But what if one of the framers was a time traveling magician who went back in time to help write the first amendment, knowing that in two hundred years the possibility for sharing all knowledge would be realized but we would also at this time be burdened by an antiquated and useless copyright clause?
You might say why didn't they just go back further and interrupt the writing of the copyright clause itself?
One reason might be that in the past, copyright might have actually done less harm than good. The reverse is certainly true now though, an infinite number of examples for you to choose from. COPYRIGHT IS HARMFUL. ipso facto irrelevant.
What I mean is, the traveller might not have been able to place themself at a point in history where it was actually possible to stop the copyright clause from being written, but adding the first amendment would ensure that at some point in the future, i.e. now, when the majority of the public has access to decent internets, the public, by accessing the knowledge contained on the internet will see a glimmer of light at the end of the blocked passage (copyright - texts).
We will ask ourselves why can't I access those texts? They sound like they would be beneficial to me and therefore humanity? Copyright?? Sorry Congress, No Law for you!!
