Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve a hypothesis that is entailed by the premise.
Query: It is simply evaluating what the term should be prospectively in a way that we presume this Court should presume is legitimate under the First Amendment. When it legislates retrospectively, it is, in effect, looking at particular authors and estates of authors who are before Congress asking for this extension, and it's choosing between these particular authors and the public at large.
The speaker is not a 2nd grader.
This text regards a retrospectivity case.
It reads like legalese and discusses the 1st amendment, so it's likely from a court - but we don't know if it is even from a federal court, let alone the supreme court.
The author is explaining how the Government has a constitutional right to extend terms.
an unlimited time would violate the Copyright Clause, leading to anger
Mr Lessig argument on retroactivity -prospectivity, stuff should not be got sooner as the period is not long
The 1976 extension could be unconstitutional and confusing to many people.
 Congress's power under the Copyright Clause and it comply with the First Amendment. 
No one actually has a fly in their face, the speaker just means that their is a potential for something to be contrary to legal precedent.
The Copyright Clause in the onstitution granted protection because there was an existing common law copyright.
The Copyright Clause has limits in originality that the court has determined have meaning.
The extensions were considered by the Court
Your First Amendment test is open-ended and optional. 
The libs hate the First Amendment.
The petitioners are asking for a lengthy constitutional limitation.
The necessary and proper clause allows you to do the 24 retrospective.
First Amendment interest raises after 15 years.
the Copyright argument will be apply in the  First Amendment analysis. 
The Feist opinions implies limits to the Copyright Clause.
 Congress extends subsisting copyright all the time. 
there is a limit on congress's power when it comes to the copyright clause
We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright 18 Clause
The second amendment also applies to this case.
The public at large has been paying close attention to this case.
other amendments will also be discussed