Infringement of intellectual property does not deprive the owner of any usage, just a loss of potential profit? Well, in that case, not to worry. In a time oft called "The Information Age," in a time where just about everything we do and are has become ones and zeros intellectual property is vitally important as a principle. Our inalienable rights are themselves not tangible.
I think you may have inadvertently not read the entire section. "Infringement of IP does not deprive the owner of any usage, just loss of potential profit. Which is a legit concern, if it hinders progress of science and useful arts, which it does. But taken too far in either direction, it harms everyone involved."
Inalienable rights govern physical objects, specifically people.
Longeyes, ideas have been recognised as a source of profit for thousands of years - yet no one, founding fathers included, noticed that an idea was "property" in the same way as a house until the last hundred years. Strangely, the development of this notion that there's a moral claim to cry "don't copy me!!!" (imagine kids in a school yard, and you have exactly the basis of an IP claim) didn't occur until massive corporations started lobbying the Government to take action against their competitors. RevDisk's example is the prime case.
Throughout history, it's been widespread sharing of information that's driven some of our greatest innovation. I can see no justification other than greed to discourage people from learning about ideas and doing what they can to improve them.
By 'greed', I assume you mean "profit motive necessary to further science and useful arts". If folks don't make money, they cannot make science and arts. If an artist only sells his paintings for the cost of canvas and paint, he cannot eat or buy extra canvas and paint.
I think we assign different values to the word. I see "greed" as being stupid, short term (or limited) sight at long term expense. Pumping a company's quarterly earnings to the detriment of the next five fiscal years is greed IMHO, because it is blatantly stupid with drawbacks far outweighing the benefits. I do not see any form of profit inherently being greed. Greed, IMHO, is a certain subset of stupidity or unethical behavior.
Ah, now we are in the realm of negotiation, which in the end always comes down to who has the most power (guns?). If intellectual property can be viewed as an extension of "the common good," real property can be viewed the same way--and in fact often has, not only abroad but right here in River City.
If I may, sir. The Constitution means what it says. There is no "common good" clause in the section authorizing IP laws.
Works are already protected, whether you acknowledge the distinction or not. The issue is for how long and in what way.
For you to think that the estate of Charles Dickens is not entitled to the profits from A Christmas Carol in perpetuity but the heirs of the Rockefeller oil fortune are suggests a failure to appreciate or respect artistic creativity in whatever form. For some reason you believe that "all" are entitled to fruits of a man's imagination whereas "all" are NOT entitled to the fruits of a man's labor or investment. I contend this is an artificial and, worse, intellectually sloppy, distinction.
Copyright and patent exist, according to you, by the "artificial construct of the state." Interesting. And real property rights are, by contrast, God-given???
You must be a landowner, my brother; you are surely not someone who writes, does graphic art, or makes music. :)
Again, sir, I respectfully state that you are confusing physical property and intellectual property. Perhaps intentionally? The two are not the same by laws of physics, man and constitutional law. If you wish them to be, by all means, amend the Constitution. Until you do, please respect the Constitution as it stands. It trumps all other laws of the United States.
Copyrights and patents are solely government granted monopolies. Government monopolies are not rights. Rights, including property rights, are endowed by "laws of nature and of nature's God" or Creator if you go by the Declaration of Independence. It's not directly specified in the Constitution to the origins of rights, just that you are born with them.
You try again. I create intellectual property for a living.
Giving birth does not make one a doctor. It gives you an emotional connection to the process, but not a legal or technical understanding of process.
Actually, I need to get off my duff, have another beer, and write another brief for the WIPO. (No, I'm actually not kidding.)
