[connicpu]

It was obvious enough to the founders of the USA to bake it into our constitution.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

> [the United States 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.

[EvanAnderson]

We don't have that. We have functionally unlimited times now. Publishing something new today puts you at risk of litigation from existing rights-holders.

I don't believe it's morally right to license music but, if I did, I'd look at the climate of lawsuits in the the last 10-15 years and conclude that the risks might outweigh the potential rewards.

[connicpu]

I'm all in favor of reverting copyright terms to what they were before the Walt Disney Corporation was founded, but I think the idea of having a limited time to profit off of your creative works in order to incentivize their creation is still a sound concept.

[EvanAnderson]

The original agreement was fair to both creators and society and would never be remotely palatable to today's industry of middle-men and rights hoarders.

I wish we could have it back. I would feel a lot better about "intellectual property", morally, if we did.

[6510]

That isn't a study? Even if it was a perfect idea at the time things have changed dramatically. I wouldn't want my ideas applied uncritically to some alien future. It also says "useful Arts", what it is suppose to be useful for?