Court Watch
lenges Section 514 on the grounds that it violates the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment. At oral arguments, the two sides offered conflict- ing interpretations of Section 514 in light of its compatibility with the Copyright Clause, which authorizes Congress “[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
The Petitioners insisted that Section 514 violates the Copyright Clause on two fronts. First, they ar- gued that the law does not spur the innovation constitutionally required in exchange for copyright protection. Because the authors covered by Sec- tion 514 are deceased, the law cannot possibly encourage them to contribute additional works. Second, the Petitioners argued that Section 514 violates the limited time provision of this Clause by deliberately excluding certain foreign authors from copyright protection and in doing so effec- tively set the limited time of protection for their works at zero. As a result, the Petitioners claimed Section 514 runs afoul of Congress’ duty to limit the duration of exclusivity and protect the public’s expectations regarding use of affected works.
The Petitioners differentiated Golan from the seminal copyright case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, which allowed Congress to extend copyright protections before the prescribed time expired. In Golan, ac- cording to the Petitioners, Congress extended the duration of protection after the initial protective period ended and after the works entered public domain, thus increasing expectation and reliance problems for the public.
The Respondents adamantly opposed the notion that the extended protection offered by Section 514 did nothing to advance the interests of art and science. Even if the law could not encourage the newly protected authors to create, the Respon- dents asserted that the law would influence cur- rent authors to contribute works to modern day society and especially to share them with U.S. au- diences, knowing they would receive legal protec-
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 2 » December 2011
11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112