![]() ![]() Limits are both implicated and violated here. See, e.g., Blish, Mize & Silliman Hardware v. Recognized, imposes limits on Congresss grant of power. That Clause, as the Supreme Court has consistently And that is particularly trueįor copyright and patent laws, which derive their creation from Article I, § 8,Ĭlause 8 of the Constitution. Province of the judicial department to say what the law is. Marbury v. Is about interpreting and applying the Constitution. The government, however, is simply mistaken. And it is this Courts duty to just applyĪnd enforce settled law enacted by Congress. In the governments view, Congress has carte blanche authority toĮnact any copyright law. It even claims that this Court hasĪbsolutely no authority to review plaintiffs challenges because they involve policy debate reservedĮxclusively for Congress. Repudiates even the restriction on Congresss power recognized in Eldred. No restraint for extending the terms of existing and future copyrights, the government But now, the government argues not only is there Still recognized that Congress could not revive copyrights for works in the publicĭomain. ![]() The term of copyrights both prospectively and retrospectively to subsisting copyrights, the court The court of appeals, in a 2-1 decision, concluded that Congress could extend The first case to consider the constitutionality of the CTEA. Now advanced by the government is much more extreme than the principal authority Immune from all constitutional challenge, regardless of whether it harms artistic pursuits orĭamages the public domain as plaintiffs allege in their Complaint. View that Congresss copyright power is unlimited and the exercise of its power To perform, teach, and disseminate works to the public.ĭespite the Constitutions requirement that terms be limited, the government takes the extreme These laws have greatly harmed plaintiffs artistic endeavors, and their ability Public domain and retroactively grants them copyrights, thereby depriving the public of itsĪbility and right to freely use materials that were, for many years, open §§ 104A, 109(a), goes a step further: it removes thousands of works from the Preventing any work from entering the public domain in this country due to §§ 301-304),Įxtends the term of future and existing copyrights by another 20 years, thus The Sonny Bono Copyright TermĮxtension Act (CTEA), Pub. Lawsuit challenges two amendments to the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs are individuals who pursue and promote the arts in this country. Regard for the harms done to artists and the public. It does not, for Congress has prolonged the terms of copyrights repeatedly andĮven resorted to removing thousands of works from the public domain without any Apparently, Congress and the government believe that This case is about whether the Constitution imposes any constraints on Congresss power ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |