From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 18:29:45 -0600 Well, actually, the US chose an approach that uses economic incentives to achieve the public good of promoting the arts and sciences, so it is not a question of "balance" between the two: one is a means to the other. Sandy Thatcher > From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 03:55:59 +0000 > > Is copyright about commerce, or the public good, or a balance between > the two? Which agency is most likely to support the Constitutional > imperative that copyright is intended "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"? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 21:51:21 -0400 > > It's good that the temperature on this debate is dropping, but I don't > see the underlying issue being engaged: Isn't Pallante correct that > the Copyright Office belongs elsewhere, preferably in the Department > of Commerce? It sounds like Hayden is protecting her turf, as most > people would want to do, but the substantive issue here is still not > being addressed. > > Joe Esposito > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:42 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:31:12 -0400 >> >> Here's a fresh posting that outlines a sensible interpretation of the >> developments at LC. >> >> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161031/16531435930/conspiracy-theo >> ries-run-amock-over-copyright-office-executive-changes.shtml