# Correct my understanding of the First Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631 "2014-03-13T17:46:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/121 "2014-03-19T22:29:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On preview - never mind. We would never get a cite for that either. > > Regards, > Shodan I’ve seen you use alot of unfair debating tactics, but this is by far the most creative. You can’t possibly lose! ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/122 "2014-03-19T22:44:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On preview - never mind. We would never get a cite for that either. > > Regards, > Shodan I actually refuted your post but I didn’t bother to post it. You should have seen it, it was a work of art, links and cites from conservatives like Reagan, Bush 1, even a Santorum and Ralph Reed quote in there, all backed by the words of Jesus. But since you didn’t bother to post, I didn’t either. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/123 "2014-03-19T22:50:58Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I actually refuted your post but I didn’t bother to post it. You should have seen it, it was a work of art, links and cites from conservatives like Reagan, Bush 1, even a Santorum and Ralph Reed quote in there, all backed by the words of Jesus. But since you didn’t bother to post, I didn’t either. That Jesus quote would have been devastating. No wonder he didn’t post. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/124 "2014-03-19T22:51:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On preview - never mind. We would never get a cite for that either. > > Regards, > Shodan I DID find a cite though. But I’m not providing it here - do your own research! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/125 "2014-03-19T23:23:38Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I actually refuted your post but I didn’t bother to post it. You should have seen it, it was a work of art, links and cites from conservatives like Reagan, Bush 1, even a Santorum and Ralph Reed quote in there, all backed by the words of Jesus. But since you didn’t bother to post, I didn’t either. Bullshit. You know what he almost posted was a straw man and a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate, so there’s no way you could find a cite to prove it. Don’t toy with the poor man! ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/126 "2014-03-20T00:29:00Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Bullshit. You know what he almost posted was a straw man and a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate, so there’s no way you could find a cite to prove it. Don’t toy with the poor man! The \*almost \*poor man. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/127 "2014-03-20T14:25:26Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Ah I want reasonable copyright laws that give the author the right to reasonable compensation for their work, not the right to withhold it and not the right to demand excessive compensation. I’m not sure what “excessive compensation” is. All I want is for you to work for me for a “reasonable” salary, and not have the right to withhold your work and demand compensation I find excessive. Deal? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/128 "2014-03-20T14:27:56Z")
It seems like a lot of the problem some posters have with copyright laws is really a problem with how _corporations_ are treated under the law, not with copyright itself. If corporations are to be treated like people, with the ability to possess copyright (and to inherit it from individual humans who have died, as Disney seems to have done), it seems only fair that corporations be subject to other aspects of the human condition: to wit, that they (legally) expire themselves after some time period equivalent to a human lifespan. Let Disney have the copyright to _Dumbo_ “for the life of the copyright holder.” But also, “kill” the Disney corporation (legally, anyway) when it’s 70-90 years old and free up that copyright. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/129 "2014-03-20T14:38:58Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > It seems like a lot of the problem some posters have with copyright laws is really a problem with how _corporations_ are treated under the law, not with copyright itself. > > If corporations are to be treated like people, with the ability to possess copyright (and to inherit it from individual humans who have died, as Disney seems to have done), Where do you get the notion that only people should own copyright in the first place, or that letting a corporation own it is “treating it like a person?” Copyright is property. Do you think only people should have the legal right to own property? > [@](#): > > it seems only fair that corporations be subject to other aspects of the human condition: to wit, that they (legally) expire themselves after some time period equivalent to a human lifespan. > > Let Disney have the copyright to _Dumbo_ “for the life of the copyright holder.” But also, “kill” the Disney corporation (legally, anyway) when it’s 70-90 years old and free up that copyright. No, simply make the copyright that Disney owns expire when the person who created the work and conveyed the copyright to it dies, just as it would if the creator still owned it. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/130 "2014-03-20T14:41:30Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Ah I want reasonable copyright laws that give the author the right to reasonable compensation for their work, not the right to withhold it and not the right to demand excessive compensation. The use of the word “theft” in your context ignores the fact that the First Amendment is not about copyright but about freedom of speech. When I write something and I own a copyright, it’s mine. I’ll withhold my property if I want to, for any reason. I am not obligated to write you a novel, or to release it to the public, or to sell it for an amount you deem “reasonable” or any of that. