The War On Perpetual Copyright Goes To The Supreme Court
	found on LawMeme written by MAYORBOB, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 9 Oct 5:50pm
		"If Lawrence Lessig has his way, copyright law may be changed forever. The Stanford University law professor filed a suit on behalf of an internet web site operator which alleged that Congress had overstepped its authority in passing the 1998 'Copyright Term Extension Act'. The legislation, which extended existing copyrights another 20 years, served to protect rights for 70 years after the death of an author or 95 years for works that were created by a corporation. Although named in memory of Republican Congressman Sonny Bono, it has also been given the derisive title 'Mickey Mouse Extension Act', due to the support it received from the Disney Corporation, since its impact was to protect Disney material which would have become public domain next year. "Lessig's suit was turned down by the trial court and upheld on appeal, and reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 9th. The suit primarily charges that Congress had overstepped its bounds by extending copyright eleven times in 40 years. It also alleges that the original intent of copyright, to protect artistic property, had been perverted by Congress to become more of a corporatist protection scheme. The backers of the suit allege that overturning the 1998 act will act to the detriment of creators of works everywhere, be they individual artists or largish corporations. "At stake are the rights to preserve copyright or turn over to the public domain works by authors such as Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzgerald, in addition to the oeuvre of the mouse from Disney. Copyright experts say that Lessig will have a hard time winning a favorable ruling in this case, but in light of the questions asked by the Justices, where would you put your money?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 48 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Interesting...   by Misch       at Wed 9 Oct 9:39pm score of 1.5 astute     Intersting that the Reuters article focuses almost solely on the impact to the movie industry. It seems that they're in the almost hypocritical position of wanting to have new material to work with, while also wanting to maintain the copyrights as they are to protect their "intellectual property". Very little is said of other companies that are impacted. One is a internet based company that publishes works that are fresh into the public domain. They're very adversley affected because their entire business was effectivley stopped for 20 years. (An example of this in the real world would be Penguin Putnam Books, who publish a large number of classic books that have already lapsed into the public domain. Also, another interesting related article comes from LawMeme. The Geek's Guide to reading Supreme Court law briefs. Part 1 Part 2 It uses the brief from Eldred in Eldred v. Ashcroft as it's example. The two articles are a good guide to get yourself familiar with reading a Supreme Court brief, and all the work that would go creating one.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by marduk_kur       at Wed 9 Oct 11:26pm score of 1     Clause 8: To 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; At the time of the writing of the constitution, the 'limited time' was 7 years. Let's see how the self-proclaimed originalists (Thomas, Scalia) contort themselves to get out of this one. Turn on your bullshit detectors and tune in. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by spiderfarmer       at Wed 9 Oct 11:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Actually, that's not correct. Here's a brief history of the first implementation and revision of copyright law in the U.S. May 31, 1790 First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. February 3, 1831 First general revision of the copyright law. Music added to works protected against unauthorized printing and vending. First term of copyright extended to 28 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. "Oh Bother," said Pooh as he stared into the unspeakable visage of Cthulhu.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by marduk_kur       at Thu 10 Oct 12:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Ahh, forgive me. It appears I was misinformed at some point, for you are quite correct. I think the intent of my post still stands however. I did find the following link just now researching the issue, I hope all will find it informative. It delves into some of the framers' thoughts on copyright and public domain. THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT OF 1998 Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by Misch       at Thu 10 Oct 12:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Simple. Take a look at the brief: First, we have to look at how many items were specifically registered in that period of time: "Some numbers will put this ... in context. Between 1923 and 1942, there were approximately 3,350,000 copyright registrations. Approximately 425,000 (13%) of these were renewed." "The Congressional Research Service ("CRS") estimated that of these, only 18%, or approximately 77,000 copyrights, would constitute "surviving works" - works that continue to earn a royalty." Translation: Our culture, our heritage is losing out on 3.27 million works from 20 year period alone. So many, to protect the rights of a few entrenched items. The only "losers" then, of a overturning of this law, will be the people whose copyrights would have run out in 1998-present. Everyone else will still hold their copyrights until they run out. And since so many of the "surviving works" are used as trademarks (read: Mickey Mouse, et al). they'll still be pretty much locked down. This case is only about this one law. True, it might try to be used as a precedent, but since there is nothing to lose for copyright holders if CTEA 1998 is overturned, it really can't be challenged in court. (You need to have standing to get a case to the supreme court.) And it still can't stop congress from saying "anything made today gets copyright for 100 years". This is already in the case law, (see the court brief.) This won't change the future. 100 years is stilla "finite time". Personally, I hope Eldred wins.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by raaka       at Thu 10 Oct 3:34am score of 2.5 compelling   in reply to comment 6     I'm happy to report that the lockdown via trademark envisioned here has already been tried and failed, at least at the Circuit level. From the LA Times profile of Lessig, The Cultural Anarchist vs. the Hollywood Police State Could someone start selling their own Pooh fruit juice [if Disney's copyrights expire]? Disney would say no, because it has a trademark on the Pooh characters, and trademarks, unlike copyrights, never expire. But at least one appeals court ruling, issued in Missouri in 1890, gives scant comfort to Disney. In that case, a publisher had reissued a Webster's Dictionary from 1847 that had gone out of copyright. They were sued by the G. & C. Merriam Co., the original publishers of both that dictionary as well as several subsequent Webster's. Merriam argued that their trademark on the Webster's brand was being infringed by an upstart. Samuel Miller, a Supreme Court justice who was sitting in on a circuit court, slapped them down, writing that he didn't believe that "a party