Continued congressional extension of copyright terms ‘inhibits sp...
Continued congressional extension of copyright terms “inhibits speech and the free exchange of ideas,” The Washington Post editorialized Wed. in reference to recent argument before U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft (CED Oct 11 p9). “There is no…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
question that the plaintiffs in the current litigation -- a group of publishers and individuals who deal in public domain materials -- have a righteous gripe against Congress’s move in 1998 to offer an additional 20 years of protection,” editorial said: “At some point, serial and retroactive extensions of ‘limited times’ render copyright protection unlimited.” With that argument paper echoed plaintiff’s litigator, Stanford U. Prof. Lawrence Lessig. However, editorial also raised concern expressed by several justices -- whether it would be appropriate for Supreme Court to act: “[T]he hard thing about this case is that at any given moment -- including the present time -- copyright law specifies a limit. While that limited duration is currently far too long, it formally complies with the Constitution’s requirements.” Editorial said court should act if it clearly could articulate test to determine whether copyright term was indeed limited or whether it no longer advanced creative arts as Constitution required. If it can’t define that test, paper said, court is not appropriate venue to revise copyright law.