Replies

I just do not think that the Supreme Court of the United States needs to be meddling in picayune crap like whether a copyright ought to be for 5, 10, 50, or 100 years. What I want them to rule on is whether law enforcement -- or even worse a copyright holder -- has the right under the Constitution to conduct a warrantless search of my computer to see if I have any copyrighted works. That, at least, is a genuine Constitutional issue.

This too is a genuine Constitutional issue. The issue is whether or not Congress has exceeded the power granted it by the people through the Constitution. The Constitution is plain -- it grants Congress the power to create copyrights only insofar as Congress limits that copyright to a specific period of time. It even states the reason. The reason copyrights are even allowed in the first place seeing as the very idea conflicts with the First Amendment, is that granting a limited copyright will stimulate an artist or author to create something in the first place. In no instance can a retroactive extension of a copyright term stimulate something's initial creation. Given that fact, Congress exceeded its authority.

Do you believe that Congress is unbounded in what it can do?

In no instance can a retroactive extension of a copyright term stimulate something's initial creation. Given that fact, Congress exceeded its authority.

I salute you for having come up with an argument that is stronger than "my internal definition of the word 'limited' is correct, and everyone else's is wrong." I wonder why your argument did not carry the day.