Porn doesn't "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

Interesting. After years of copyright fighting over people copying videos and songs on the internet someone actually went back to the beginning and looked at what the U.S. Constitution has to say.

The Congress shall have the Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The question then becomes, what is a "useful Art?" I cannot claim expertise in this area of the law, but it does seem to me that useful arts would be things such as mechanics, blacksmithing, sewing, etc.  This would exclude things such as acting, singing, dancing which are not meant to provide a product for further use, but to provide entertainment in the moment. It's an intriguing argument which seems to have teeth. Of course, there are a lot of arguments which seem to have teeth at first glance, yet are contrary to long established interpretation by the courts.

Of course, the woman in this case is accused of violating copyright regarding porn, which technically could be related to a useful art (sex) meant to provide a product (child). I'd love to see how that argument played out in court.