Success Quote by Hilary Rosen

Invoking “the Constitution” is a power move: it wraps a modern, ugly policy fight in the clean authority of founding scripture. Rosen’s line is doing two things at once. On the surface, it’s a civics lesson about copyright’s rationale: limited exclusivity as a spur to creativity. Underneath, it’s an argument about legitimacy. If the Framers designed the system to reward creators, then today’s enforcement regimes, licensing battles, and platform skirmishes aren’t corporate opportunism; they’re continuity.

The phrasing matters. “Wanted artists to have control” swaps the Constitution’s more clinical language about authors and exclusive rights for a warmer, moral-sounding concept: “control.” That word smuggles in a contemporary sensibility about ownership and agency, implying that infringement isn’t just economic leakage but a violation of personhood. It also quietly flattens the reality that “artists” rarely exercise that control directly. In practice, rights are often held or leveraged by publishers, labels, studios, and distributors. A “businesswoman” making the case for artists is not accidental; it’s coalition rhetoric, aligning industry interests with creator dignity.

“That is clearly still the goal” is the clincher: a preemptive strike against critics who argue copyright has drifted from incentive toward rent-seeking, perpetual extensions, and chokepoints that can throttle new creators. By declaring clarity, Rosen sidesteps the messy middle: the Constitution’s bargain is incentive, yes, but also limits, public access, and eventual commons. The subtext is a demand that we treat today’s status quo as original intent, not contested evolution.