who has had the copyright of a book until it has expired may continue that monopoly indefinitely, under the pretense that it is protected by a trademark or something of that sort." I too, have hope Eldred/Lessig wins, but also see it as a long shot. If I was a judicial handicapper, which I sure as hell am not, I'd give him 3 to 1. Scalia might rule for Eldred as Lessig clerked for him in 1990. By all accounts Scalia was very impressed by Lessig, but let's face it, ruling in favor of Eldred would be a major philosophical reversal for him. Between the rights of public property and private I think we know were Scalia comes down. I hope he proves me wrong. Rehnquist was openly hostile of Lessig's argument, saying something to the effect of, "You just want the right to copy anyone's work don't you?" I'll give you 1-10 Rehnquist rules to uphold. Ginsburg, Breyer and O'Connor were symphathetic, but seemed lost as to what remedy they could use. The argument Lessig was most interested in, the limited free speech rights by perpetually extended copyright, was the one that seemed to have the least resonance with the bench. The most effective argument was that the framers explicitly desired limited copyrights, not constantly extended copyrights. Ted Olson, the Solicitor General who hasn't lost a case in front of these Justices yet, said the copyrights are limited even if Congress constantly extends them. What's more, he believes sole exclusitory rights to innovations and creations increase the number of creations and level of innovations. This is provably false. None other than the Wright Brothers wanted to patent a little invention they developed called the airplane. They sued from Kitty Hawk and back to hold onto the rights. During the Wright Brother's term of sole ownership innovation was stifled. European flight technology leaped so far ahead of American technology that by the time of the first World War, the US government stepped in. The Feds paid the Brothers off and set several groups to develop airplane technology with an emphasis on sharing information. Within a few years, American airplane innovation caught up to and passed European technology. I'm a big fan of the public domain. Lessig himself often points out Walt Disney used a Buster Keaton character to develop Steamboat Willie, the first time the world saw Mickey Mouse. I'd add to that adapations of the classics, like the current of Medea run on Broadway which is getting rave reviews; O Brother, Where Art Thou?, loosely based on the Iliad; Hamlet 2000, which also -- despite your opinion of Ethan Hawke -- was a sharp remix of that old yarn. I'd like to see what actors and playwrights, freed from exorbitant licensing fees, could do with material produced at the beginning of the previous century at the beginning of this new century. I'd like to see re-interpretations of the The Great Gatsby, A Farewell to Arms and To the Lighthouse, without having to pay a money-collector millions of dollars for the right to create. This is, after all, what the Framers wanted us to with work that was no longer copyrighted. Use it. They always envisioned a rich public domain so the people were wealthy, not just copyright holders. If there's no other reason to support Eldred and the public domain here it is: free stuff. Who doesn't like free stuff?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by CashCarSTAR       at Thu 10 Oct 5:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     It goes a bit further than that. If this latest copyright extension is ruled out, then the previous copright extensions would have to be seriously looked at. (More than likely they would be unconstitutional as well). The free speech is a very important issue...the balance between free speech and copyright is an important one. What it should come down to is the expectation of the protection of copyright. It didn't use to need promises of perpetual (like it or not, if the corps have their way nothing will fall into public domain again) copyright. The limited amount of time was worth it to make up the investment. Things are no different today. What is it you want to change?....We are the radio...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by profwhat       at Thu 10 Oct 10:39am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 9     Scalia might rule for Eldred as Lessig clerked for him in 1990. By all accounts Scalia was very impressed by Lessig, but let's face it, ruling in favor of Eldred would be a major philosophical reversal for him. Between the rights of public property and private I think we know were Scalia comes down. I hope he proves me wrong. I disagree -- I think Scalia will be one of the few votes finding the retroactive term extension unconstitutional. He did not speak much at yesterday's argument, but when he did it was to express strong reservations with the government's position that Congress could indefinitely keep extending a term. I don't think Scalia's views on property rights will really come into the picture at all. He may well believe that this case is about limits on Congressional power -- one of his favorite subjects -- and that any "property rights" people are claiming to have were never Congress' to give away.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by wrestler       at Thu 10 Oct 11:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     By all accounts Scalia was very impressed by Lessig, but let's face it, ruling in favor of Eldred would be a major philosophical reversal for him. Between the rights of public property and private I think we know were Scalia comes down. I hope he proves me wrong. I hope he'll prove you wrong too, and here's some further evidence that he might: Univ. Chicago Prof. Richard Epstein shares much in common with Scalia philosophically, and is perhaps the leading scholar of a pro-private property reading of the constitution. Epstein comes down very firmly in favor of Eldred.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by Misch       at Thu 10 Oct 2:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Even if CTEA 1998 were overturned, it would only apply to the retroactive portions of the law. If we then went back and did 1976 in the same way, it would again get rid of only the retroactive portions of that extension. Overturning 1976 won't have any effect because that material will already be in the public domain. (Nothing to gain, nobody will have standing to bring a lawsuit, so there's no way a review of 1976 would ever be heard by the Supreme Court.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Lets see how the hypocrites deal with this.   by jms       at Thu 10 Oct 5:30pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 42     Overturning 1976 won't have any effect because that material will already be in the public domain Actually, overturning 1976 would make a big difference. Prior to 1976, copyrights could last a maximum of 56 years. This was changed to life+50/75 in 1976. So, an overturning of the retroactive application of the 1976 act would affect 19 years of copyrighted works. Here's the result I'm hoping for. The Supreme Court rules that the "limited time" required by the Constitution is Constitutionally limited to the maximum available term at the time the work was copyrighted, including any available renewal term available at the time. Everything created prior to 1946 would enter the public domain immediately, 1947 next year, all the way until the 1975 copyrights expire in the year 2031. (I may have an off-by-one error.) At that point, the public domain would essentially come to a 19 year halt, as the 1976-1998 copyrights continued through their extended term, then copyrights would again expire for 20 years, followed by a 20 year lull courtesy of Bono. This way the Supreme Court could put a stop to the "National Tradition" of copyright perpetuation, without ever having to enter into the issue of what is an "appropriate" time, all copyrights would be respected under the terms they were issued, and the incentive for further copyright extensions -- the impending expiration of valuable copyrights -- is removed from the equation. I suspect that there would be no further extensions because no one could possibly benefit from doing so.