The result is a legal and economic environment that stifles "the Progress of Science and useful Arts", exactly the opposite of the purpose cited in the US Constitution.

(i.e., copyrights) To promote the Progress of useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Discoveries.

This would, in turn, delay new inventions from reaching the public, undermining the primary goal of the patent system, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."

Put another way, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact copyright laws "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Copyright protection should be granted only to the extent that it will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Their investment is something granted to them by the people "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" not an inalienable right to derive a profit from labor.

Example: The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

The conventional rationale behind providing these exclusive rights is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by providing inventors the incentive to invest in researching and developing innovative technology.

Fair use tempers copyright's exclusive rights to serve the purpose of copyright law, which the US Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Art.

It was created to serve a public good: "the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times..." and so on (you surely know the line by now).