Quote: Original post by aersixb9
Just a random off topic post, but doesn't the first amendment (assuming you're in the USA) invalidate all copyright laws?

Why would it?

The first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press - that is to say, you can print anything you want. A book, the original copyrighted thing, cannot be printed legally if you do not "own" the intellectual property of the content of the book. Having a copyright law, that disallows the printing of books that you do not "own", goes against the spirit of allowing a person to print whatever they want to.

Extended to software, a person can make a digital print, or "copy" of any software they want to without limitation under the first amendment. They are free to build things they do not own. Patents go against this also, imho.

The reason a person cannot own an idea under the constitution is clear -> it would cause people to be unable to manufacture or print things that were essentially in the common knowledge or could easily be reinvented. Although it is nice to "own" what you write down, eventually this will cause certain pieces of owned information to no longer be distributed, if the owner of the information doesn't want that information to be distributed. This goes against the basic freedoms that the authors of the amendments (who were anti-government, unlike the drafters of the constitution itself) wanted to guarantee - that information would not be limited to the select few, but would instead be available to everybody. This is why they established the original libraries.

The common understanding of the first amendment (and correct me if you think it means differently) is that people can say, write, and believe whatever they want. Copyright law says that people cannot write certain things; specifically anything that's already been written. There is a clear conflict between these two ideals, and although I do understand where the copyright people are coming from that's not what's written in the constitution, and the constitution supersedes any law that is granted power within the constitution. You could say that we've been ignoring the constitution for a while now, however...especially if you factor in the second amendment (my favorite), in that the common understanding of the second amendment is that people may own weapons, however there are many laws prohibiting the ownership of say...an M-16 or a M-1. Or even my old friend, the hydrogen weapon.

Hmm.. here's my take on it.
The first amendment states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't actually guarantee the freedom of speech or the press.. it just states that Congress shall not make any laws infringing on it. This is to say that it's not the government's job to defend those freedoms, it's actually ours. The government just shouldn't intrude on them. I took a look at the U.S. Copyright Law, and while I agree that it's a bit shady all over the place, you can't legally cite the first amendment as a defense for copyright infringement.

The U.S. Copyright Law mainly deals with exclusive rights granted to copyright holders, one of which is the right to make copies (physical manifestations) of their work. So, say somebody holds the copyright to a certain printed newspaper. You have the freedom to print anything you want, including a copy of the newspaper. But you would be breaking the infringing on the copyright holder's "exclusive rights" if you make a copy of the newspaper. So you can interpret that as "abridgement of the freedom of the press", or not, depending on your opinion. Either way it's the Supreme Court's job to making a ruling on whether or not the U.S. Copyright Law is constitutional. Until/Unless the Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional, we still have to follow the Copyright Law, fortunately or not.

But I fear that this whole thing is missing the point of it all. If you use copyrighted works without permission you're disqualified from the contest, whether or not it'll hold up in court later on down the road. The rule is actually tougher than the law.

Why are you even arguing over the First Amendment? It's clear that in the US there is longstanding and well established IP Laws. In fact Ben Franklin (an author of the Constitution) was the author of some of the first of those (patent law); I think he knows what that 1st Amendment means better than you. But regardless, if a good case could be made to invalidate copyright law then the supreme court would overturn it. The fact that this hasn't happened should tell you something about whether or not it actually violates the Amendment.

Secondly, for all practical purposes it really doesn't matter whether or not you think a law is just. Even if it is unjust you will first be prosecuted; then get the chance to do appeal after appeal until the law is overturned. Easier for something as trivial and frequently litigated as copyright to just learn the laws get the permission where required, no?

-me

Quote: Original post by aersixb9
especially if you factor in the second amendment (my favorite), in that the common understanding of the second amendment is that people may own weapons, however there are many laws prohibiting the ownership of say...an M-16 or a M-1. Or even my old friend, the hydrogen weapon.

It says you can "bear arms", without being specific about the type. As long as you're still allowed to own some kind of weapon (may or may not be specific to firearms, I'm too lazy to check) they can disallow you from owning as many other types of weapons as they like. Not only that, but from what I understand it's not even particularly well agreed upon as to whether this right actually extends to individuals at all or to the needs of a collective militia and that there have been court ruling to support either interpretation.

Quote: The first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press - that is to say, you can print anything you want.

The first part is all good. Your problem is the second half, that's just your own interpretation, and not neccesarily a correct one. It's perfectly possible to disallow the press from printing certain things (such as existing copyrighted material - although you'll note that you have "fair use" laws to allow them to use that in reasonable cases as well) without actually censoring them; they're still able to express whatever they like, they just need to do so without intruding upon the rights of others. If your position was actually defendable in court someone more knowledgable than you would have tried it by now. [wink]


In any case, your arguments are as observed completely irrelevant - whatever copyright law happens to state, you're agreeing to the contest rules when you submit an entry and therefore must obey them.

