Pro-Copyright coalition seeks to influence election

[richlevy]

From here

Each of the five questions rests on the premise that copyright protection is vital to the U.S. economy, and they're clearly worded with an eye toward eliciting a certain response. (As one reporter on a conference call about the announcement remarked, the approach seems a bit like asking the candidates whether they like Mom and apple pie.)
One question, for instance, asks: "How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?"

It appears that the pro-copyright contingent is putting on an election year blitz and we all know they have the money to do it. I'm not against copyright and patent, but I will argue against the idea that more protections are automatically better for creativity or society. I think we have seen enough look-and-feel patent suits in the software industry to recognize that.

While the industry invokes the Constitution and the founding fathers, they conveniently forget that the original copyrights covered limited materials for a limited time. In exchange for this protection, the copyright would expire and the work would enter the public domain. This concept is brought to life in our 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

Of course, there is a "whatever is good for business is good for the US" group that finds a 100+ year copyright (death of author + 70) too short and are doing their patriotic best (sarcasm alert) to change the status quo.

And they have the money to do it.

From Wikipedia

In 1998 the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the The Copyright Term Extension Act. Disney lobbied extensively for this legislation which protects its exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse.

The holy grail of copyright holders is the Common Law Copyright

Common law copyright is the legal doctrine which contends that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property. The doctrine was repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1784) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834)

Conversely, while the United States Congress is prevented by the Copyright Clause from doing such things, the Supreme Court has ruled that limits on copyrights already granted can be extended.

Yes, but with a pro-business president and a stacked Supreme Court the interpretation of 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 could be changed.