Mozilla, Apache, Java, MySQL, Eclipse...All market leaders. Need more?
The sheer capital that Microsoft pulls from Windows and its associated products blows all of its open source competitors out of the water.
I think this is mostly due to market saturation and brand recognition. It has nothing to do with quality.
Do you anticipate that Novell's Suse division, Red Hat and Ubuntu, even combined, have that kind of manpower behind them? I attest that they most likely do not.
More manpower does not necessary mean a better product.
You wouldn't be able to tell them they could not use your art, but they would have to pay you royalties, thus you would make money.
That def doesn't fly with me. If someone wanted to use something from Johnny Wander to promote a religion, or maybe a political party backed by white supremacists, or a warehouse party or club show where there is rampant drug use, I would have a moral problem with it - and furthermore, it trashes my brand. And in this particular case, real people are represented within the comics, and directly accessible to their audience - it's practically defamation of character.
(And before anyone brings it up - yes, we did put ourselves out there in a comic strip posted on the web. The REASON we are comfortable doing this is because we have legal control over where those images end up.)
What if there's a porno where all the "actors" engaging in acts of terrible debauchery are wearing NIke shirts? Keep in mind, the porn studio printed the shirts themselves and paid Nike a royalty for use of the logo.
What about sports stars that put their faces on products? Their image is used for commercial purposes to be sure, but should they honestly not have control over who gets to use it? I'm going to put X basketball star's face on my penis enlargement products, but it's cool, I'm totally paying him his royalty.
Branding and Brand Identity has been glossed over. I've been working with brand identity for a couple of years now, and under the Rym and Scott Copyright Act, there is no place for it. That is not a realistic scenario.
Ananth, I love you man, but you are showing your lack of legal knowledge. The brand identity stuff you are talking about here is covered under trademark, not copyright. Some of that stuff is also covered under defamation, slander, and libel laws. I'm not a lawyer, and I still know this kind of thing. We are not suggesting any change to trademark, defamation, slander, or libel laws whatsoever. I would be just fine with them all remaining exactly as they are. It is only copyright law and patent law that need to change.
However, above all, we need to make sure that no one ever, ever speaks like Mary Bono did during the hearings for the Copyright Term Extension Act (sickening trash that it is):
Actually, Sonny [her husband, and the nick-namesake of the Act] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
This is the insanity we're up against.
I am behind you here - that is 100% insane. The problem is that, I think when presented with people this crazy, some people take a very reactionary, polarized stance. It definitely doesn't have to be either extreme end of the spectrum - like we both said earlier, there's a (happy) middle ground.
Mozilla, Apache, Java, MySQL, Eclipse...All market leaders. Need more?
Yes, a paycheck from one of those companies. In fact ...
Do you anticipate that Novell's Suse division, Red Hat and Ubuntu, even combined, have that kind of manpower behind them? I attest that they most likely do not.
More manpower does not necessary mean a better product.No, it might not but more manpower in a company that commercializes their software product absolutely means a job for me.
No, it might not but more manpower in a company that commercializes their software product absolutely means a job for me.
If you want to work at a place like Microsoft, more power to you.
As stated before, I want to work for a company which will pay me to program. Novel, Red Hat and Ubuntu cannot offer me that. The decision makes itself.
like we both said earlier, there's a (happy) middle ground.
Agreed. I'm also with you on branding and image control. I think your right to vet certain uses of a work or image is yours for the long haul. Royalties are not, but your work does belong to you, and that needs to be recognized.
EDIT: Scott got this under trademark, I think. I was merely unsure.
Ananth, I love you man, but you are showing your lack of legal knowledge. The brand identity stuff you are talking about here is covered under trademark, not copyright. Some of that stuff is also covered under defamation, slander, and libel laws. I'm not a lawyer, and I still know this kind of thing. We are not suggesting any change to trademark, defamation, slander, or libel laws whatsoever. I would be just fine with them all remaining exactly as they are. It is only copyright law and patent law that need to change. XD I love you too man.