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  I'm no expert...   by spiderfarmer       at Wed 9 Oct 11:51pm score of 1.5 compelling     But it seems to me that Lessig probably fighting a losing battle, for a couple of reasons. One, the law brought us up to the rest of the partners in the Berne Copyright Convention, which the U.S. signed in 1988. Two, the justices will be unwilling to roll back the other 11 extention laws that have been passed since 1831. The problem is that there seem to be no constraints on how Congress can change this law. So, just like the last time Disney was threatened with losing copyrights, they upped the ante. Trust me, in 2013, when the current Disney copyrights start to run out, Congress will up the limits again. Each of these extentions has been allowed to stand, and precedent would suggest that the Sony Bono law is likely to be overturned either. Although, it strikes me, as a non-legal type to be a fairly large step away from "limited times", as defined in the Constitution, Article 1, Sect. 8, which says: To 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;. "Oh Bother," said Pooh as he stared into the unspeakable visage of Cthulhu.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Re: I'm no expert...   by gerrymander       at Thu 10 Oct 9:49am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 3     the justices will be unwilling to roll back the other 11 extention laws that have been passed since 1831. As far as I know, this lawsuit only directly affects two laws regarding copyright length: those passed in 1998 and 1976. The reason is that Lessig et. al. filed suit to protest not the lengths of newly copyrighted material, but the application of the law to extend copyright lengths for materials published prior to the 1998 law. (Lessig does has problems with the lengths of copyright of the 1998 law, but that wasn't addressed in the lawsuit. Likewise, the 1976 law has the similar language, and also applies copyright retroactively and thus would be made vulnerable by a favorable ruling toward Lessig, but is not specifically addressed in this suit.) In other situations, retroactively applied law has been declared unconstitutional. Taking an extreme example, Congress cannot pass a law doubling the penalty for federal crimes, at the same time doubling the penalty for those already convicted of those crimes and in prison. In a closer argument, the Illinois Supreme Court recently nullified a liquor law forbidding retailers to cancel contracts with distributors because the law reached into the past, locking contracts signed before the law was introduced to state legislature.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  I think you missed the point of this case   by tylerh       at Thu 10 Oct 9:59am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 3     but not being a lawyer either, I'm not sure. I believe the key issue in this particular case is retroactive extension. So, if I understand the Lessig argument, a work should be afforded only those copyright protections that were in place when the work was created. Since Steamboat Willie passed out of copyright (under the 1929 laws) long ago, Lessig's argumen would place Steam Boat Willie firmly in the public domain. However, the copyrighted homepage that I made last week would still receive the full benefit of the Sonny Bono Act. Think of it as the complement of criminal law, where you can't be convicted of a law that was passed after you committed the act. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Uncharted waters   by gordon shumway       at Thu 10 Oct 1:45am score of 3 scholarly     One of the signers of the petitioners brief is law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh: "In the 1790s, the first U.S. Copyright Act gave copyright owners protection for 14 years, extendable by 14 more years. (Recall that the Constitution authorizes Congress to secure copyrights and patents only for "limited Times.") In 1909, this was extended to 28 years plus 28 years. In 1978, this was extended to the life of the author plus 50 years for new works, and 75 years for pre-1978 works. And the 1998 Act, a pet project of Sonny Bono's passed shortly after his death, extended this to life plus 70 or 95 years.       My position in the debate is that the retroactive portion of the Act, which lengthens protection for already-created works, exceeds Congress's power under the Copyright/Patent Clause. The Clause gives Congress the power to protect works in order to promote progress by proviidng an incentive to create -- and there can be no incentive to create works that have already been created. For the same reason, I argue, the Act violates the First Amendment, since it restricts people's right to create new works based on old ones, and to reprint old ones, without the compensating benefit (an incentive to create) that the Court has held justifies copyright law under the First Amendment (see Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises).       I also argue that the prospective portion of the Act, which lengthens protection for works that will be created in the future, is unconstitutional, though less clearly so. My contention here is that the extra 20 years tacked on to the tail end of a work's life won't give anyone any meaningful extra incentive to create; the discounted value of that protection is so small as to be meaningless. But I realize that that's a tougher argument to make." An interesting argument, which lost at the circuit level. A novel angle to argue is a property rights one - that the retroactive portion of the law has the government unfairly depriving citizens of their property without compensation. I think the Justices are going to be all over the place with this, although it is ultimately Congress's fault.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  For fans of economics...   by gordon shumway       at Thu 10 Oct 2:00am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 7     ...the analysis in this this amici brief (by noted economists including Arrow, Buchanan, Friedman and Coase) is an overwhelming argument regarding the negative economic effects and general irrationality of the copyright extension act.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Economics Groupies?   by fightinwords       at Fri 11 Oct 4:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     general irrationality of the copyright extension act. Congress, irrational? No! Well, I'm off to watch the Iraq debates on C-SPAN. