[btilly]

That seems like an unsubstantiated claim.

It is substantiated by the text of the Constitution itself.

From what I remember of other parts of the constitution and amendments offhand they generally don't include an explicit directive about why something is there. It's extremely implicit as an often obvious effect of what the law expressly allows or forbids.

They generally don't. And therefore the statement of intent for this particular clause should be given more weight, not less.

[mjevans]

You cut out the very next sentence which describes the element that I am claiming is unsubstantiated.

Though you do understand the further elaboration of why I too feel it is __extremely__ important that there is a clause about why this power is reserved to Congress and a described intent / limit within which that power is to be used.

[btilly]

Unfortunately this clause was specifically litigated and we lost.

More specifically, can Congress achieve unlimited terms with regular copyright extensions to existing copyright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft ruled that they can. However their next attempt to extend has so far failed.

We will find out in 2024 whether they get it together, or whether Mickey Mouse enters the public domain after all...like it should have done in 1984. (That was the maximum that could have been expected when Steamboat Willie was released.)

[mjevans]

I still believe that's wrong, but a re-do now would be pointless. I doubt anyone within the next few decades will put someone for the people, rather than for the rich people and corporations, on the supreme court. There's a lot of corruption (money/influence) everywhere that needs to be cleaned up first.