I used extreme examples (I actually thought most of them were pretty funny XD I took some real time to craft those scenarios). What I'm getting at is, where's the limit? It's remarkably easy to dilute a brand. There's a reason companies small and especially big have brand identity managers - these people control how and where the branding is placed, and often times it is one person because it is that important. This doesn't just apply to logos - this can apply to an artist trying to promote herself through her artwork. Do we place it in a stadium? On the side of a plane? On sneakers? On cookware? What elevates the artist's brand? What makes it confusing? If you can't control how and where your own stuff appears, how do you build a brand? The process is remarkably delicate. I may be showing my lack of legal knowledge, but I don't honestly think you have a clue as to how people like us money.
As stated before, I want to work for a company which will pay me to program. Novel, Red Hat and Ubuntu cannot offer me that. The decision makes itself.
Lawl, lawl, lawl, lawl. Really, you should learn what you are talking about before you post.
Lawl,lawl,lawl,lawl. Really, you should learn what you are talking about before you post.
Oh look job postings. Christ where did those come from man I must be dumb.
No, I clearly said earlier that I am not interested in providing phone / forum support for my product. FUN FACT: All of those links are to pages touting the support programs you can buy. I want to program, not answer the phone. Yeah, a few of my buddies work at Red Hat ticking out patches to XDamage or something last time I talked to them. That's cool. Someday I want to make AAA games. Find me an open source shop that'll do that for me.
Novell of course is the exception; they run a blended shop. I should have more clearly qualified by saying their Suse division.
Find me an open source shop that'll do that for me.
Why not start one?
You see, the support programs bring in enough money to help pay for programmers. I didn't think it would be that hard of a concept to understand.
EDIT: I found 18 jobs under the software engineering category alone at Redhat. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Sigh, I could do this all night, but I think I've proven my point.
I concede my initial reaction was very reactionary and poorly worded, and I continued fighting it out of habit and not substance. Yes, there are employment opportunities in the open source world. You win.
Not, as I have said, in the game development sector however, which ultimately is where I'd like to end up. I'm going to answer Scott's post now KTHX.
I FEEL THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FOLLOW UP: what do you do for a living?
Nice, that's super impressive. The license structure seems extremely sane too, and hitting on all the points Scott and Rym have been making. Props for making it a reality, dude.
EDIT: I'm not going to answer Scott's post tonight I lied. I actually now have a lot to think about thanks to Valve's very successful Russian experiment. Thanks all for entertaining the debate, tho Andrew, man, there are ways to prove someone wrong without sounding like a goddam toolbox.
Hey guys, this has been fun - I've been away from the forums too long! I'm actually trawlin' around the rest of it now before Zzzzs. Have a good night, all!
It was a situation where no legal product was available before. Now that there is, Valve makes money. The logic by which you try to equate this to the situation of simultaneous DVD and theatrical releases escapes me. What you maybe are trying to say is that the group of people who only like DVDs will have less impetus to pirate if the releases coincided, thus creating more sales. This however doesn't take into account the very large proportion of people who would, instead of going to the theater, just buy the DVD and watch it with friends.
Ananth, I love you man, but you are showing your lack of legal knowledge. The brand identity stuff you are talking about here is covered under trademark, not copyright.
Scott you are wrong. The stuff Ananth was talking about
That def doesn't fly with me. If someone wanted to use something from Johnny Wander to promote a religion, or maybe a political party backed by white supremacists, or a warehouse party or club show where there is rampant drug use, I would have a moral problem with it - and furthermore, it trashes my brand.
is covered under the Berne Conventon as mentioned earlier in this thread. It is an integral part of the moral rights of a creator not to have his work associated, involved or integrated with anything without explicit consent.
As for your "Piracy is not causing anyone to lose money" comments; does the stuff you write actually go through your brain? This statement and the statements following it are absolute statements that you can not realistically prove. There is evidence, scientific evidence(PDF), for bothsides of the argument, indicating that the situation regarding the benefits/detriment of free distribution of ancilliary/complementing formats to commercial releases is highly complicated.
As the list shows, the results are decidedly mixed. There are two studies that document a positive effect of file-sharing on sales: Andersen and Franz (2008) for a representative sample of Canadian consumers and, more narrowly, Gopal et al. (2006) for the effect of sampling on CD sales. The majority of studies finds that file sharing reduces sales, with estimated displacement rates ranging 3.5% for movies (Rob and Waldfogel, 2007) to rates as high as 30% for music (Zentner, 2006). A typical estimate is a displacement rate of about 20%.