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it." -- Groucho   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Uncharted waters   by jms       at Thu 10 Oct 10:00am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     You touched upon a common misconception -- that the purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of works. This is false. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the publication of works. From the text of the 1790 Copyright act, written by the authors of the Constitution: An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned. Note that the copyright law was not intended to be an act "for the Encouragement of Creating", or "for the Encouragement of Authorship" -- it was for the Encouragement of Learning. People learn when they have access to books. People have access to books when they are published in the form of physical copies and are sold to the public. This is the true purpose of copyright -- to cause works to be published and sold to the public -- to encourage learning. The purpose of copyright is most certainly not to promote the creation of works. Authors and artists are not motivated to create by the prospect of receiving a government-enforced speech monopoly. Authors and artists are generally offended by the idea of speech restrictions and monopolies. Copyright is a government-created right to forbid others from repeating and building upon certain speech. Speech monopolies are granted to authors and artists for one reason -- because they are extremely valuable to publishers. Therein lies the genius of copyright. By giving a currency to an author that is only of value to a publisher, the author is encouraged to trade access to his copyright to a publisher for money -- in other words, to sign a publishing contract (or self-publish the work). The result is the publication of the work and its availability to the public -- the actual purpose of copyright. The true incentive of a copyright is that it provides authors with the opportunity to contract with a publisher, or to self-publish. This is different from an incentive to create. The incentive to create comes from within.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Uncharted waters   by marduk_kur       at Thu 10 Oct 10:11am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 28     They're challenging the constitutionality of the law under clause 8 of the constitution: Clause 8: To 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; Not under the text of the first copyright act. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Congratulations   by tylerh       at Thu 10 Oct 2:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     You have successfully discovered how to use the bold tag in html. Now would you calm down a little -- your post made my eyes hurt. Economically, you analysis falls flat on its face. Constitutionally, you've had to do some curious backflips. And your claim that publishers, not authors are the fulcrum of the process is odd and ill-supported. If the goals was learning, which you interpret as incentive to create reproductions, copyright is counter-productive. If the publisher doesn't have to pay royalties, the publihser can make the same profit per copy at a lower cost and spread that good learning further and wider. Since you claim Authors and artists are not motivated to create by the prospect of receiving a government-enforced speech monopoly, the copyright serves no function other than to restrict distribution - which is directly counter to what you claim the goal is. Lets look at the relevant bit of the constitution: To 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; Copyright and Patent are side by side. The identical logic is applied to both. Are you claiming that Patents don't exist to enourage invention, but are really to stimulate production? Now, let's look again at the distinction between incentive to create vs incentive to distribute. You claim The true incentive of a copyright is that it provides authors with the opportunity to contract with a publisher, or to self-publish. This is different from an incentive to create. The incentive to create comes from within. If the role of the publisher is so central to all this, why is no mention made anywhere in the constitution? And how is that internal incentive to create going to persist if the creator can't eat? And, given that this incentive to create is internal, don't you think that granting the creator control of their own output has its own intrinsic rewards? Your argument is so distributor-centric that I have to ask: is your livelihood tied to the RIAA ? Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Nice try...   by David Flores       at Thu 10 Oct 6:51am score of 2.5 succinct     Although named in memory of Republican Congressman Sonny Bono, it has also been given the derisive title 'Mickey Mouse Extension Act', Nice try, but is the Mickey Mouse Extension Act really a sillier, more derisive name than the Sonny Bono Act? GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Re: Nice try...   by Katfish       at Thu 10 Oct 10:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Yeah, my first thought was that they were calling it "Mickey Mouse" because it sounded a lot more dignified than "Sonny Bono". You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't step   by burmart       at Thu 10 Oct 7:22am score of 1 incoherent     Guess what. I agree that the length of copyright sucks. I would be happy if the supreme court said "You know what, this sucks.: But you know what...the constitution provides that congress can make laws to provide for the advancement of the arts and sciences. The supreme court has no business on deciding whether congress is doing it appropriately or not. If you don't like it, vote the legislative rascals out. I don't care what the mod points say, I'm not obnoxious!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by asthmaticeog       at Thu 10 Oct 7:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     the constitution provides that congress can make laws to provide for the advancement of the arts and sciences. The supreme court has no business on deciding whether congress is doing it appropriately or not. Funny, I remember the expression "checks and balances" from way back in grade three. Were you out with the measels that week? The SCOTUS absolutely has business deciding whether congress is legislating appropriately vis the Constitution - that's one of the court's mandated functions. Forgive my snarking if you're not from the US, but if you are, it's off to remedial civics for you, buster. Perfect is the enemy of good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by burmart       at Thu 10 Oct 7:55am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 13     No...the SCOTUS has the power to decide whether actions of legislatures are constitutional. The constitution expressly provides that CONGRESSS has the power to make laws about the arts and sciences...that is exactly what it's doing. The supreme court has no business here. I don't care what the mod points say, I'm not obnoxious!