Justices to Review Copyright Extension
|
|
The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether the 1998 law that extended the duration of existing copyrights by 20 years was constitutional. The court’s action took the world of copyright holders and users by surprise and held the potential of producing the most important copyright case in decades. A challenge to the law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which many had regarded as a fanciful academic exercise, suddenly looked very different once the Supreme Court declared its interest. The issue is whether the Constitution’s grant of authority to Congress to issue copyrights and patents ”for limited times” to ”promote the progress of science and useful arts” contains any real limitation on how that power is to be exercised. That question has implications for future cases as the battle over the ownership of intellectual property focuses on the Internet. As a practical matter, the consequences could be enormous, both for those with stakes in copyrights that are running out and for the growing community of people — represented by the plaintiffs in this case — trying to use the Internet to expand the boundaries of the public domain. If the 20-year extension was unconstitutional, early Mickey Mouse depictions would no longer belong exclusively to the Walt Disney Company — although Disney would retain trademark protection for the character. Two lower federal courts here had rejected arguments by a coalition of publishers and individuals that the latest extension of copyright protection — the 11th in the last 40 years — defeated the original intent of the Copyright Clause, in which the framers sought to grant a limited monopoly that would encourage and reward the creation of works while ensuring eventual public access. The initial Copyright Act, which Congress amended only once in the next 150 years, provided for a 14-year term, with a 14-year renewal only if the author was still alive. The plaintiffs had argued unsuccessfully that extending copyright protection for existing works did nothing to promote new creativity while subverting the concept of ”limited times.” They had also argued that the extension restricted free speech in violation of the First Amendment. They lost in a 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit one year ago. After the plaintiffs filed their Supreme Court appeal last October, the Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, No. 01-618. The administration pointed out that there were no conflicting rulings on the validity of the 1998 law — with lower court disagreement being the most important criterion for Supreme Court review — and ”no decision of any court holding that Congress cannot, consistent with the Copyright Clause, enact legislation that extends the term of existing copyrights.” More : query.nytimes.com |