No subject

Fri Jul 8 22:00:42 PDT 2005

which we as a society grant temporarily to encourage the "useful arts and
sciences." The grants are intended to create mutual benefit. Not create a
"right" where one did not exist.

I think it is rather clear the intent of the Founders was that all ideas
would enter the public domain as quickly as possible. So far as I can tell
"fair use" was the fundamental right they considered so obvious they didn't
see need to specify such as a right. And they appear to have believed they
were clear enough when they said "limited time" concerning the monopolies.
Further, I see no reason at all to believe they would want to limit ANY
non-commercial use of copyrighted material. The idea was to financially
reward the creators, not to restrict the rights of others to access ideas.

Jefferson would be appalled at how the corporations are corrupting the
concept of copyright. And from what I've seen of his thinking on the matter
so far, I think he'd be advocating ABOLISHING copyright entirely as better
than allowing this kind of corporate corruption to go on.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Scottaline" <nbhs2 at>
To: "Jay Allen" <sklyarov at>
Cc: <paul at>; <free-sklyarov at>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Fair use "rights"

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2001 21:10:51 -0700
> Jay Allen <sklyarov at> insightfully noted:
> J
> JA>          What's the difference between a right and "something you
> JA> can't be
> JA> prosecuted for"?  I'd say that it would be the ease with which it can
> JA> change.  218 Representatives, 51 Senators and one President go for a
> JA> hell
> JA> of a lot less (as far as the MPAA/RIAA are concerned) than one
> JA> Constitutional amendment.  :-)  Without a right--a Constitutional
> JA> right, if
> JA> you prefer-one little amendment to Title 17 and >poof<.
> ====================================
> Our Founding Fathers were mostly believers in _Natural Rights_.  In other
> words, it wasn't necessary to state the Free Speech was a right.  It just
> was.  The First Amendment prohibition against legislating limitations on
> Free Speech was viewed as a safeguard in an age where governments
> regularly infringed upon peoples _Natural Rights_.  In other words, Free
> Speech is not an American "right", but one with which all people are
> endowed by their creator [or nature, if you prefer]. Unlike most 20th
> century Constitutions or Bills of rights, the US Bill of Rights list
> "rights of abstinence".  The government must *abstain* from from
> infringing on such rights.  The first five words of the Bill of Rights are
> most informative here.  20th Century documents seem to list *rights of
> affirmation*, i.e., what governments MUST provide people with.  To the
> Framers, Free Speech was absolutely fundamental.  It was not merely a
> question of "well we won't bother to prosecute anyuone for exercising it."
> Mike
> --
> "I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms.  There are
> better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making
> use of one's contributions to computer science."
>                                 -- Donald E. Knuth, TAoCP vol 3
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at

More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list