Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Keeps Copyright Protections (Mine: Sonny Bono Copyright Act ruled Constitutional)
Associated Press ^ | 1/15/03 | GINA HOLLAND

Posted on 01/15/2003 8:14:57 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bigmedia; books; changingrules; congress; copyright; copyrightexpiration; disney; fairuse; films; firstammendment; mouseinthehouse; movies; music; publicdomain; publishing; songs; supremecourt; texts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-164 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
The law is a piece of pure crap, but that's not the same as being unconstitutional.

Exactly.

81 posted on 01/15/2003 10:36:40 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Thanks for summarizing the minority opinion - I hadn't had a chance to read it yet. I'm in the camp the doesn't like the extension. Maybe if Congress tries to do it again, the justices will start to see a pattern of unlimited extensions for a "limited Time".

Unless the EU does something stupid (probable) to extend copyright protections, then they won't have the same excuse next time...

82 posted on 01/15/2003 10:36:56 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Disney (puke).
83 posted on 01/15/2003 10:37:10 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You didn't write it. You don't own it. Like Grandpa's shotgun, its mine if I inherited it. Don't try to take it if you know what's good for ya.
84 posted on 01/15/2003 10:39:21 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
But 20 years is not "forever," and you can't make it mean that just by wanting to.

A million years isn't "forever" either. Let's have million-year copyright terms. Sound good?

85 posted on 01/15/2003 10:39:37 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
The problem is not in any specific individual extension, but in a pattern of retroactive extension such that the term is theoretically limited at any given moment but in actual fact never arrives at a limit (as in the analogy I offered in Msg#48 to a three-wishes story without the understood rule against wishing for additional wishes).

The Court was stuck, however, by the fact that this loophole doesn't involve an obvious circumvention of the "limited terms" clause at any specific step. At best, the Court might find a "clear pattern" rationale if Congress extends and re-extends copyright terms a few more times. If so, the issue might be resolved sometime in the latter half of the twenty-first century.

86 posted on 01/15/2003 10:44:59 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Retroactively extending copyright terms negates any plain meaning of "limited time."

This presents us with a dilemma. Your ruling is now at odds with the Supreme Court's. The Court considered this question and came to the conclusion that there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents Congress from granting these kinds of extensions.

To resolve this dilemma, let us consider the immortal words of Judge Judy. "You say 'yes,' I say 'no,' I'm the judge, I win."

87 posted on 01/15/2003 10:49:24 AM PST by Nick Danger (Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Ah.

So, you obviously believe Roe v. Wade was decided correctly.

88 posted on 01/15/2003 10:50:24 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
To resolve this dilemma, let us consider the immortal words of Judge Judy. "You say 'yes,' I say 'no,' I'm the judge, I win."

True enough, but bear in mind that the Supreme Court has also frequently ignored the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and interpreted the commerce clause to mean that the feds can do absolutely anything. Their word is law, but it isn't always right.

89 posted on 01/15/2003 10:53:32 AM PST by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Perhaps I was a little flip.
If you want copies of my book, BUY one from the publisher or book store who will pay me, the OWNER.
That's the way its supposed to work, anyway.
90 posted on 01/15/2003 10:58:44 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
If you desgin a widget, whether for you own use of for a company, thier patent is granted for 17 years. Why should the patent for a piece of music or a movie be any different. Are we to believe that an Elvis song is more worthy of protection than the patent for the transistor for example?

The congress si being bribed by Hollywood and the RIAA to grant those business special rights.
91 posted on 01/15/2003 11:01:25 AM PST by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
At best, the Court might find a "clear pattern" rationale if Congress extends and re-extends copyright terms a few more times. If so, the issue might be resolved sometime in the latter half of the twenty-first century.

Yes, and at that point it might be appropriate for the Court to intervene. Absent that rationale, though, they would just be second-guessing the legislature as to what the "correct" term of a copyright should be. I frankly applaud them for not doing that. I wish more judges would be that reticent to substitute their own judgements for that of elected legislatures. I could never figure out how the Florida Supreme Court came to the conclusion that they were free to jack around with the deadlines specified in Florida election law. When they did that, they essentially turned themselves into a House of Lords with the power to amend legislation as they saw fit. That they were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court did not surprise me a bit.

I think the real gripe here is that people are frustrated by the fact that a special-interest lobby bought itself some lucrative legislation. That's a problem, but the courts are not the right place to try to fix that.

92 posted on 01/15/2003 11:01:45 AM PST by Nick Danger (Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
In a way, it's reminiscent of "grandfather clauses" and the like -- it was always obvious that they were a legal mechanism for circumventing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, but it was easier to prove it in the 1950s-1960s than it was in the 1870s-1880s.
93 posted on 01/15/2003 11:11:58 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
At best, the Court might find a "clear pattern" rationale if Congress extends and re-extends copyright terms a few more times.

