The Constitution
While conducting research for another module on copyright issues, I came across a particular clause in the Constitution of the U.S.A which I found interesting. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution states that:
Congress has the power 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.
After reading this sentence, I felt that it meant so much yet at the same time meant nothing. The ‘Progress of Science and useful Arts’ does not indicate the meaning of ‘useful’. Are there Arts which are not useful? ‘limited Times’ does not provide an exact timeframe. ‘exclusive Right’ does not define Right. What kind of rights are we referring to? I finally understand the need for constitutional lawyers.
On hindsight, the Constitution is probably written so vaguely to allow for future interpretations. It’s one of the few situations where the 7C’s of effective communication may be ignored! I do wonder if the Singapore Constitution is as vague.
This clause is used for the drafting of copyright laws. According to Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford law school professor, this indicates that Congress has the power to promote progress. This purpose is a public one and should not be one of enriching publishers or rewarding authors. Consequentially, the extensiveness of the copyright law now is actually unconstitutional. Would you agree?
Thanks, Duane, for sharing this with us. You’re right. The language used is incredibly vague, which guarantees the need for folks like B. Obama, the most famous (former) constitutional lawyer around these days, for a long time to come.
Yes, “…to allow for future interpretations” is the key to that.
You make an interesting suggestion when you state that current breadth of copyright law (in the US and elsewhere) might be unconstitutional. I’ll have to consult my lawyer about that!