Homeland Security raids lingerie shop for panties that violate MLB copyright

[Ampersand Unicode]

143. The way they do it, yes

When the Constitution was written, copyright lasted 20 years with only one renewable term of, I believe, 5. So 25 years was the max time you could even have a copyright before it became part of the public domain. Now the term is 76 years plus the life of the author, 120 years and infinitely renewable for "works for hire" (corporate-owned stuff like movies, logos, software titles, you name it). About the only things that fits the 76-years-plus-life term are books, which are usually written by one person who is then the "rights holder" (or his estate). So for example, Catcher in the Rye won't be in public domain until 2086 -- 76 years after J.D. Salinger's death in 2010. And even still, his estate could decide to renew the term ad infinitum.

The founders' idea was that too much hoarding of "intellectual property" (as it's now called) created concentrated wealth and monopoly, and deprived the people of opportunities to create "useful Arts" (their words, not mine) based on the original work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

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.

The copyright profiteers succeeded in finding a loophole to the "limited times" phrasing, in 2003's Eldred v. Ashcroft decision. Because 76 (or 120 years) itself is a "limited time," repeated and unlimited extensions of copyright terms are not (at least according to the SCOTUS) anathema to the idea of the term being "limited." It may be longer than most human lifetimes, but it is not literally "infinite" as in stated verbatim to be "forever."

The copyright lobby also has well-paid thugs enforcing laws against the victimless crime of "trademark infringement" or "copyright infringement" as though it were out-and-out armed robbery. They are nothing more than a corrupt cabal making scads of money off of cave drawings and terrorizing people who in no way pose any real threat to their bottom line. They just like to make off as though they do. And they must be stopped.