The Constitution was written long before copyright and patent were put on sound economic footing.

Can you provide a citation for your opposing view? Here's a more recent quote from the Supreme Court:

Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy

Mark Lemley's paper on the subject is my go-to: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602

Your go-to source argues that the point of copyright and patent monopolies is actually to incentivize innovation, which conflicts with your own claim that the purpose of copyright and patent monopolies is not to incentivize innovation:

> > Intellectual property rights are an exception to that norm, and they are granted only when – and only to the extent that – they are necessary to encourage invention.

Meanwhile, you have not offered an alternative justification for copyright monoplies, as far as I've noticed.

edit: It's also notable that a major purpose of Lemley's paper is to debunk the notion that there is any meaningful "free rider problem" in the world of patentable and copyrightable, but you claim a "free rider problem" is a major incentive to keep copyright and patent law.

Interesting paper, although the author disagrees with that interpretation pretty heavily. I suppose the issue isn't as clear cut as I thought.

Your bar for "sound economic footing" is set very low.