You're right: complex problem. My real point is that the authors of the Constitution thought they'd settled it. The 1st ammendment says that freedom of expression cannot be denied. Copyright law says "ok, temporarily, this expressed idea is off the table, so that the author will make more."

Schultz could sell his copyright for more money, sure. But how does that benefit anyone else? He was already given the right to publicize Snoopy -- a right that not all societies enjoy. In exchange, he would have to realize that his monopoly was short-lived.

The way Jefferson saw it, once an idea is expressed, it's not just yours anymore -- it's in my head, too. Obviously you don't own what's in my head. So with copyright laws, we're saying that the 1st ammendment does not apply, temporarily: you may know the song, but you can't sing it, even though we've now taken away your freedom of expression. That can only be short-lived, or we may as well withdraw the 1st ammendment. And it's not as if Schultz created Snoopy in a vacuum; he was influenced by other comic strip artists, and he certainly did not invent the form. Did he owe them money? Did he owe society money for allowing him to blast his drawings out to us without explicit permission?

(I've always wanted to say something to Lars from Metallica. During the Napster thing, he said, "They didn't even ask us. They just took our songs." To which I'd say, "yeah, Lars, but you never even asked me before you made your crap songs impossible for me to avoid. If I leave my house, there's your shitty music. And you never even asked." There are two sides to this coin, and it's remarkably convenient for copyright "owners" to forget that.)