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by asthmaticeog       at Thu 10 Oct 8:07am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 14     And deciding if the Congressional legislation being called into question by this suit is Constitutionally Kosher is exactly what the SCOTUS is doing. They're not making a friggin' law, burmart, they're reviewing an existing one, passed in 1998, because they've been called upon to do so. Perfect is the enemy of good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by jimray       at Thu 10 Oct 9:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     No...the SCOTUS has the power to decide whether actions of legislatures are constitutional. Thus the reason for the case. The wording of the constitution states for a limited time. The crux of Lessig's argument is that if congress continues to extend copyright, particularly retroactively, the limited-ness of the term is invalid. Thus, congress has acted unconstitutionally. SCOTUS has every right to be hearing this case. Otherwise, Hollywood ends up crafting legislation that affects people like you and me on a daily basis. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by zanzibar       at Thu 10 Oct 12:39pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 14     No...the SCOTUS has the power to decide whether actions of legislatures are constitutional. The constitution expressly provides that CONGRESSS has the power to make laws about the arts and sciences...that is exactly what it's doing. The supreme court has no business here The constitution expressly provides that Congress has the power to set limited copyright terms. And Congress can do so, as long as the terms are effectively limited. Sneaking out of this requirement by allowing for an unlimited number of limited extensions is a violation of this simple requirement. The Supreme Court has lots of business here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by burmart       at Thu 10 Oct 1:27pm score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 36     And guess what...limited is life plus 70 years. Limited time is life plus 100 years. Limited time in infinity minus a day. No one seems to be talking about each and every other time the copyright length is changed it has been extended legally. Another argument for keeping the law is that european copyright is life plus 70. Europe wouldn't recognize life plus 70 for american works but would use the american law, providing us with a twenty year creative work gap. Bottom line, It ain't gonna be struck down. It's not the supreme courts job to decide where the line for limited time is. It's a political question that the supreme court has no business deciding. You know, I think you people need ADVANCED civics lessons to learn what the supreme court should and shouldn't be deciding. You all seem a little too willing to put important decisions in the hands of those who are SELECTED and not elected. I don't care what the mod points say, I'm not obnoxious!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by zanzibar       at Thu 10 Oct 2:15pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 38     And guess what...limited is life plus 70 years. Limited time is life plus 100 years. Limited time in infinity minus a day. I agree with you. Life plus 70 years is limited. Unless it's life plus 70 years plus as many more years as Congress wants to add on... without limitation. But here's a better definition of what limitations really mean in a legal sense, courtesy of the plaintiffs' brief and Federal Judge Sentelle: The limits of the Copyright Clause, like the limits of the Commerce Clause, are both express and "inherent in [the] text and constitutional context." Morrison, 529 U.S. at 619. As Judge Sentelle argued in dissent below, to determine their scope, a court must identify a "stopping point" to the enumerated power. [] If the government cannot articulate a practical stopping point to the expansion of Congress's power, then its understanding of that enumerated power is incomplete. In this case, the government could identify no such stopping point. So long as each extension of copyright terms was itself fixed, the government argued that the constitutional requirement was met. That reading, Judge Sentelle rightly found, renders the constitutional restriction meaningless. "[T]here is no apparent substantive distiction between permanent protection and permanently available authority to extend originally limited protection." [] Indeed, as is demonstrated below [], the government's interpretation creates precisely the destructive incentives that the Framers were trying to avoid. Thus under the principle of enumeration, a different interpretation of "limited Times" is required-- one that forbids retroactive extensions of existing terms. Now, if you're of the opinion that the Constitutional requirement should be meaningless, I can understand the argument. I personally don't think that's why it was written, and I don't think that the Framers intended for indefinite and potentially unlimited copyright terms via an unlimited number of limited extensions. I mean, talk about slippy legal wrangling. Another argument for keeping the law is that european copyright is life plus 70. Europe wouldn't recognize life plus 70 for american works but would use the american law, providing us with a twenty year creative work gap. And France outlaws certain types of hate speech. Should Congress seek to harmonize our laws? Should the Supreme Court allow it? Bottom line, It ain't gonna be struck down. It's not the supreme courts job to decide where the line for limited time is. It's a political question that the supreme court has no business deciding If Congress wants to set a million year term for new works, the Court probably doesn't have any business interfering. However, the court does have business insuring that Congress can't simply ignore constitutional requirements. Maybe in some world where the Supreme Court has no precedent of making similar decisions, you'd be right. Not in this one. The court might not see fit to act in this case, but they have every justification. You know, I think you people need ADVANCED civics lessons to learn what the supreme court should and shouldn't be deciding. You all seem a little too willing to put important decisions in the hands of those who are SELECTED and not elected. And if I'd been born in a a country without a Constitution or a court system, I'd be all with you. However, "my people" have a fairly complex system of checks and balances that we don't toss out just because we don't like the way it worked out a couple of times.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by burmart       at Thu 10 Oct 2:32pm score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 39     Last thing... The check and balance on the legislature in this instance is the voters. The congress is simply actin on a specifically enumerated power in the constitution and is treading on neither the judiciary, the executive branch, or the fundamental rights of the people...thus, the only recourse should be through the voters... I don't care what the mod points say, I'm not obnoxious!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Tell it to the Framers   by zanzibar       at Thu 10 Oct 3:30pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 40     The check and balance on the legislature in this instance is the voters. The congress is simply actin on a specifically enumerated power in the constitution and is treading on neither the judiciary, the executive branch, or the fundamental rights of the people...thus, the only recourse should be through the voters... I find it amusing how much we all rely on our separated powers in order to protect our own rights, but how easily some of us can ignore it. The framers didn't forget it, and they designed a system of government that limited the power of the legislature so as to protect the rights of the public and the minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 10 Oct 3:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     Doesn't work that way. Almost all voters care little or nothing about copyright time limits. A few care very much, so much that they give millions of dollars to legislators. Guess which ones the legislators are going to listen to. The only ways to counter are to hire your own lobbyists or sue.