I seem to remember something from law school about a Rule Against Perpetuitiesin real estate and estate planning. If it was good enough for Blackstone, why shouldn't it be good enough for copyrights.



I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I don't see how making the Mickey Mouse copyright good for another 20 years has anything to do with promoting the progress of science. A fortiori, "I got you, Babe" has even less.

This is a really dumb decision, which by trying to extend the profitability of entertainment like films and music, will damage not promote the spread of knowledge. It certainly will keep the Internet dumbed down past my lifetime. There is a vast body of literature and other writing that can't be accessed on the net except through Amazon and its ilk. Just think of how personal computing would be different if Microsoft were unable to maintain its monopoly through copyright law. Software should not be protected by copyright law. It's obsolete long before that protection lapses. I would make a special copyright or patent rule that drops protection after 5 years on all software products.


Lieber and Stoll made money off their pop songs, but why should their children and grandchildren? Let them write their own songs and make their own money from them. Sonny Bono thought copyrights should last forever, but he was wrong and the Constitution says so. Or it used to. There is very little practical difference between 95 years after the owner's death and perpetuity. I respectfully dissent.