Replies

Revising and extending my remarks, as far as that goes, show me where in the U.S. Constitution is the power granted to the Congress to restrict free speech even if a person sells access to or profits from it. You might say it's in the commerce clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Well, regardless of any definition or interpretation of, or the intent of that particular clause, the first amendment amends and supersedes it. The Congress still does not have constitutional authority or power to abridge the right of the people to free speech, regardless of copyright and regardless of commerce.

What we have are conflicting rights. The copyright owners feel they have the right to their property and you feel you have a right to free speech. Both parties feel that their inalienable rights are being stomped on if the other party wins. How should we as a country settle such a dispute? Does the losing party get to claim that the country has trashed it heritage and constitution in the event that they lose?

As an aside, this case is a good example of why the "inalienable rights" approach to government, as proposed by many libertarians here, is flawed.

Revising and extending my remarks, as far as that goes, show me where in the U.S. Constitution is the power granted to the Congress to restrict free speech even if a person sells access to or profits from it. You might say it's in the commerce clause granting Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. Well, regardless of any definition or interpretation of, or the intent of that particular clause, the first amendment amends and supersedes it. The Congress still does not have constitutional authority or power to abridge the right of the people to free speech, regardless of copyright and regardless of commerce.

I may be mistaken here , but here goes:

The constitution was written. At some point in time the congress passed a law that clarified the constitution regarding fair use of copyrights. This congressional intervention erred on the side of free speech, not on the side of copyright protection. This congressional intervention is the very basis on which you have argued against copyright protection. Now you blame congressional intervention for all our woes?

What am I missing here?