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by burmart       at Thu 10 Oct 3:58pm score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 44     So...because many americans don't exercise the right to vote, we should have an unelected branch of government deciding political questions? I don't care what the mod points say, I'm not obnoxious!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by zanzibar       at Thu 10 Oct 6:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Listen, I'm all with you. I mean, I don't agree with you, and it's not the way things are under our current system, but I understand your argument. Your challenge now is to make use of the political branch of our government to make the changes you need to bring about the kind of government you'd like... then you can have this case decided any way you like. Good luck, sir.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: It may suck...but the supreme court shouldn't   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 10 Oct 7:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     I was not referring to nonvoting. Most people do not give a shit about copyrights. Others do care, but they care a lot more about national defense, crime, jobs, schools, the environment, etc. Imagine a politican putting copyright law at the top of his platform. Not gonna happen. In general, in a democracy, when a few care very much and many care very little, the few often get their way, even if it really is worth more to the many. Summing up, an elected branch of government is necessarily more democratic, or public-interest-oriented, or whatever it is that makes you prefer it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Probably an affirm   by profwhat       at Thu 10 Oct 8:16am score of 1     The consensus among those who watched the argument seems to be that most of the justices are leaning to affirm (that is, hold that the copyright extension was constitutional). Check out this account, for example. It doesn't look good for the anti-copyright side. (Lessig also seems to have done a worse job at argument than some of his law students could have done).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  The Mouse is still pretty safe   by Dvandom       at Thu 10 Oct 8:39am score of 1.5 astute     Okay, copyrights may run out, but Trademarks are good for as long as you keep using them and keep defending them. Mickey Mouse is so heavily trademarked (I forget if it's a Registered trademark, but it probably is) that even when Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain, it may not be possible to do much with it. Copyright protects specific works, as well as a certain "halo" of derivative works such as reinterpretations and the like. Trademark protects specific images and words (among other things, but those are the biggies), regardless of how they get used. There is therefore a certain amount of overlap, but that overlap favors the property owner. When copyright expires and trademark does not, you get some weird situations, granted. When copyright runs out on Steamboat Willie, other companies will be permitted to copy and sell that cartoon as much as they like...but they can't use the distinctive likeness of Mickey Mouse to get people to buy it, since Mickey is an active trademark held by Disney. So, for instance, movie makers could start putting Steamboat Willie cartoons on background TVs without having to pay a royalty, but they'd better not put a clip of such a scene in their ads or on the sleeve of the DVD release. Mind you, when there is a vague area, it usually goes to the side with the most money. So even if the SCotUS does strike down the Bono Law, I wouldn't worry too much about Disney. They may have to spend a bit more on their animatronic lawyer corps, but that's it. ---Dave   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: The Mouse is still pretty safe   by holgate       at Thu 10 Oct 9:06am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 17     So even if the SCotUS does strike down the Bono Law, I wouldn't worry too much about Disney. They may have to spend a bit more on their animatronic lawyer corps, but that's it. It's just incumbent on people to boycott any Disney product that draws upon public domain works as a sign of the Big Mouse's gross, ongoing hypocrisy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: The Mouse is still pretty safe   by jimray       at Thu 10 Oct 9:20am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 17     So, for instance, movie makers could start putting Steamboat Willie cartoons on background TVs without having to pay a royalty, but they'd better not put a clip of such a scene in their ads or on the sleeve of the DVD release. Actually, that's not quite right. Once a work enters the public domain, it's free to be used on a number of different levels, including derivative works. Once Steamboat Willie enters the PD (if Disney ever lets it), you can put the whole thing up on your website for the world to see, use stills for a collage, make it into a mural. The trademark distinction means that you won't be able to print the words "Mickey Mouse as Steamboat Willie" on the cover of the DVD you distribute. Mickey's trademarked and owned by Disney. The thing that really burns me, and Lessig has pointed this out numerous times, is Disney's attempt to lock down the PD. Disney has quite literally stolen the source material for nearly every one of their animated films from stories that have existed in the public trust for centuries. But they don't want other people to do to them what they've been doing for years! Did you know that Shrek had to be screened to Disney executives before it was released? Disney wanted to make sure that their "innovative" story telling wasn't being trampled on, which is absurd! I want to know when Disney became the Microsoft of the entertainment industry--stealing all of their ideas from someone else and then harolding their right to innovate. I just saw a preview for their Treasure Planet movie, as an adaptation of Stevenson's Treasure Island. Blech. No wonder Pixar wants to end their commitment to Disney ASAP. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Pixaren't   by fightinwords       at Fri 11 Oct 4:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     The way I hear it, Pixar's dismay with Disney has a lot to do with some unfair contracts, which state (for instance) that another sequel to Toy Story will not count toward fulfilling their contract. Sucky way to treat people who've made them millions (or possibly billions), huh? "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it." -- Groucho   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  No explicit rights for distributors   by ktlyst       at Thu 10 Oct 9:11am score of 1     The preamble states that congress may give rights to authors and inventors. They specifically did not give the rights to companies in order to prevent the state run monopolies (like on tea, for instance) that the founders hated so much. Under questioning, Ted Olsen said that the benefits to the law were for the economic benefit of the distributors. Distributors are not authors or inventors, and thus giving them rights not allowed in the constitution that actually prevents others from exercising their constitutional rights should be unconstitutional. Unless Disney bought the Supreme Court, as well as Congress.