Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve a hypothesis that is entailed by the premise.
Query: -- I really think this is an important question and, as Justice O'Connor points out, if we have to ask what's the most plausible explanation for this rule, to reward existing vested interest or to stimulate former new works, it seems to me that it's probably the former.
Justice O'Connor thinks we should stimulate former new works.
The question was based on the precedents 
Objectively, more parties supported the old roles.
one of the motives could be for money
there are people with a vested interest. 
Somebody suggested some kind of reasons regarding this case.
The Copyright Clause justifies the extension.
The framers created the copyright clause because of the demand. 
The guiding principles are up for appeal.
The Copyright Clause in the onstitution granted protection because there was an existing common law copyright.
The new rule was well liked. 
The Copyright Clause provides incentives not only to the creator, but to others involved in the process as well
Orla O'Connor supported the law
There is a necessary and proper clause that helps protect authors that have works completed already.
The Framers created the Copyright Clause in the Constitution because they all had an interest in a uniform rule for copyright protection.
The act of giving is questioned by studying some rules.
The holder of an existing right may benefit the public by continuing to have that right for an additional period of time.
the claim was looked at fondly by the justice
The court decision is why they are doing that
The Copyright Clause has limits in originality that the court has determined have meaning.
Patentee may exploit a particular work with incentives.
The eligibility rules are not beneficial. 
Justice O’Conner thinks the rule favors stimulating former new works 
The rule exists to stimulate former new works 
O’Connor is not a judge 