Re: "Copymonopoly" instead of copyr* ?

I looked at the Pollack paper and it seems to me in summary to be an attempt to rename the copyright clause using "a novel method, that of recognizing" to do it with arriving at the new name for the copyright clause of "the pro

On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, M. Pollack wrote:

> Actually, the Clause as written was probably intended to protect
> standard people from "odious monopolies" and "corruption" to use 1789
> lingo. The current copyright and patent statutes (especially copyright)
> are much, much,much etc. pro-copyright holder than the scheme known in
> Anglo-American experience in 1789. If you want the argument and the
> ratification details see some of my works. Especially "PUrveyance and
> Power," 30 Southwestern Univ. L Rev 1 (2000) & "What is COngress
> Supposed to Promote?", forthcoming 80 Nebraska Law Review and available
> on line at <http://www.ssrn.com> (search for author "malla pollack").
>
> sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your answer, but it does not say who spoke for or
> > against the copyright at the Constituitonal convention, no comment about
> > it is readily available in any of the pampleteerings that were going on
> > during the time. so.. In short, which louse put the damn copyright and
> > patent clause in the constitution? That clause has imprisioned humanity to
> > the few that control the law and no one seems to be able to say how
> > patents and copyrights became a part of the constitution.
> > sterling
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Seth Johnson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The exclusive rights clause.
> > >
> > > Seth Johnson
> > >
> > > sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and it seems no one can tell the reason for or
> > > > the author of the copyRight and patent right clause
> > > > in the original unamended constitution.
> > > > sterling
> > >
> > >
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 16 2003 - 02:42:31 GMT