Supreme Court Keeps Copyright Protections (Mine: Sonny Bono Copyright Act ruled Constitutional)

Associated Press ^ | 1/15/03 | GINA HOLLAND

[general_re]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld longstanding copyrights designed to protect the profits of songs, books and cartoon characters, a huge victory for Disney and other companies.

The 7-2 ruling, while not unexpected, was a blow to Internet publishers and others who wanted to make old books available online and use the likenesses of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and other old creations without paying high royalties.

Hundreds of thousands of books, movies and songs were close to being released into the public domain when Congress extended the copyright by 20 years in 1998.

Justices said the copyright extension, named for the late Rep. Sonny Bono, R-Calif., was not unconstitutional.

The Constitution "gives Congress wide leeway to prescribe `limited times' for copyright protection and allows Congress to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) said from the bench.

A contrary ruling would have cost entertainment giants like The Walt Disney Co. and AOL Time Warner Inc. hundreds of millions of dollars. AOL Time Warner had said that would threaten copyrights for such movies as "Casablanca," "The Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With the Wind."

Also at risk of expiration was protection for the version of Mickey Mouse portrayed in Disney's earliest films, such as 1928's "Steamboat Willie."

Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights.

[Karsus]

That would just start another 'place Karsus on every ping thread in existance was' I had enough fun during the last one to do that again. :->

[Petronski]

Thinking is not a plebiscite, or what some might call a popularity contest.

No it is not. I agree. But it sure can be fun cashing those royalty checks. :)

[Karsus]

was should be war.

[Maedhros]

I would have to disagree with SCOTUS on this. I'm of the opinion that at most, copyrights should be limited to the life of the author or 50 years whichever is longer.

I would like to see copyrights limited to the same term as patents.

Well said. For those questioning my earlier comments, my position is probably similar to this.

[Nick Danger]

Based on what I know of the decision, the plaintiffs attempted in court to acheive what they could not acheive in Congress. It seems to be a correct decision

Yes, and entirely consistent with Bush v Gore. In that case, judges (in Florida) had taken it upon themselves to decide that an explicit deadline written into law by a legislature could be modified at whim by the judicial branch, based on whether judges thought the time period specified in the law was "fair," or "expedient," or whatever standard they decided to apply. It does not surprise me that the Supreme Court would not now do the same thing themselves. In fact the Supreme Court seems to be on a jihad against just this sort of judicial activism, where judges attempt to revise duly-adopted legislation according to their own whims.

[cinFLA]

I see. If a person labors for years to create a product you believe that you have the right to use it without paying them, arguing that they have no right to control their creation.

Why did you take his comment out of context!

[Petronski]

But I do not want a Supreme Court which functions as superlegislature, making these judgment calls in some kind of star chamber and setting policy by ukase.

Setting the term of copyright protection is a legislative function, so long as the legislative determination is not outside constitutional authority. We might not like the decision made by Congress, but it is their decision, not that of the Court. No one has demonstrated that Congress exceeded their constitutional authority--surely the Plaintiffs did not.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

There should be no difference in my ability to inherit 100 percent of my parents' intellectual work as 100 percent of my parents' farm. And my children's rights should likewise not be disturbed by legislative limitations.

[Petronski]

In fact the Supreme Court seems to be on a jihad against just this sort of judicial activism...

Finally, a jihad I can respect.

[Maedhros]

But it sure can be fun cashing those royalty checks. :)

I agree. But it may be a little too fun in Disney's case. It seems they have become addicted to hundred-year-old duck eggs, only in this case, the were laid by the golden goose.

[JmyBryan]

My sentiments exactly. Though I am in opposition to lengthy copyright protection, I do not wish to see the SC trampling the legislature.

[Petronski]

Again we agree.

[B Knotts]

I would argue the opposite; in fact, what has happened here is that the court simply ignored the plain language of the constitution, which limits the ability of Congress to set copyright terms to a "limited time."

The court has essentially said that "limited time" has no practical meaning, and has created a new authority for Congress to create unlimited copyright terms.

This decision is judicial activism.

[general_re]

No one has demonstrated that Congress exceeded their constitutional authority--surely the Plaintiffs did not.

How could you ever demonstrate such a thing, considering that the Constitution merely prescribes "limited" terms for copyrights? After all, a copyright period of a million years is "limited", isn't it? Would such a term exceed the constitutional authority of Congress? If so, why?

[Petronski]

The court has essentially said that "limited time" has no practical meaning...

Or, it could mean 'limited time' is defined in a way that includes Congress' action in this legislation.

[CatoRenasci]

I suppose the only ultimate limit on copyright terms will be the Rule Against Perpetuities -- lives in being + 99 years.

[B Knotts]

So, if life+70 years or 95 years does not exceed a "limited time," what in the heck does?

[Petronski]

How could you ever demonstrate such a thing...

I do not know, but the fact that I do not know does not prove that it cannot be done. All that it suggests is that whoever CAN demonstrate such a thing would probably win the next case on this matter, twenty years from now.

[ThinkDifferent]

After all, a copyright period of a million years is "limited", isn't it?

Unfortunately yes. Basically the founders made a mistake by not stating a specific number and Disney is exploiting it. I still don't agree that *retroactive* extensions are Constitutional (as they have no ability whatsoever to "promote the sciences and useful arts"), but I can understand why they ruled how they did.

[general_re]

Would a copyright term of a million years exceed the constitutional authority of Congress?