"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" - Not sure if this the the parent's view of the purpose of copyright, but seems to have been what the original

"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" - Not sure if this the the parent's view of the purpose of copyright, but seems to have been what the original constitution writers had in mind. By that measure though, it seems the US has had pretty good results. We have a flourishing scientific research and arts community regularly producing amazing things. Certainly at least as good as anywhere else. And the other countries that also do well in these areas have similar copyright systems for similar reasons. I don't know of other countries with substantially different copyright laws/systems that produce similar quantity/quality of science and art. I'm not saying it's perfect, just that before we so roundly criticize something we should at least have in mind what we are trying to achieve, and some reasonable idea of an alternative that would achieve it. Do you have some ideas of how the US copyright system has failed at the stated purpose, and how something else might work better?