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/131 "2014-03-20T14:58:34Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > When I write something and I own a copyright, it’s mine. I’ll withhold my property if I want to, for any reason. I am not obligated to write you a novel, or to release it to the public, or to sell it for an amount you deem “reasonable” or any of that. Yeah, but what about their heirs? And their heirs? And their heirs? Just how much do we owe people who never created the work and are milking it for all it’s worth? (This is also essentially what a corporation does.) Edgar Rice Burroughs estate, I’m looking at you! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/132 "2014-03-20T15:06:14Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > All I was saying was that the time limit isn’t the only mechanism that makes art available for public consumption. It usually available from the day it is created, just for a fee. Going into public domain isn’t what makes it available. It’s what makes it available to other creators who want to use/reference their creations in their own works. > [@](#): > > So every time someone makes a campaign contribution and then gets what they want, that’s prima facie evidence that the contribution was the cause? Hardly. It happens with such regularity that it is naive or more likely in your case, deliberately obtuse, to believe otherwise. > [@](#): > > Money isn’t speech. Nobody ever said it as. Says the adamant defender of the Citizens United decision. > [@](#): > > You’re in way over your head on this. Nope, I’ve got my head screwed on straight, you’re the one who had put himself in a corner. > [@](#): > > Let’s not hijack this thread. Agreed. I am not sure how the copyright discussion grew out of a discussion of nuns being assholes. > [@](#): > > Golly gee, too bad there’s nothing we can do about that, huh? We’re powerless and Disney can get anything it wants. We’re forced to accept whatever our legislators do without any recourse, and then we’re forced to consume whatever shlock Disney sells us. Woe is us. I’m all for changing the laws wrt copyright. Discussing it on message boards and persuading others seems a reasonable extension of that. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/133 "2014-03-20T15:14:13Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It’s what makes it available to other creators who want to use/reference their creations in their own works. No, that’s not true either. Other creators can do that by paying royalties to the copyright holder. Happens daily. > [@](#): > > It happens with such regularity that it is naive or more likely in your case, deliberately obtuse, to believe otherwise. Well no, that’s not even argument. It’s just an assertion. My argument was a logical fact - correlation is not causation. And I am most certainly not naive about this issue. > [@](#): > > Says the adamant defender of the Citizens United decision. Yes. Citizens United did not say money is speech. No court ever said that. I’m happy to explain the details if you want. I support CU because I actually understand what it said. > [@](#): > > I’m all for changing the laws wrt copyright. Discussing it on message boards and persuading others seems a reasonable extension of that. But you’re not doing that. You’re whining about how nothing can be done to stop the all-powerful corporations, as if the voters have no say in what happens and no responsibility for it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/134 "2014-03-20T17:24:11Z")
Wasn’t the goal of copyrights to both enable the creator to profit off his work, and thus more likely to create more original work, and, allowing for a reasonable time to pass, enrich the general public by making that work freely available eventually? Corporate trademarks may be long-lasting, but eventually it should expire, not simply exist forever throughout the life of the corporation. If I had my way, I’d propose even more radical changes. There are some intellectual properties owned by now-defunct companies. But the IP remains with them, and if someone tried to do something with it, the ghosts of that corporation gets to sue. So you have IPs like the brilliant Star Control franchise with Accolade, whose follow up to that game was crap, and the creators who would probably crowdsource a new sequel to that but is blocked because they don’t own the copyright anymore. That’s fucked up. It serves no one, not the dead corporation, not the creator, and not the public. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/135 "2014-03-20T17:28:50Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yeah, but what about their heirs? And their heirs? And their heirs? Just how much do we owe people who never created the work and are milking it for all it’s worth? (This is also essentially what a corporation does.) Edgar Rice Burroughs estate, I’m looking at you! I don’t know. I’m not defending that. But if heirs can own a copyright forever, that solves the dilemma about corporations owning them forever. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/136 "2014-03-20T21:40:54Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > . . . Copyright is property. Do you think only people should have the legal right to own property? . . . Well, yes, but I think they should have the ability to do it collectively. A partnership between two persons allows them to own property jointly. From that point, it’s just legal fine-print to say that “the partnership” owns the property. I have no objection to this fine print, because it allows partners, and other groups, to own, operate, buy, sell, build upon, and otherwise control their property. At the heart, it really is people who own property: the “corporation” is just a collective name for that bunch of people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=6)