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Re: No explicit rights for distributors   by Petronius       at Thu 10 Oct 9:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     I've heard this argument before, and I think it doesn't work. By this theory, artists could not assign or sell their rights to anyone else, or even leave those rights to their children, irrespective of the term of the copyright. The only way to preserve your copyright and make any money off of it would be to print up your own books and peddle them from a pushcart. Of course, the internet allows us to do something like that, but the role of traditional publishers will still be there someplace, for the forseeable future. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Corporate control of social memory, etc.   by vurt       at Thu 10 Oct 9:46am score of 1 incoherent     For those of you who haven't picked up Lessig's Code, I strongly recommend it; here's a pretty good interview with him. In general I like his idea of the "online commons," and it seems that this case is definitely a liminal moment in the process of determining the limits and bounds of internet civil society and the public sphere. In Code, Lessig concludes in general that although order is intrinsic to a net-fueled society, and that said order will be determined primarily by government and/or business, it would still be possible to ensure some fair play for individuals. In the linked interview above, he amends this somewhat: In my first book I was quite pessimistic. It turns out I was not pessimistic enough. I'm of two minds on this issue: Lessig's argument makes a fair bit of sense to me. At one level this is not so much a controversy over copyright as it is over government/corporate control over social memory, if that's not too dramatic. Look: all copyrighted material is available for a price (I think I first figured that out when I saw a Nike ad set to the Beatles' -Revolution-). However, Hollywood and & advertising corporations are the only ones able to afford the rights to copyrighted artistic and literary products right now. As things stand right now, the only way these texts reenter the public domain is when they're repackaged by Hollywood or to sell things. Thus Lessig's point is that these texts--visual, written, whatever--should reenter the public domain so that they can be used by all without fear of reprisal. To some degree, I concur: as long as the original artists are going to be ripped off anyway, we may as well open the field to all. On the other hand I also accept as valid at least two objections to this stance, one sympathetic and one aesthetic: 1.) My gut instinct is that heirs of artists should still be entitled to some payback for their ancestor's brilliance years down the line. One could argue that intellectual property should remain as "concrete," legally speaking, as a house or land as far as passing them on to children is concerned. 2.) It's entirely possible that sending works into the public domain will result in even greater butchery by hacks; sins against nature such as Vanilla Ice dubbing Queen's "Under Pressure" is, unfortunately, only the tip of this dank and enseem'd iceberg. But then, it shouldn't come as news to Lessig or anyone else that postmodernity is a bitch. And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Nah   by zanzibar       at Thu 10 Oct 1:12pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 24     Look: all copyrighted material is available for a price (I think I first figured that out when I saw a Nike ad set to the Beatles' -Revolution-) I hate to quibble, but this is not true. In fact, one of the major problems with the current law is that there are millions of "orphan" works: creations where the author or copyright holder just can't be located. Even if you spend the sometimes extravagant amount of money required to search for the responsible parties, you run a risk if you don't find them. The law gives you very little protection should you go ahead and use the work anyway, only to have them arrive out of the blue and file punitive lawsuits. In most cases, the legal exposure (especially where there are multiple works involved, like in a library) is so huge that the work is simply left to rot. Furthermore, nobody is required to license their copyrighted materials to you (one or two exceptions having to do with radio.) The Church of Scientology, for instance, leverages their copyrights simply to keep their writings from being republished. They have no interest in providing any sort of license to people who would do so, nor are they compelled to. My gut instinct is that heirs of artists should still be entitled to some payback for their ancestor's brilliance years down the line. One could argue that intellectual property should remain as "concrete," legally speaking, as a house or land as far as passing them on to children is concerned. Before intellectual property "remains" concrete, it has to get there. As far as I know, there's no working precedent for the notion of IP rights that work like property. All IP rights (in European & US tradition, at least) are a monopoly granted by the government. To declare that we should "keep" those natural rights is like me bitching at my landlord for depriving me the "right" to live in "my" apartment after the lease expires. I agree that people should be rewarded for their contributions, but only insofar as it encourages such creation, not as some sort of charity program. Ideally, Congress should be able to determine that balance. Where it fails, however, there are constitutional limits that need to be upheld. It's entirely possible that sending works into the public domain will result in even greater butchery by hacks; sins against nature such as Vanilla Ice dubbing Queen's "Under Pressure" is, unfortunately, only the tip of this dank and enseem'd iceberg. I don't profess to know the details of the situation, but isn't "Under Pressure" a copyrighted work controlled by a record company? If that's the case, then the current system isn't preventing such abortions very well. Besides, the whole argument is wrongheaded. You might just as well deride the First Amendment for allowing people to write really irritating novels. But without the First Amendment's protection on speech, we might not have some of the "classics" today. The point is that one can always avoid reading things you don't like, but you can never get back even one great work that doesn't get created due to legal restrictions. With copyright it's the same principle-- for every bad boy-band cover of a Beatles song, you might lose that one masterpiece from some better artist. I'd rather turn off the radio a hundred times than miss one work of genius.