First off, let’s use the whole line from the constitution, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”.

Now, judging from that line, NO entertainment or fiction copyright is valid, so focusing on this specific one on the basis of that line is silly, unless you want to eliminate copyright protection for the entirety of the movie/music/television industries. (If you do want to, well I do too, but go ahead and apply it everywhere)

…and how horrible he is that I just had to look up what wrote.

Here’s actual out_of_the_blue comments, not the wacky lies that "ACs" spread:

Fundamentals of Rational Copyright.
Somewhat redundant to clarify related aspects. Don’t worry if you can’t grasp these all at once: I’ll be using magic to post it often.

>> Copyright is derived from the facts of existence; it is natural law and cannot be narrowly defined; it is self-evident like the US Constitution itself which is only valid UNDER common law; statute is at best tertiary.

) Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.

) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.

) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It’s specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.

) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it’s still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)

) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent TWO types of THEFT (during the limited time): 1) by commercial scale copiers directly profiting 2) by the general public taking the work without rewarding creator. Only creators may make copies or attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.

) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one’s "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.

) Morally and practically, copyright is valid because exists independently of and without conflicting anyone else’s rights. — Pirates obviously want to deny the moral basis of "I made it, therefore I own it", and for practical objection point to the increasing controls that they cause by stealing.

) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn’t confer any new right to do so.

) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.

) Many like to jeer that copyright exists only until a creation is shared with others — after that you’ve no claim to it! Then anyone can take the work that you did and try to grift off its value for themselves. But that’s advocating law of the jungle apply to creators while enabling grifters and pirates to use the very tools of civilization to STEAL the creations. It’s just not FAIR. — No one will say that laborers don’t have right to the fruits of their labor (except so far as they advocate slavery, and some DO). Copyright is the SAME common law, fundamental recognition of who’s due the rewards for having produced, except applies to non-material products. The creator puts in work with hopes of profit, relying on the stated terms of civilized society that the public assure monopoly for a limited time so that the very potential for rewards isn’t stolen by either grifters or pirates.

) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, undeserved, immoral, and unethical.

) Putting entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.

) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators of non-physical works.

) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there’s no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.

) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don’t throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may render "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)

) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can’t guarantee income". — Misleading. From the US Constitution it’s been to assure creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt, nor to GRIFT off the content value either directly or indirectly (as a draw for eyes to advertisements).

) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.

) If you advocate taking copyright away from Disney after its long abuse and extension, then FINE! — But don’t at same time empower mega-corporations to steal creative works from the poor. Those are not similar cases. Doing away with ALL copyright is even more criminal than the current mess. — Make a means test for copyright, prohibit it entirely to corporations, and prevent them from raiding the public domain.

[Last revised 17 January 2014]

I think fair use should be greatly expanded after 28 years, which is the original term for copyright.

What should happen is that, after 28 years, public performances should fall under fair use, unless you are actually selling the product. If a theater wanted to show the canon Star Wars films, they should be able to do so as fair use, as long as they aren’t selling the movies. Movie goers could see the movie, but when they walk out, they don’t have a copy.

Same thing for books and music.