Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
According to the US Constitution, copyright serves a very specific purpose (to induce the creators of intellectual property to publish it, or in the case of patents, to make the knowledge available to others).
|
Actually, the SCOTUS has already recognized that the preambulatory phrase does not serve as a limit on the powers of Congress to extend copyright terms by the time [i]Eldred v Ashcroft[/u] rolled around. (Same with the 2nd Amendment, by the way.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Once a copyright is expired, it is difficult to see how restoring said copyright increases that motive, particularly since the authors of said works have been dead for years.
|
Nothing in the law, or the Constitution, expressly bars Congress from reinstating a copyright. The only requirement, apparently, is that the copyright terms must be limited. Extensions, including when the author is dead, have also been repeatedly upheld.