GitHub Copilot and Copyright Law

nickvh.com

3 pointsnnvvhh4 comments

Partially unrelated, but:

> Courts interpret the purpose of copyright pragmatically, as inducing authors to produce and disseminate works with the temporary grant of valuable exclusive rights.

I really do not understand how it is constitutional to retroactively extend copyright. How does this "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? It does the opposite, wherein copyright holders are encouraged to spend more time on works they have done where they were happy with the original copyright contract.

(The same can be said of copyright extending after death.)

Congress has a lot of room within a grant of power (e.g. "to promote the progress...") because of the necessary and proper clause. In short, the tight relationship you're demanding is not required.

I've read that clause and at first sight it would seem that it too is a restriction but clearly it was not interpreted that way historically or when it is being cited. How is there so much consensus in the interpretation?

The simple answer is that the Supreme Court of the United States said as much. Lower courts are bound to follow SCOTUS' holdings. Of course, precedent can always be overturned (i.e. if SCOTUS changes its mind), but the N&P Clause's interpretation is unlikely to be changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com