It does say that you can bear arms. I consider the militia interpretation to be having a private militia, or even the "militia" being the armed people of the country that are not in service of the government.

If you define the right to "bear arms" as having the right to have a kind of weapon, then what's the point of even writing it in the constitution? You could easily say that a dull wooden stick is the only kind of weapon allowed, essentially banning all weapons. I don't think that's what they meant when they wrote it.

As for Ben Franklin writing patent law, if my memory serves me correctly there was a lot of debate around the constitution just after the revolution. Two groups were formed - one that wanted a new, democratic government, and an anarchist group that didn't want to have a government at all. (It would be just like it is now, except there would be no 911 service, but first alarm would still be around) It is the second group that required the amendments be written before they would support the constitution. (My source is wikipedia...heh) These amendments all were written to have great and powerful meaning - they weren't just dicking around! To say that the second amendment only means that you have the right to have a wooden stick is to laugh in the faces of the authors of the amendments, for that is clearly not what they meant, having just fought off an oppressive government.

As for the contest rules, sorry about that, I did say in my original post that this was off topic! :) But this forum isn't very active, and I would kind of like to see the contest authors allow copyrighted materials in the games submitted. Although the constitution does not require them to do so, if they're good Americans they believe in freedoms of the press (even if they've been lied to and misinformed by the people that control the intellectual property of the media) they'll let us submit superior quality games with, say, the background music from 2001: A Space Odyssey in my game. Although under the current contest rules I can't do that! Allowing free use of unconstitutionally copyrighted materials would be a great showing of support of belief in the constitution and of the true, slightly old fashioned, old-American way. And not our current, traitorous media run government and supreme court, who should not be supported in any way, and should probably be executed or imprisoned as traitors.

Quote: Original post by aersixb9
if they're good Americans

Oooh, tough luck - I'm British.

Quote: they believe in freedoms of the press (even if they've been lied to and misinformed by the people that control the intellectual property of the media) they'll let us submit superior quality games with, say, the background music from 2001: A Space Odyssey in my game.

The background music from 2001 is actually just a collection of classical pieces - the most famous being Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard Strauss. The work itself is old enough that it's out of copyright, so you're free to make copies of the score, but performances of music tend to be owned by the group putting on the performance (i.e. the orchestra) so unless you can find a public domain recording you'll have to create your own (hire an orchestra and record them, or produce it electronically using a MIDI sequencer or something).

Quote: Allowing free use of unconstitutionally copyrighted materials would be a great showing of support of belief in the constitution

If copyright were unconstitutional, it would have been struck down a looooooong time ago.

Quote: and of the true, slightly old fashioned, old-American way.

That's not so interesting to all our visitors from countries outside the US - who, according to the member country listing, at least, make up over 50% of the site's membership. We have to try and take copyright law in all those other countries into account as well.

Quote: And not our current, traitorous media run government and supreme court, who should not be supported in any way, and should probably be executed or imprisoned as traitors.

Well, when you've done that, let me know. Until then, those traitorous government people could sue us, confiscate our servers, or arrest us, so I think we'll play it safe for now.

Quote: Original post by aersixb9
Allowing free use of unconstitutionally copyrighted materials would be a great showing of support of belief in the constitution and of the true, slightly old fashioned, old-American way. And not our current, traitorous media run government and supreme court, who should not be supported in any way, and should probably be executed or imprisoned as traitors.

I don't get it. The copyright laws aren't protecting the media or the evil empire. They are protecting people like you and me. How would you feel if someone would just take your competition entry and submit it to "ultimate-game-of-the-universe" competition as his own, earning millions of dollars?

Sorry for OT :)

Quote: Original post by aersixb9
{...} These amendments all were written to have great and powerful meaning - they weren't just dicking around! To say that the second amendment only means that you have the right to have a wooden stick is to laugh in the faces of the authors of the amendments, for that is clearly not what they meant,
{...}

You raise some very good points. Copyright AND patent laws have been modified to death BEYOND what our founders (pro and anti strong government) ever intended to milk every cent and keep control over things. (renewable patents come to mind, renewed like clockwork).

BUT, as stated, we are bound by the rules of any contest or competition we enter, unless those rules are illegal, or are detrimental to health, life, or limb.
(i.e. there is no law that denies the ability to make a rule that says, "any and all elephants you use in your entry must be pink with purple polka-dots")