefferson, who not only helped draft the consititution, but was the first patent examiner, was deeply suspicious of them and wanted a restriction on length directly spelled out at length in the constitution itself. "I like it [the Constitution], as far as it goes; but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding — years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." — Letter to James Madison (August 1789) They all agreed that the purpose was progress for everyone, not one mans enrichment. They disagreed a bit about how best to accomplish that.