LII: Constitution 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;

I had no idea that copyright was part of the US Constitution until I read about this in an LA Times Op-Ed. The article was debating the semantics and metaphors related to filesharing on which I'll probably have more to think. But, reading the section referenced in the article reminded me of a recent talk I went to on the default states in frames.

And it seems to me beyond much doubt that the framers had assumed a default state of “limited” that meant actually limited rather than potentially limited which is what the current laws enshrine. Of course, there are many other ‘default’ states in the constitution, for instance regarding what a ‘person’ is. But these defaults have been typically reset by amendments.

Also, it could be more than argued that the current copyright regime does not “promote the progress” of anybody but big corporations. What about the company that owns the rights to ‘Happy Birthday’? Where is progress or even the rights of authors and inventors in that?

I’ve been following this debate from a distance for a while but haven’t seen the conflict with the constitutional wording raised. But maybe I’ve just not been looking in the right places or am missing something.