YouTube, copyright and DCI

[Eleran]

that is stated very simply in the Constitution such as the exclusive rights of an artist to own his/her work.

I disagree with your interpretation. The Constitution does not say that artists have the exclusive right. Copyright is not enumerated within the Bill of Rights as a sacrosanct right of the individual.

Art. 1, Sec. 8 merely says that Congress has the power "to secure ... to artists the exclusive right to their" works. That neither compels Congress to do so, nor does it define the right as being a natural right of the author without Congressional action, because it refers to "THE" exclusive right, not "THEIR" exclusive right (the latter option would have implied that the right existed prior to any Congressional action).

Congress could enact law tomorrow that overturns all prior legislation granting copyrights, and it would not be unconstitutional

Edited May 5, 2016 by Eleran

[MikeN]

Which is what I think is happening here. DCI has a responsibility to purge YouTube of rebroadcasts of DCI-produced videos, else they'll get in trouble with copyright holders as well as possibly losing control of their own works at some point. Everything else that's non-DCI recordings, from what I understand, is up to the corps themselves?

Mike

[Stu]

I disagree with your interpretation. The Constitution does not say that artists have the exclusive right. Copyright is not enumerated within the Bill of Rights as a sacrosanct right of the individual.

Art. 1, Sec. 8 merely says that Congress has the power "to secure ... to artists the exclusive right to their" works. That neither compels Congress to do so, nor does it define the right as being a natural right of the author without Congressional action, because it refers to "THE" exclusive right, not "THEIR" exclusive right (the latter option would have implied that the right existed prior to any Congressional action)....

While some choose to view the Constitution through ‘Interpretation’ based on the ever changing definitions of words and changing cultural values, others seek to understand the document through the eyes, beliefs, and word definitions of the original authors. I am in the second camp. And when a collection of writings is studied concerning what both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists said and wrote surrounding the years the Constitution was constructed and ratified, it is clear that most all of them believed that Rights, all Rights, were/are a natural occurrence provided to us by the Creator not bestowed upon us by Man. What was hotly debated, however, was how and if those Rights from our Creator could be taken away (ie by due process when the holder of the right commits a crime) and what happens when the Rights of the Individual clash with the Rights of the Public (as in the case presented in Article 1 Section 8 concerning Arts and Sciences writings and discoveries). And just like all the rest of the phrases within the Constitution there was a compromise made in this case between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. So, to see the clause concerning Arts and Sciences through the eyes of those who wrote the Constitution it is the word ‘exclusive’, not the word ‘right’, that is paramount in understanding the Founding Fathers concerns as it applies to solving the clash between Individual Rights and Public Rights of Arts and Sciences. Of course those on the side of Ruth Bader Ginsberg disagree with this assessment.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Stu

[Stu]

Congress could enact law tomorrow that overturns all prior legislation granting copyrights, and it would not be unconstitutional

However, if Congress did not replace those overturned laws with a new law establishing a time limitation of the 'exclusive' ownership of writings and discoveries by artists and scientists, then it would become unconstitutional (also see posting #53).

Edited May 5, 2016 by Stu

[N.E. Brigand]

However, if Congress did not replace those overturned laws with a new law establishing a time limitation of the 'exclusive' ownership of writings and discoveries by artists and scientists, then it would become unconstitutional (also see posting #53).

Certainly not. The text of Article I, Section 8 reads (emphasis added):

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

. . .

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;

. . .

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Congress has the power to secure an exclusive right for authors and inventors, but it can choose not to exercise that power. Nothing here says that Congress must do so.

And in fact they did not do so from March 4, 1789, when the Constitution took effect, to May 31, 1790, when Congress's first copyright act was signed into law. But they weren't in violation of the Constitution for that year. Nor would they be now.

Edited May 5, 2016 by N.E. Brigand

[Eleran]

While some choose to view the Constitution through ‘Interpretation’ based on the ever changing definitions of words and changing cultural values, others seek to understand the document through the eyes, beliefs, and word definitions of the original authors. I am in the second camp. And when a collection of writings is studied concerning what both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists said and wrote surrounding the years the Constitution was constructed and ratified, it is clear that most all of them believed that Rights, all Rights, were/are a natural occurrence provided to us by the Creator not bestowed upon us by Man. What was hotly debated, however, was how and if those Rights from our Creator could be taken away (ie by due process when the holder of the right commits a crime) and what happens when the Rights of the Individual clash with the Rights of the Public (as in the case presented in Article 1 Section 8 concerning Arts and Sciences writings and discoveries). And just like all the rest of the phrases within the Constitution there was a compromise made in this case between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. So, to see the clause concerning Arts and Sciences through the eyes of those who wrote the Constitution it is the word ‘exclusive’, not the word ‘right’, that is paramount in understanding the Founding Fathers concerns as it applies to solving the clash between Individual Rights and Public Rights of Arts and Sciences. Of course those on the side of Ruth Bader Ginsberg disagree with this assessment.

