From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:10:26 +0000 You ignore the "limited" -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 19:57:38 -0500 I would say Commerce over the L of C for precisely that reason. The other part of the Constitutional stipulation provides a means to the end, and that is limited monopoly for the copyright creator. That sure sounds like commerce to me. Joe Esposito On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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