In ranting about it, using unrealistic examples, flawed analogies and hyperbole, you are not only stooping to the level of e.g. the music industry, you are playing into their pocket as a typical example of the unreasoned and ignorant copyright infringing masses.
Take a step back and come up with suggestions that are workable (like inventing a micropayment system that can cut out the middle man). With regards to copyright legislation you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and I bet that you have never written your congressman about any of your concerns.
You are a lazy couch-philosopher spouting intentionally confrontational propagan... oh dammit, it worked.
Where I am I have access to pretty cheap theaters; although I'm not a huge consumer of film, mostly I'll gladly go to the movies with my friends.
I used extreme examples (I actually thought most of them were pretty funny XD I took some real time to craft those scenarios). What I'm getting at is, where's the limit? It's remarkably easy to dilute a brand. There's a reason companies small and especially big have brand identity managers - these people control how and where the branding is placed, and often times it is one person because it is that important. This doesn't just apply to logos - this can apply to an artist trying to promote herself through her artwork. Do we place it in a stadium? On the side of a plane? On sneakers? On cookware? What elevates the artist's brand? What makes it confusing? If you can't control how and where your own stuff appears, how do you build a brand? The process is remarkably delicate. I may be showing my lack of legal knowledge, but I don't honestly think you have a clue as to how people like us money.
Timo says it's the moral rights associated with copyright, Scott says it's trademark. They're both right, and they're both wrong. Some of konis' examples fall under the moral protections of copyright, others fall under trademarks. @Timo: I checked some more, and the U.S. protections of the Berne Convention's moral rights are mostly not protected by U.S. copyright.
I think that the overlap between trademark and the moral rights of an author is good justification to join them together under a separate body of law, directed towards protections of identity.
Timo check if those studies are funded by RIAA or some such. There have been a lot of bs studies produced over the years. What is interesting is that every time I see a pure academic study it suggests something that most people think is crazy. For example I saw one that said the optimal price for music is five cents per song.
I think that the overlap between trademark and the moral rights of an author (attribution, etc.) is good justification to join them together under a separate body of law, directed towards protections of identity.
I seriously doubt you understand what a trademark does. You are thinking about copyright == attribution == origin == trademark, but what trademark law actually protects is the method by which you lay claim of authorship/origin.
There is not a line or sentence in trademark law that gives you the right of attribution, what it does is provide protection for a logo/text/etc which you choose to exercise the right of attribution. Trademark law does not say anything about copying/mash-upping/reusing the products themselves, similarly copyright law says nothing about wholly original work made by a third party but in your distinctive style.
Timo check if those studies are funded by RIAA or some such. There have been a lot of bs studies produced over the years.
... you do remember what line of work I am in, right? If I were a coder you basically just told me to make sure that I check and validate user generated mysql queries.
Seriously ;-).
Anyway, I gave you the paper (which you probably didn't look at) so you could check for yourself... like the CVs of the twoauthors which present a glaring absence of entertainment industry funding. Also since one of the papers conclusions is that file sharing doesn't hurt the content provider (with lots of caveats, I might add), I assume the music industry would like their money back.
I think that the overlap between trademark and the moral rights of an author (attribution, etc.) is good justification to join them together under a separate body of law, directed towards protections of identity.
I seriously doubt you understand what a trademark does. You are thinking about copyright == attribution == origin == trademark, but what trademark law actually protects is themethodby which you lay claim of authorship/origin.
There is not a line or sentence in trademark law that gives you the right of attribution, what it does is provide protection for a logo/text/etc which you choose to exercise the right of attribution. Trademark law does not say anything about copying/mash-upping/reusing the products themselves, similarly copyright law says nothing about wholly original work made by a third party but in your distinctive style.
I think I may have opened myself to misinterpretation there - the bracketing could easily be seen as belonging to the overlap rather than to moral rights. It is important to note that the U.S. protection of the Berne Convention's moral rights of an author is spread over a large variety of areas, including defamation, unfair competition, and copyright. It's really quite messy. I am not saying that trademarks are the same thing as attribution, nor that one can replace the other. What I am saying is that, at the very least, grouping attribution (and other such protections of an author's moral rights) with copyright law doesn't make any sense. Copyright is a limited-time incentive, primarily economic, for the public good. The moral rights of an author, on the other hand, don't really share these core features. I think they are much closer to trademark than copyright. Why should any of them at all be grouped under copyright? In this area all I really want is new terminology.
