[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.

[eno_]

This is not the case when is comes to intellectual property. Part of what we have here is a Hollywood-driven inversion of the Framers' intent: weak real property protection while Mikey Mouse's publisher (not the author, creator, inventor significantly) gets functionally unlimited protection.

Moreover, the hyprocrisy of the Hollywood line is stunning: Disney makes a movie of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, freeely, based on previous copyright law, and then whines about Mikey Mouse going public domain.

[eno_]

By the way, that "replenished public domian" is right there in the part of the copyright clause that states the clause exists to promote progress through limited protection. Which says to me unlimited protection is contrary to progress.

It is clear the Framers did not buy into the "if this much protection is good, more must be better" line of reasoning.

[steve-b]

The Framer's, as best I understand, did NOT consider things from a "public domain" concept

Your understanding is defective then. The patents and copyrights clause clearly requires that works mature into the public domain after their "limited terms" of government-granted monopoly.