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Corporate control of social memory, etc.   by holgate       at Sun 13 Oct 9:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 24     My gut instinct is that heirs of artists should still be entitled to some payback for their ancestor's brilliance years down the line. One could argue that intellectual property should remain as "concrete," legally speaking, as a house or land as far as passing them on to children is concerned. Why? Should the children of great athletes be picked for the team? If anything sounds contrary to the 'American Way', it's the notion that people, once adults, should be sustained solely on their ancestors, rather than on their own actions and abilities. (Yeah, I know that Dubya represents a move back to glorious aristocracy, but that's your own problem.) Should Fred Mozart, Austrian-American, resident of Spudsville, Idaho and fourteen times removed down the family tree, be benefitting from great^8-uncle Wolfie's creations? Actually, if you can take a look at the novel (or film) of About A Boy, you'll see that the main character reflects this: he's the son of someone who wrote a Christmas hit, and gets fat royalty cheques on a regular basis, meaning that he never has to contribute anything of value to society. It's entirely possible that sending works into the public domain will result in even greater butchery by hacks So what? Crappy derivative versions don't mean that all original texts or recordings must be destroyed. I can play Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier off-key on a Jew's Harp, and that doesn't remove any of the piece's value.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Corporate greed hurts   by Ben Bridenbaugh       at Thu 10 Oct 10:31am score of 1     Frankly, my fear is that it will cause lots of works to fade into obscurity. Here's why; 1. Lots of greats tend to be in fairly small niches of public interest. This makes them good, because a big corporation hasn't filed off all the rough edges to make it palatable to the general public. The cost of this is obviously they don't generate as much money as they could. 2. After the author dies, the property tends to fall into the hands of those with little or no enthusiasm for "How uncle black sheep wasted his life". Those people tend to be very hard to deal with, either hostile to the fans or using the example of mainstream work to demand "Millions" for any liscensing fees, an impossibility for non-mainstream publications. 3. To make complimentary works or even re-publish requires detective work to even find who owns the interest. Because of #2, any inquiry is lucky to get a response. Of course, publication without consent brings some lost relative/interest screaming to a lawyer. A big corporation can bully its way, but a small publisher cannot. 4. This way, all we will end up with is DREK in the history books, because the only things that survive are the marginalized mainstream subjects. No one dares even archive stuff. Just curious: If these same rules applied to Disney, would they have had their same commercial success? I mean, would their early shaky start have been slowed or stopped by crippling royalty payments? I'm no historian, but Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan, and The little Mermaid should have been covered by this law if it existed then. Also, the Jungle Book was published by Rudyard Kipling within that LONG length of time, I think...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  The system is corrupt I tell you!   by wetzel       at Thu 10 Oct 10:57am score of 1     Whether or not Congress was acting constitutionally in passing the Copyright Extension Act of 1998, the question before the court, passage of the act itself, even if constitutional, is further evidence of how the broad public interest is ignored in our current system. Congress only has meaningful debate if there are well organized and well funded groups on both sides. Whether its child poverty or the minutia of corporate welfare, it always seems to be the case that if you don't have an army of blast faxers and buckets of campaign cash, you can forget it. Here is a case where the broad public interest was openly damaged for a narrow special interest. The public definitely benefits when the older works of long dead authors are in the public domain. If you are a university professor, it means you can photocopy extensive excerpts for your students without breaking the law. If you are a graphic artist, the illustrations and photographs from the past become a source of montage and generative creation. If you want to create a text book on high school Physics, you can harvest ideas for fluid mechanics problems from Winslow Fudpuckers definitive text in 1917. For creating new works, the public domain is a huge hassle free gold mine. The idea that Mr. Fudpuckers great great grandnephew deserves a piece of the action is some kind of weird feudal concept. It is not worth the damage to human creativity. Go outside your office and try to walk east. Chances are you won't get very far. Everything is owned. The only public domain in the material world exists in the parks and a few beaches. The Copyright Extension Act does the same thing in the intellectual world. I think it's a shame.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  remaking   by hmmm       at Sat 12 Oct 12:17pm score of 1     Go Lessig! Sampling, distorting, and remixing stuff is also creative. Why should a lot of music be made untouchable? Sooner rather than later, people should get a chance to work with what's being piped into their ears.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  Various Remarks   by rondwyer       at Sat 16 Nov 5:20pm score of 1     As one who wrote a review of Lessig's The Future of Ideas on amazon.com, which got around two dozen helpful votes, I naturally have an interest in the Eldrid case. I have various remarks. ALthough the extensions of copyright is bad policy, I'm afraid that its going to stand before the Supreme Court. I give a prediction of a 6-3 ruling to uphold; I give a very slim chance of Lessing getting 4 votes. Who will rule in what way? Not sure, though I would not be too surprised if the normal liberal/conservative split does NOT happen here. Rehnquist, as one post mentioned here, basically said to Lessig " You want works to be copied." Thats one vote against. (No,Chief Justice, we are not trying to steal, we are trying to prevent the creation of permanent monopolies, the creation of which is in DEFIANCE of the Founding Fathers.) Justice Kennedy would be strike two. "I don't see how copyright extensions have harmed creativity all these years." Justice Kennedy is a lot like Justice GInzburg, a appellat court judge who upheld the Bono Act. (AFter Judge Bork was Borked in his nomination to the Supreme COurt, Ginsburg was nominated next, but he got tanked when he admitted to smoking dope. Then Kennedy was selected. SO Kennedy and Ginsburg are similar). In reply to Kennedy, I would say something to the effect that creativity WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATER if the copyright extensions did not exist, as pointed out in the economists brief because of the "transaction costs" involved, a concept pioneered by Ronald Coase, who won a Nobel Prize in economics. To make this abstract principle concrete, the comedy show South Park will not have a episode that involves Mickey Mouse because South Park will have to pay more in royalties (costs) than in any potential economic benefits from such a show. (Imagine the possibilities that South Park can do to Mickey Mouse!) Based on their questions, Breyer and Stevens may vote to strike down the Bono Act. O'Connor may join them. Thomas usually doesn't say anything.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]