> I do not see the ever-increasing terms of copyright being "for limited Times." Neither do I, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. > In a 7

> I do not see the ever-increasing terms of copyright being "for limited Times." Neither do I, but the Supreme Court disagreed in Eldred v. Ashcroft. > In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations in placing existing and future copyrights in parity in the CTEA. Disagreeing with the argument that a copyright once set is fixed, the majority found that the CTEA "continues the unbroken congressional practice of treating future and existing copyrights in parity for term extension purposes," and is a permissible exercise of Congress's power under the Copyright Clause. … Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, arguing that the CTEA amounted to a grant of perpetual copyright that undermined public interests. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-618