[DMCA-Activists] Wash Post: Supreme Court Debates Eldred

[Seth Johnson]

(Another citation from CyberTelecom Newsletter.  -- Seth)

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A776-2002Oct9.html


High Court Debates Copyright Extension Case 

By Charles Lane
October 9, 2002

The future ownership of much of American popular culture was
up for grabs at the Supreme Court today, as the justices
wrestled with the question of how long Congress may extend
copyrights on books, art, music, film and literature. 

In 1998, Congress extended copyrights on existing works from
the life of the author plus 50 years to the life of the
author plus 70 years and works owned by corporations from 75
to 95 years. The law, named after the late singer and
congressman Sonny Bono, was heavily backed by such
entertainment giants as The Walt Disney Co., whose lucrative
exclusive rights to the image of Mickey Mouse and other
cartoon characters would otherwise have expired early in the
21st Century. 

But opponents, led by Internet publisher Eric Eldred, say
the law, coming on top of past copyright extensions, amounts
to a perpetual grant of copyright, thwarting the free flow
of ideas the framers of the Constitution sought to encourage
when they gave Congress the power to issue copyrights only
for "limited times." 

The conflict between the law's attempt to help artists and
their heirs keep more profits on the one hand, and the
opponents' desire to use their work for free sooner on the
other hand, has led some legal bloggers to label the case
"Sonny v. Share." 

During today's argument, the justices seemed concerned about
the endless pyramiding of copyright extensions-but equally
uncertain whether there was anything they could, or should,
do about it, given the Constitution's clear grant of
authority to Congress, and the fact that overturning the
1998 law could call into question similar enactments
stretching back decades. 

"I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did," Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor said. "This flies directly in the face
of what the framers of the constitution had in mind. But is
it unconstitutional?" 

Arguing for Eldred, a Stanford University law professor
tried to persuade the justices that there was no real
difference between repeated extensions for ostensibly set
terms, and a perpetual copyright. 

"Just as a limited-edition print is not limited if you print
a new one each time a customer leaves the store," Lawrence
Lessig argued, "so a limited term is not limited if it is
extended" every time it ends. 

Representing the U.S. government, Solicitor General Theodore
B. Olson said that the 1998 law struck a permissible balance
between the public's right to eventual access and the
constitutional mandate "to promote the progress of science
and the useful arts" by rewarding creative individuals for
their efforts. 

"These are quintessentially legislative judgments," Olson
told the court. 

The case is Eldred v. Ashcroft, No. 01-618. A decision in
the case is expected by July.