← Back to context

Comment by wpietri

1 year ago

I never claimed that I was reporting on the whole arc of publishing law over hundreds of years. I was laying the foundation for the next sentence, which is pointing at why this was so important to put in the US Constitution. The relevant text being, "[The Congress shall have 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." Which is pretty clearly about balancing the economic interests of authors and inventors against the public good. Which is indeed at the heart of modern IP laws.

That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying. If I don't reply after this, it'll be because I feel like there's not much point in writing for somebody who I can't get through to.

4 comments

wpietri

Reply
llm_trw  1 year ago

>I never claimed that I was reporting on the whole arc of publishing law over hundreds of years. I was laying the foundation for the next sentence, which is pointing at why this was so important to put in the US Constitution.

Printed press invented: circa 1440

US Constitution drafted: circa 1780

1780 - 1440 = 340

>hundreds of years

Hmmm.

>That's twice now that you've replied in a way that to me seems like favoring the argumentative nitpick over the substance of what I'm saying.

If your argument is based on false premises then there is no substance in your conclusion.

  • wpietri  1 year ago

    I have no reason to think you even know what my argument is based on, because all I've seen are nitpicky side-tracks.