[supercat]

Agreed. The law is a piece of pure crap, but that's not the same as being unconstitutional.

Answer me two questions, if you would:

• If copyright terms are 'limited', when will the copyright on a piece published on January 1, 1928, expire? Is there any knowable limit on how long such a copyright will last?
• Congress' power to provide copyright protection is specifically and unambiguously solely for the purpose of promoting progress in the sciences and useful arts. Unlike, e.g, the Second Amendment, the language is quite exclusive [IIRC, "To promote progress in the sciences and useful arts by providing to authors and inventors, for limited terms, the exclusive use of their writings and discoveries"]. While legislation need meet only a "rational basis" test to qualify [it's plausible, though doubtful, that extending the copyright given to new works will provide additional incentives for people to produce them] I can see no even-remotely-plausible way that extending the copyrights on already-existing works will have such an effect. Can you suggest any?

[Right Wing Professor]

If copyright terms are 'limited', when will the copyright on a piece published on January 1, 1928, expire?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know. However, at present I understand there is a set date, absent further legislative action.

it's plausible, though doubtful, that extending the copyright given to new works will provide additional incentives for people to produce them. I can see no even-remotely-plausible way that extending the copyrights on already-existing works will have such an effect.Can you suggest any?

The reasons that have been given are

1. "to encourage continued development of already-created works."
2. "to strengthen the United States balance of payments. "(presumbly very indirectly via improving the national well-being)
3. "To harmonize international copyright laws" (presumably differing national standards weaken the overall effect of copyright, and thence lessen incentives. )
4. "extended protection for existing works will provide added income with which to subsidize the creation of new works."

Frankly, I'm unpersuaded by any of these arguments. I think they're extremely weak. They are, however, rational. I said it was a piece of pure crap, remember, and I hate being in the position of even seeming to defend it. I'm not. I'm defending judicial restraint.