[The_Reader_David]

Intellectual property law is already about as corrupt constitutionally as the “health care reform” bill: the enumerated power under which Congress can pass patent and copyright laws reads

“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.”

It says nothing about securing exclusive rights to commercial interests who neither wrote nor invented anything, nor to literary or scientific estates. The perpetual extensions of copyright terms make a mockery of “for limited Times”. And, objectively, the main effects of current patent and copyright law is to impede progress in science and the useful arts by making derivative works nearly impossible within the law, despite the supposed recognition of fair use.

[Logophile]

It says nothing about securing exclusive rights to commercial interests who neither wrote nor invented anything . . . .

I have written several books. I signed over my copyright to a "commercial interest" (i.e., a publisher) in exchange for a royalty on the sales of my books. Although the publisher did not write the books, it took care of such things as printing and marketing them.

Do you see anything wrong with such an agreement?

[itsahoot]

The perpetual extensions of copyright terms make a mockery of “for limited Times”. And, objectively, the main effects of current patent and copyright law is to impede progress in science and the useful arts by making derivative works nearly impossible within the law, despite the supposed recognition of fair use.

Sadly the Supreme Court has upheld this insanity.