[buaya]

I think Mr Schultz is hyper-ventilating just a bit. I believe Lawrence Lessig is quite correct to challenge the "Bono" Act on both fronts: a strict reading of the source of Congress' power to authorize copyrights (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) and a challenge to Congress' ever expanding power under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I remember reading an interview with Billy Tauzin, author of the abominable Digitial Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Tauzin stated that Congress' authority to craft the DMCA relied more on the Interstate Commerce Clause than the "Copyright" Clause. Hence, it is necessary to slay this beast, if we are ever going to get copyright under control.

Although I disagree with the author on several points, there is nevertheless quite a bit of useful information in this article.

[buaya]

ping!

[general_re]

I'm with you - this is hyperventilation. Want the short version? "Imagine how horrible things would be if Congress didn't have authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate every single aspect of human existence."

Yeah, I'm imagining it. And frankly, Evan Schultz can kiss my a** - that sounds like probably the most fabulous thing that could possibly happen to this country since FDR's perversion of the Constitution. Period.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Just compare the life of copyrights with the life of patents, if you want to get an idea of how this society values entertainers compared to engineers and scientists.

[bvw]

the Constitution [patent and copyright clause] in essence mandates a regularly replenished public domain that the Sonny Bono Act impermissibly weakens

What is he talking about here? Spinning the Framer's intent? The Framer's, as best I understand, did NOT consider things from a "public domain" concept -- that's novel, socialistic even. The Framers considered what is private property, and who's private property it is.

[Bonaparte]

fyi