Yes, and at that point it might be appropriate for the Court to intervene.

Based on what? It was 70 years, then it was 90, and now it's 300 years - every step of the way, it's a "limited" term, which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, saw fit to implement. You're not going to argue that 300 years is the "wrong number", are you?

94 posted on 01/15/2003 11:12:34 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Leto
Why should the patent for a piece of music or a movie be any different?

It's a matter of the span of the product lifecycle, the term it takes to come to fruition, the nature of the market. For example, patents can be reauthorized if the term of introduction and adoption was protracted and the inventor otherwise incapable of recouping a return. Consider that a prescription drug can take ten years to come to market. A book is often the life work of an author. A musician often prepares and develops their skill for decades.

That variability is why the term of state-sanctioned intellectual property protection is still a political decision. If you don't like it, lobby your congressman.

95 posted on 01/15/2003 11:13:44 AM PST by Carry_Okie (A faith in Justice, none in "fairness")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
So, you obviously believe Roe v. Wade was decided correctly.

We're just talking past each other. You continue to argue the case, while I'm arguing the dispute-resolution mechanism. Nothing I've said implies that the procedures will produce "correct" results; only that they are the procedures we have all agreed to so as to implement a 'rule of law'.

There are court decisions every day that somebody, somewhere thinks are "incorrect." Roe v Wade is a famous one. Bush v Gore has its detractors as well. So what? We've all agreed that when these rulings come down, they are the law. You can still be against them, but you also have to live with them.

The right place to fix the copyright issue is in the legislature. Asking small panels of unelected philospher kings to diddle with legislation using their superior wisdom is asking for trouble in the long run.

96 posted on 01/15/2003 11:19:41 AM PST by Nick Danger (Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Asking small panels of unelected philospher kings to diddle with legislation using their superior wisdom is asking for trouble in the long run.

Oh, please. What exactly is the Supreme Court for, if not to interpret the Constitution and judge when some legislative act runs afoul of it? How do you propose they should do that without running afoul of your "philosopher-kings" formulation?

97 posted on 01/15/2003 11:24:24 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You're not going to argue that 300 years is the "wrong number", are you?

One of my great disappointments with Free Republic is how often it happens that people treat a discussion of mechanism as an attack on a particular position. It is not unlike the political dilemma faced by conservatives who would prefer to eliminate the mechanism of Affirmative Action but who will face a barrage of criticism from Democrats that if they do so they are "racists."

Here we have people who want copyrights to expire sooner rather than later, and they want to argue that point regardless of the mechanism employed to change it. Here we see people who would croak if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Gore, who want the Court this time, and this time only, to re-write legislation to suit them. Why? Because they want the copyrights to expire, and the legislative debate did not go their way. So to Hell with judicial restraint and the proper mechanism for amending law, let's have the Court do it.

Understand something: I do not know what the right number is. I do not claim to have any divine wisdom on the subject. I only know that I do not want small panels of unelected people deciding these things. If it is true that the elected legislature is corrupt, and that it was bribed by Disney and others to make this extension, that is a horrible thing. But the cure is not to empower philospher kings to intervene. They aren't going to stop with our favorite interventions, they'll be intervening all over the place, just as the Florida Supreme Court did. I don't want that, and it has nothing to do with copyrights.

98 posted on 01/15/2003 11:38:22 AM PST by Nick Danger (Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
The fact is, judges are NOT supposed to be super-legislators. This is a clear case of delivering a proper smackdown to a circuit that did just that.

Sorry, but if people want to change the copyright terms, they need to fund-raise for and work on behalf of candidates who will make the adjustments and run the ads. And be ready to fight the folks who like the Sonny Bono Act.
99 posted on 01/15/2003 11:40:07 AM PST by hchutch ("Last suckers crossed, Syndicate shot'em up" - Ice-T, "I'm Your Pusher")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
If you want copies of my book, BUY one from the publisher or book store who will pay me, the OWNER.

I don't want your book. I don't want anything from you. I want to make copies of the book your father wrote, and sell them just like you're doing. I'll buy one copy from you to get the text. Then the book will be mine, and I can do with it what I want. I don't have to seek out Shakespeare's or Dickens' heirs just to publish a volume of theirs. What gives you rights they don't have?

The point is, ideas aren't property. We let people monopolize the profit from their ideas for a limited period in order to reward and encourage creativity. But you ain't writing new books, you're just trying to make a profit off your Dad's. I can't see how that encourages creativity. Rather, maybe you'd go out and do something more creative if you didn't have the meal ticket.

100 posted on 01/15/2003 11:52:27 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-164 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson