Edited by author 01-16-2003 02:26 AM
the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

From a non-legal, analytical viewpoint, it would seem that any legislative changes to copyright law would be constitutional if
1)they does not violate any other part of the constitution
2)they do not grant the copyright holder exclusive rights in perpetuity

I have not read every supreme court case that touches upon copyright issues, so there may be a lot of precedent that I'm not aware of. However, a casual reading does not raise any red flags for me.

OFF TOPIC

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. - U.S. Constitution, Amendment II

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

A lot of people want to strike down or ignore the second amendment because, in their opinion, the right to bear arms is only valid in a militia context. But, what would this line of reasoning say about patents and copyrights that are not serving "to promote the progress of science and useful arts"? In both cases you have a blurb laying out the author's reasoning, and then a declarative statement. If the author's reasoning conflicts with reality, or the current situation, do we deny people the legal rights granted by the declarative statement?