Copy rights and patents are two different things copyrights can be renewed to a certain extent patents can’t
I know the difference and so do those that exploit them.
They were meant to expire for the express purpose of requiring the continuing production of new material. The movie and Software companies have made a mockery of the process with the full support of Congress and the Court. If a thing is subject to perpetual renewal then it is certainly subverting the plain meaning of the constitution. We now have software companies only renting their software with the full protection of the government.
Although perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited—the language specifies "limited times"—the Supreme Court has ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute a perpetual copyright. In that case, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."[8] Petitioners in that case argued that successive retroactive extensions of copyright were functionally unlimited and hence violated the limited times language of the clause. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court, rejected this argument, reasoning that the terms provided by the Act were limited in duration and noted that Congress had a long history of granting retroactive extensions.