> it could be argued that it's a 1st amendment violation, if the law can be shown to be in retaliation* to speech I think that quote from my original post is p

> it could be argued that it's a 1st amendment violation, if the law can be shown to be in retaliation* to speech I think that quote from my original post is pretty damning in that regard. He's openly declaring this as an attack on their bottom line because of clearly protected speech that he finds odious. > But it's an interesting question if to consider what the legal case would be if the law was a general reduction of copyright to ~50 years, for everyone. See, that's something I'd get behind!