You can go ahead and say that's just semantics, but language is a very powerful tool. The RIAA (etc.) draws a heck of a lot of power from language. The language of copyright has been embedded in our society for a couple of hundred years, and the RIAA (etc.) knows damned well how to use it. Imagine if we could split off the core rights of an author and the financial copyright protection into two bundles: here, on the left, we have the core rights of an author. On the right, we have a mechanism for the public good, to give authors incentive to create works. I'm trying to say that would have a hell of a lot of impact on society.
I won't say that it's just semantics, because it isn't. You are proposing a reorganization which will make it easier to distinguish financial and moral elements of the law. You have to ask yourself, though, whether this is the best way to achieve your goal.
I'm going out on a ledge here and say that as with most "let's make the world a better place" topics, one always ends up with the need for people in general to be just a bit more enlightened about "stuff". E.g. in this case; if the general public would just vote with their feet more aggressively and support their favorite artists directly, the music industry would much sooner realize that a service oriented business model is the way forward and that free music is a gateway drug for lucrative side businesses.
To answer my own question of how to achieve this I would suggest a simple law that requires the prominent display of royalty percentage/amount the artist gets when you purchase a song/DVD etc.. This is a proven model to get the public interested/concerned, take for example environmental impact statements on consumer electronics and appliances.
People are in general not stupid (they may be ignorant) and they are usually generous (it's genetically built in) so making artist compensation an easy to ascertain buying criterion could very well be enough to change the copyright industry from the bottom up instead of fantasizing about perfect legal systems to fix things from the top down.
There could have been a way out for this lady. She could have refused to pay that amount but offer to buy the albums of all those artist music she downloaded. If the artists agreed, then there's no problem.
The amount requested by the RIAA could also be disputed, because they aren't saying why and where these figures came into being. Think about this, the net spans the globe, and not all downloaders will be from the U.S, so how on earth can they calculate a specific amount of supposed lost sales, considering all the places the data has been? Where would these lost sales have been globally and in what currency?
I think the real problem here is that direct piracy is too often conflated with artistic derivation. Protection for the latter does not (and should not) necessitate acceptance of the former from a moral standpoint. However, the matter of the former is probably impossible to manage pragmatically.
I want to have a series of roundtables on GeekNights about the topic (at some point), and I'll be contacting certain people to put it together. ^_~ For reference, here are a few of the core questions I plan to raise.
1. Can we truly justify such massive punishment for small-scale media piracy, exceeding that of far more serious crimes by a substantial degree? 2. Do these massive punishments of a handful of individuals truly present any significant deterrent effect? 3. Can unauthorized distribution (only, not other commercial or noncommercial use) be prevented at all? 4. If IP law regarding unauthorized redistribution is truly unenforceable at large, are we comfortable with selective punishment as a nominal deterrent? 5. Copyright law's stated intent is simply "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." It says nothing about protecting any rights beyond those which serve to achieve this singular goal. If we focus only on said goal, are some of the moral rights we afford artists still justifiable?
etc...
I don't wish to raise the issue of stopping unauthorized distribution through technical means, as it is my professional opinion that this is absolutely impossible.
Frankly, though, I believe I have a fairly simple and elegant solution to all of it, to which I'd wager even the artists among you would agree. ^_~
No, Yes, Yes (with a looong rider), No (with a however), Using a 200+ year old document for anything (let alone as your charter of fundamental rights) makes you look stupid ;-).
Frankly, though, I believe I have a fairly simple and elegant solution to all of it. ^_~
Using a 200+ year old document for anything (let alone as your charter of fundamental rights) makes you look stupid.
But it's still the basis of all of our law. It's simple to change it, but our government is full of slow, bumbling old men representing an apathetic and ignorant constituency in its petty, self-serving local interests. The justification for all of our copyright law hinges on that document, but nobody can be arsed to change it. Until they do (which they probably should), I'm of the mind that the document should otherwise stay their hand, simply for the fact that historically it has protected us from the worst of governmental excesses.
Congress has substantially overstepped what I perceive as its bounds in this matter. In a nation where the very bounds themselves can be changed by those who wish to move beyond them, such laziness is unforgivable.
