[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by pricecw

I really don't feel bad for Rowling....

Fortunately, "feelings" have nothing to do with it. Nor can you void her legal rights primarily because in your opinion, a few authors have earned "enough" from their works -- especially given how many authors are not so lucky.

It was more an illustration that 14 years is far too short (even in our highly caffeinated contemporary society), that not many content creators would love drastic reductions in copyright duration, and that the financial stakes are huge for works that lose protection with such short durations.

Originally Posted by pricecw

Yep I am, I once swore my life to uphold it (USMC)....

I'll keep that in mind, but I do not see any logical connection between military service and specific interpretations of the US Constitution. Nor is someone "unpatriotic" if they believe that the Constitution is a living document, rather than set in stone circa 1778. Not to mention it's arguable whether all of the authors (let alone citizens who voted for it) had a unified, specific, focused interpretation of each and every exact phrase in the document; or that contemporary understandings of those original interpretations are in fact accurate; or....

Originally Posted by pricecw

I think that the politicians are stealing from us to enrich the few, a lot of times without legal foundations to do it.

Or within the framework of the law.

You should keep in mind, though, that many of the recent modifications to copyright have, in fact, benefitted the "little guy." For example, the Berne Convention offers copyright the instant a work is put into a fixed form, without any sort of paperwork, registration or fees required. So a photographer who makes $30k a year can crank out thousands of images, pass off high-quality prints or JPEGs to their clients, and know that each and every one is protected internationally without having to shell out a single cent for that protection. (Enforcing those rights is not always free, though.) It also thoroughly protects self-publishers and unpublished writers.

Contemporary copyright laws also grant the rights holders tremendous latitude, regardless of their economic standing. If you choose to put your work into the public domain after 14 or 28 years, or hold it for the maximum duration, or allow non-commercial use while blocking commercial uses without compensation, you can do all this without any extra fees -- just a text specifying usage.

Ergo, it is incorrect if you happen to believe that all changes to copyright since 1778 (including increases in duration) were advantageous exclusively for the wealthy.

Originally Posted by pricecw

I also think the Supreme court is not doing it's job correctly.

That's fine. Typically, though, people say this not when the court is enacting a specific aspect of jurisprudence -- rather when the court hands down a ruling they don't like.

So if you're going to say that Eldred v Ashcroft is incorrect, given that it was a 7-2 decision and that both dissenterers (Stevens and Breyer) are not considered to be originalists, you might want to present a more thoroughly researched argument.

Originally Posted by pricecw

One good example is the laws put in place to "regulate" interstate commerce. When the constitution was written, and that power was granted to congress, the term regulate meant to make regular, not impose regulations. It was meant to let the federal government prevent things like tariffs at the borders of states.

And in this, one can easily argue that there are drawbacks to hewing too strictly to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Our legal system would be ossified and stagnant if we needed to amend the Constitution every time a law potentially affected interstate commerce....

Originally Posted by pricecw

Yep, that's another reason to just shorten the life of the copyright.

Or, just prepare legislation to deal with orphan works. Even if the copyright duration is, say, 50 years, you'll still have problems with orphan works.

Originally Posted by pricecw

BTW, patents are generally 14yrs, and that system has worked fairly well for compensating the creators, and progressing the state of the art.

Considering the complaints about patents, I'm not so sure about that. The pharmaceutical industry in particular appears to jack its prices, as well as put out new medicines with very minor twists, as a reaction to short patent durations.