The US SIGNED the Berne Convention! One should not sign things that one has no intention of complying with!
The copyright clause says nothing about establishing a copyright office (featherbed bureaucracy that does nothing useful) and charging people an exorbitant sum for protection! In fact, it says pretty much the same thing as the Berne Convention!
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, the Copyright and Patent Clause (or Patent and Copyright Clause), the Intellectual Property Clause and the Progressive Clause, empowers the United States Congress:Nothing in there about opening a humongous bureaucracy called the "Copyright Office" which does nothing but charge a sum for time-stamping - something which could be done online in seconds and for nearly free.
“ 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.
The copyright office does not evaluate works like the patent office must do. If you had a pet monkey and it banged on your word-processor and produced some gobbledygook, it would be copyrightable.
The copyright office is a relic of a bygone era, one which has no usefulness whatsoever, and one which is a burden upon producers of intellectual property. The entire mess exists as just another tax and time-wasting exercise for authors and producers of intellectual property. To not use this wasteful monopoly and pay the exorbitant fees is to effectively give up copyright protection in the USA.
Copyright protection is enjoyed by people all over the world - for free. The copyright office does not protect anyone, it's just a racket.
They have the intention of complying with it. They've already violated the Constitution in implementing its terms, and I'm sure there's more to come.
Nothing in there about opening a humongous bureaucracy called the "Copyright Office"
It gives Congress the power to "promote," and the mechanism of such promotion is up to Congress as long as it doesn't violate the Clause.
something which could be done online in seconds and for nearly free.
I agree there. The copyright office is behind the times. I would like a set yearly fee for such a system with an API that bloggers, newspapers and others can connect to in order that posts are automatically registered. Even then, the Copyright Office would be running the service. But progress is being made, there is already an online service in beta, and the fee is $35.
The copyright office does not evaluate works like the patent office must do.
That's why a work is considered registered as soon as the Copyright Office receives it.
If you had a pet monkey and it banged on your word-processor and produced some gobbledygook, it would be copyrightable.
Wrong. There must be an original creative component to the work.
The copyright office does not protect anyone, it's just a racket.
You still have copyright without registration. However, without registration you don't have prima facie evidence of infringement nor do you get statutory damages. You can still sue for infringement though, and receive any actual damages. But if there are actual damages (you were making a profit from your work), you probably should have taken the time to register anyway.
I would prefer that nothing is copyrighted unless it is registered. That would remove any doubt for someone wanting to use a work as to whether it is copyrighted, whether the copyright has expired (the orphaned works problem), or who to ask permission from. The current system leaves doubt of those answers, and sometimes creates the impossibility of knowing the answer. That hinders instead of promotes the arts, which makes the situation unconstitutional.