When Eric Eldred’s crusade to save the public domain reached the Supreme Court, it needed the help of a lawyer, not a scholar.

Well, I’ve been calling the copyright law unconstitutional … and in the interest of fairness, I should say that I was wrong. It was not unconstitutional, at least according to the Supreme Court of 2004.

But, in all honesty, can anyone deny that congress, in the last century or so, extended the copyright into a perpetual one? Can anyone deny now that a perpetual copyright is unconstitutional?

Although I now know I can’t call this immoral law unconstitutional, I can still call it immoral, unjustified, and damaging to the society. The very thought that one should be able to own an idea or own a piece of culture (rather than “renting” it for a limited time) sickens me. What next? Can one person own another person (rather than “renting” his services for a limited time)? Supreme court justified slavery and racism for hundreds of years. That did not make them any more moral or “right”.

No matter what anyone, even the Supreme court, says, I still hold that our copyright laws are immoral, unjustified, and… destructive.

From now on, I’ll consider myself on a restrained boycott on copyright—I will refuse to buy or otherwise support anything not absolutely necessary (i.e. works of science and academics) that is not copylefted or in public domain.

If I don’t convince enough number of people to matter, at least I will know I took no part in this unjust institution (… once I came of age).