> Reverting back to the original intent would likely eliminate fair use altogether. Fair use was introduced by the courts as an alternative to copyright being

> Reverting back to the original intent would likely eliminate fair use altogether. Fair use was introduced by the courts as an alternative to copyright being deemed altogether unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. If the fair use exceptions were to be eliminated then we would be back to copyright itself being unconstitutional. Personally I think the courts were too quick to capitulate. A few narrow fair use exceptions are not sufficient to reconcile the inherent censorship of copyright with freedom of speech. > In fact, the Constitutional text is quite explicit about creators have "exclusive" rights … What the text actually says is that "The Congress shall have the Power 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". It does not say that "creators" have exclusive rights automatically; that requires action on the part of Congress. And whatever Congress enacts in this area must comply with the rest of the Constitution, including the 1st Amendment. Even if that means that copyright effectively cannot be implemented at all.