Supreme Court Keeps Copyright Protections 7-2
It has often been said that movements gain by losing in the Supreme Court. Some feminists say it would have been better to lose Roe, because that would have built a movement in response. I have often wondered whether it would ever be possible to lose a case and yet smell victory in the defeat. I’m not yet convinced it’s possible. But if there is any good that might come from my loss, let it be the anger and passion that now gets to swell against the unchecked power that the Supreme Court has said Congress has. When the Free Software Foundation, Intel, Phillis Schlafly, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Kenneth Arrow, Brewster Kahle, and hundreds of creators and innovators all stand on one side saying, “this makes no sense,” then it makes no sense. Let that be enough to move people to do something about it. Our courts will not.
U: mpt responds well: Larry Lessig: “What the Framers of our constitution did is not enough. We must do more.” …Bingo. The Eldred v. Ashcroft case was relying on a fluke, namely that the Framers of the US Constitution might have dictated clearly what would best serve people, rather than relying on Congress to do that themselves.
With a Congress which has become systemically biased to favor corporations rather than people, there are relatively few things which the Constitution will prevent them from doing. And extending copyright in a practically unlimited fashion, the US Supreme Court has decided, is not one of those things.
In the meantime, that part of the world’s culture which was created in the US will slowly decay.</i>