I am not necessarily in favor of completely abolishing copyright in every instance. But it is at least worth considering if it would promote more progress and sharing of knowldege.

I didn’t say that it was you who made up the phrase, “intelectual property” but simply that this phrase is not a way to make the economic argument valid.

I also take issue with your course language. It is out of place in this duscussion.

We’ll talk about the Holy Spirit’s administration of three types of grace: common grace, covenant grace, and saving grace. …

Common grace is the forbearance that God shows and the benefits that he gives to all humanity, regardless of their faith. …

In many places in Scripture, we can see a second type of grace administered by the Holy Spirit that is sometimes called covenant grace.
Covenant grace consists of the forbearance and benefits that God gives to everyone that is part of his covenant people, even if they are not true believers. In the Old Testament, Israel was God’s covenant people because the whole nation was under God’s special covenants with Abraham, Moses and David. In the New Testament, God’s covenant people are the visible church which consists of people associated with the church even if they are not true believers. God’s covenant grace is even more abundant and forbearing than his common grace. …

…everyone that is part of the church is regularly presented with the gospel and the opportunity to repent and be saved. And they share in those blessings that God grants to the church as a whole. In fact, unbelievers in the church even benefit from the spiritual gifts of the church, as we learn in Hebrews chapter 6 verses 4 through 6. This is why Hebrews chapter 10 verse 29 says that unbelievers in the church insult the Spirit of grace through their unfaithfulness….

(Of course, trying to include other distinctions can also be confusing so I may understand why he decided to leave things where he did.)

With all due respect, that’s a bullshit thing to say. It is completely unhelpful to the conversation. I have in fact been making numerous arguments and to reduce my argument to “making up a phrase” (which I did not in fact make up, but borrowed for convenience despite the questions about it, which is why I put it in scare quotes) is grossly inappropriate.

“Copyright was never intended to provide a way for authors to make a living, only to provide insetive [sic] to create works.”

False dichotomy. Part of incentive means protecting their source of income. How do you think the framers imagined copyrights promoting the Progress of Science? It’s a nice argument to claim that their intent was to promote the progress of science, ergo, they weren’t concerned with financial reimbursement to the inventors/writers/etc, and so neither should we. However, the two are obviously connected since the framers believed that copyrights protected the monetary incentive to create.

I don’t have a stake in whether copyrights should be 10 years or 70. Either way, the Constitution provides for copyright laws, so Congress is within their rights to establish them. I don’t really see what is so hard about that.

And as for whether copyrights actually are financially beneficial or not, you’re welcome to believe what you believe (I’m skeptical, but not unconvinced), but that’s your belief. Don’t equate it with constitutionality.

“But really, if enough people become informed about the original intent of the Constitution it will be a mute point for your case. The supreme court has spoken already. If people want their rights back and would like copyright terms to be reduced, the courts would be obliged by the law to reduce them.”

You seem to be missing my point. I never argued that copyrights should be any particular length of time. I don’t know where you would get that. If they get reduced to 10 years, I would be totally fine with that. It is you who (seem) to be arguing that they shouldn’t even exist and that is a Constitutionally untenable position. You are the one (it seems to me) who would need to amend the Constitution.

Congress has the right to establish copyrights if it promotes the Progress of Science, right? They currently believe that such copyrights do that, right? You disagree. Great. But that doesn’t make copyrights “unconstitutional”.

Here are some excerpts:

Unlike Baptists and Anabaptists who tend to speak of baptism only as an “ordinance” or a “memorial,” Calvinists have characteristically spoken of baptism not only as an ordinance but also as a sacrament or a mystery, a rite through which God applies grace.

Although the Reformed vocabulary of “sacrament” was adopted from Roman Catholicism, the basis for recognizing sacraments as means of grace was inferred from Scripture. With specific regard to baptism, it is worth noting that the New Testament never describes baptism as something ordinary or natural; it never speaks of baptism as a mere symbol. The language of “sacrament” was sustained by Reformed churches precisely because the New Testament ties baptism so closely to the bestowal of divine grace.

…New Testament passages at least seem to indicate that baptism is much more than a symbol. In the language of the Bible, spiritual realities such as rebirth, renewal, forgiveness, salvation, and union with Christ are intimately associated with the rite of baptism….

Reformed theology concurs with Scripture that there is more than meets the eye in the rite of baptism. Spiritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. So, Reformed theology speaks of the connection as a “sacramental (i.e. mysterious) union.” It is in this sense that Reformed theology rightly calls baptism a sacrament.

On the other hand, Reformed theology understands the connection between baptism and grace in ways that distinguish it from those who identify divine grace too closely with the rite. In contrast with Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and a variety of Protestant churches which speak of baptismal regeneration or of the necessity of baptism for salvation, Reformed theology separates baptism from the bestowal of divine grace in certain respects. …

the Westminster Confession of Faith 28.5 makes three denials that distinguish the Reformed view from those that too closely identify baptism and salvation: … First, baptism and “grace and salvation” are not utterly inseparable. Second, it is possible for a person to be regenerated or saved without baptism. Third, not everyone who is baptized is certainly regenerated. Nevertheless, these denials are followed immediately by an affirmation of the “efficacy of Baptism,” but in terms of divine mystery…

In the Reformed view, baptism is efficacious; divine grace is “really…conferred, by the Holy Ghost” through baptism. Even so, the Confession declares that this bestowal is mysterious because it is ordered entirely by the freely determined eternal counsel of God. Grace is conferred “according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” The bestowal of salvation to those who have received the rite of baptism remains hidden in the mysteries of the divine counsel.

To sum up, Reformed theology holds that baptism is a sacrament and not a mere symbol. At the same time, it distinguishes itself from traditions which too closely associate the rite and divine grace.