The justification for all of our copyright law hinges on that document
I think I know where you want to go with number 5) but you are setting up a couple of subtle logical fallacies. For one, the words "intent" or "justification" lead you to imply that it is indeed the constitution which solely originates copyright (or at least should). This is not true, modern copyright is based on the Berne Convention.
Secondly, and relatedly, you set up the wording of the constitution as a straw man in that it does not specify very clearly what is covered under it's protection. This is both false on the grounds that the constitution is not meant to spell out every tiny detail but merely give broad guidelines upon which the rest of the legislature is drawn up on, as well as due to fallacy number one.
I'm not sure I want to say that there is a disconnect between the constitution and reality, but it is, for example, certainly not reasonable to take "right to bear arms" literally and carry a bazooka down 5th avenue.
I'm not sure I want to say that there is a disconnect between the constitution and reality, but it is, for example, certainly not reasonable to take "right to bear arms" literally and carry a bazooka down 5th avenue.
I mean sure, if you want to make a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Comments
EDIT: Scott got this under trademark, I think. I was merely unsure.
XD I love you too man.
I used extreme examples (I actually thought most of them were pretty funny XD I took some real time to craft those scenarios). What I'm getting at is, where's the limit? It's remarkably easy to dilute a brand. There's a reason companies small and especially big have brand identity managers - these people control how and where the branding is placed, and often times it is one person because it is that important. This doesn't just apply to logos - this can apply to an artist trying to promote herself through her artwork. Do we place it in a stadium? On the side of a plane? On sneakers? On cookware? What elevates the artist's brand? What makes it confusing? If you can't control how and where your own stuff appears, how do you build a brand? The process is remarkably delicate. I may be showing my lack of legal knowledge, but I don't honestly think you have a clue as to how people like us money.
No, I clearly said earlier that I am not interested in providing phone / forum support for my product. FUN FACT: All of those links are to pages touting the support programs you can buy. I want to program, not answer the phone. Yeah, a few of my buddies work at Red Hat ticking out patches to XDamage or something last time I talked to them. That's cool. Someday I want to make AAA games. Find me an open source shop that'll do that for me.
Novell of course is the exception; they run a blended shop. I should have more clearly qualified by saying their Suse division.
You see, the support programs bring in enough money to help pay for programmers. I didn't think it would be that hard of a concept to understand.
EDIT: I found 18 jobs under the software engineering category alone at Redhat. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Sigh, I could do this all night, but I think I've proven my point.
Not, as I have said, in the game development sector however, which ultimately is where I'd like to end up. I'm going to answer Scott's post now KTHX.
I FEEL THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FOLLOW UP: what do you do for a living?
EDIT: I'm not going to answer Scott's post tonight I lied. I actually now have a lot to think about thanks to Valve's very successful Russian experiment. Thanks all for entertaining the debate, tho Andrew, man, there are ways to prove someone wrong without sounding like a goddam toolbox.
As for your "Piracy is not causing anyone to lose money" comments; does the stuff you write actually go through your brain? This statement and the statements following it are absolute statements that you can not realistically prove. There is evidence, scientific evidence(PDF), for both sides of the argument, indicating that the situation regarding the benefits/detriment of free distribution of ancilliary/complementing formats to commercial releases is highly complicated. In ranting about it, using unrealistic examples, flawed analogies and hyperbole, you are not only stooping to the level of e.g. the music industry, you are playing into their pocket as a typical example of the unreasoned and ignorant copyright infringing masses.
Take a step back and come up with suggestions that are workable (like inventing a micropayment system that can cut out the middle man). With regards to copyright legislation you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and I bet that you have never written your congressman about any of your concerns.
You are a lazy couch-philosopher spouting intentionally confrontational propagan... oh dammit, it worked.
@Timo: I checked some more, and the U.S. protections of the Berne Convention's moral rights are mostly not protected by U.S. copyright.
I think that the overlap between trademark and the moral rights of an author is good justification to join them together under a separate body of law, directed towards protections of identity.
There is not a line or sentence in trademark law that gives you the right of attribution, what it does is provide protection for a logo/text/etc which you choose to exercise the right of attribution. Trademark law does not say anything about copying/mash-upping/reusing the products themselves, similarly copyright law says nothing about wholly original work made by a third party but in your distinctive style.
Seriously ;-).
Anyway, I gave you the paper (which you probably didn't look at) so you could check for yourself... like the CVs of the two authors which present a glaring absence of entertainment industry funding. Also since one of the papers conclusions is that file sharing doesn't hurt the content provider (with lots of caveats, I might add), I assume the music industry would like their money back.
It is important to note that the U.S. protection of the Berne Convention's moral rights of an author is spread over a large variety of areas, including defamation, unfair competition, and copyright. It's really quite messy.
I am not saying that trademarks are the same thing as attribution, nor that one can replace the other. What I am saying is that, at the very least, grouping attribution (and other such protections of an author's moral rights) with copyright law doesn't make any sense. Copyright is a limited-time incentive, primarily economic, for the public good. The moral rights of an author, on the other hand, don't really share these core features. I think they are much closer to trademark than copyright. Why should any of them at all be grouped under copyright? In this area all I really want is new terminology.
You can go ahead and say that's just semantics, but language is a very powerful tool. The RIAA (etc.) draws a heck of a lot of power from language. The language of copyright has been embedded in our society for a couple of hundred years, and the RIAA (etc.) knows damned well how to use it. Imagine if we could split off the core rights of an author and the financial copyright protection into two bundles: here, on the left, we have the core rights of an author. On the right, we have a mechanism for the public good, to give authors incentive to create works. I'm trying to say that would have a hell of a lot of impact on society.
I'm going out on a ledge here and say that as with most "let's make the world a better place" topics, one always ends up with the need for people in general to be just a bit more enlightened about "stuff". E.g. in this case; if the general public would just vote with their feet more aggressively and support their favorite artists directly, the music industry would much sooner realize that a service oriented business model is the way forward and that free music is a gateway drug for lucrative side businesses.
To answer my own question of how to achieve this I would suggest a simple law that requires the prominent display of royalty percentage/amount the artist gets when you purchase a song/DVD etc.. This is a proven model to get the public interested/concerned, take for example environmental impact statements on consumer electronics and appliances.
People are in general not stupid (they may be ignorant) and they are usually generous (it's genetically built in) so making artist compensation an easy to ascertain buying criterion could very well be enough to change the copyright industry from the bottom up instead of fantasizing about perfect legal systems to fix things from the top down.
The amount requested by the RIAA could also be disputed, because they aren't saying why and where these figures came into being. Think about this, the net spans the globe, and not all downloaders will be from the U.S, so how on earth can they calculate a specific amount of supposed lost sales, considering all the places the data has been? Where would these lost sales have been globally and in what currency?
If they could prove it, then pay up.
I want to have a series of roundtables on GeekNights about the topic (at some point), and I'll be contacting certain people to put it together. ^_~ For reference, here are a few of the core questions I plan to raise.
1. Can we truly justify such massive punishment for small-scale media piracy, exceeding that of far more serious crimes by a substantial degree?
2. Do these massive punishments of a handful of individuals truly present any significant deterrent effect?
3. Can unauthorized distribution (only, not other commercial or noncommercial use) be prevented at all?
4. If IP law regarding unauthorized redistribution is truly unenforceable at large, are we comfortable with selective punishment as a nominal deterrent?
5. Copyright law's stated intent is simply "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." It says nothing about protecting any rights beyond those which serve to achieve this singular goal. If we focus only on said goal, are some of the moral rights we afford artists still justifiable?
etc...
I don't wish to raise the issue of stopping unauthorized distribution through technical means, as it is my professional opinion that this is absolutely impossible.
Frankly, though, I believe I have a fairly simple and elegant solution to all of it, to which I'd wager even the artists among you would agree. ^_~
Congress has substantially overstepped what I perceive as its bounds in this matter. In a nation where the very bounds themselves can be changed by those who wish to move beyond them, such laziness is unforgivable.
Secondly, and relatedly, you set up the wording of the constitution as a straw man in that it does not specify very clearly what is covered under it's protection. This is both false on the grounds that the constitution is not meant to spell out every tiny detail but merely give broad guidelines upon which the rest of the legislature is drawn up on, as well as due to fallacy number one.
I'm not sure I want to say that there is a disconnect between the constitution and reality, but it is, for example, certainly not reasonable to take "right to bear arms" literally and carry a bazooka down 5th avenue.