Look, Stu, still not buying your interpretation. They had the opportunity to clarify that the rights pre-existed. In fact, Madison's first draft even said "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time". But they rejected referring to their rights as "theirs" and instead chose to refer to the granting of them as "the" rights, which implies that the rights exist ouside of the author. One may try to brush off the difference, but there is a difference.

And given that the Supreme Court opined on this very point a mere 45 years later, I'm going to go with that. "Congress, then, by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right, as contended, created it. [emphasis added]"

I would also remind that the Constitution itself says nothing about any "Creator", nor attributes any collection of rights as having descended therefrom.

[Jeff Ream]

If I'm Tresona et al, I'm scouting YouTube daily from moveins to a month after finals

Edited May 6, 2016 by Jeff Ream

[Stu]

Provided that you isolate the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence, from the philosophy of Enlightenment, from the Judeo-Christian ideals on where Human Rights are believed to originate from God, then yep you are correct. But the Founding Fathers encompassed all of this into their belief structure when drafting the Constitution; they did not divorce themselves from the belief that Rights originate from God. You can believe that they were 'wrong in their belief', but you cannot say that is not what they believed. Moreover, when it comes to ‘interpretation’ we should, must place our mindsets in those who penned the Constitution who believed the following:

1) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Those who side with Ginsberg would say that the passage should mean what we want it to today, not what it meant to those who wrote it over 200 years ago. And one of the changes in definition within this statement comes from the word ‘certain’ which has a vastly different usage today than how the Founding Fathers actually used that word; to them it was a word of Emphasis, a word of well… Certainty, that Rights are unalienable and come from the Creator, not a word of Exclusion claiming that there are Man-Made Rights which are not unalienable (see next quote).

2) “…that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Founding Fathers believed that there are a plethora of Rights, too many to list, so to keep this document distenct they placed the words ‘among these’ into the passage to make sure we would not take it that only those three exist.

3) “--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Man is to create a governing body from the consent of the people that allows them the power to govern and protect the Rights, not to create the Rights.

4) The entirety of the Declaration also has five references to God the Creator as the guiding authority on these matters.

5) The Constitution is an extension of, not a completely separate document from, but an extension of the Declaration. That is how the Founding Fathers viewed the two documents; inseparable; and therefore saw no reason to reiterate in the Constitution where Rights our come from; and it is also a reason the two documents are side by side on display even today in D.C.

6) The Founding Fathers did recognize that Rights of an Individual and Rights of the Public will sometimes be at odds in this flawed world in which we live. So the manner of governance and protection of our Rights, the exclusivity to the individual v the usefulness for the public of our Rights, the idea that that Rights can be taken away via due process if a crime is committed, was hotly debated during the drafting of the Constitution.

7) The Bill of Rights were also hotly debated, but they were never limited in scope as to Rights being unalienable; That debate was over who should have more power in goverance, Federal or States, and thus a compromise was reached. Instead of listing a wide array like Madison, Mason, and Jay desired the Framers settled on those Rights listed in the first nine amendments, and gave the power of protecting all other Rights over the States. They did not believe that Rights come from Man, but that Man is charged by the Creator, by God, with protecting those Rights

8) Again this is not ‘my interpretation’ but the actual views of most of the Founders who penned the documents. Thus the passage in Article 1 Section 8 concerning the rights of Arts and Sciences has to be, must be viewed in this manner. Unless of course you agree with Ginsberg and then you also believe this entire posting of mine is hogwash.

[Eleran]

I can't disagree with you more, Stu. But since this no longer has any relevance to Drum Corps, and since neither of us are likely to convince the other, I see no point in belaboring it further.

Anyone seen anything good on YouTube lately?

[Stu]

300 years from now people in the 24th Century could likely look back on the late 20th Century and believe that the jazz music of the era was considered to be horrible and pathetic by even those who created it because the musicians of that time period all claimed to one another, ‘Man, those were some bad sounds!” They would form that opinion unless, of course, the people in the 24th Century endeavored to do a thorough and complete research into finding out exactly what those musicians actually meant when they said those words. So goes, or not, how we in the 21st Century treat words penned in the 18th Century.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Stu