Replies

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.

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.

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?

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.