The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was passed in 1998.
Named after the late singer-Congressman, the law extended the term
of copyright protection by 20 years. Works by corporations were
given protection for 95 years from the date of creation.
The legislation soon became known as the Mickey Mouse Act
because Disney had pushed to have it passed before the expiry of
its copyright in Mickey Mouse expired in 2003. As the law currently
stands, Mickey Mouse is protected until 2023.
The law brought the US position largely into line with that in
the EU. By a Directive of 1993, copyright protection became, for
most works, 70 years from the date of death of the author and, for
corporations, 70 years from the start of the year in which the work
was created.
The case against the law was brought by Eric Eldred, a
non-profit publisher, who wanted to offer the text of out-of-print
books on his web site. The lawsuit, against the US Attorney
General, was supported by a number of internet publishers, consumer
bodies and academics.
It asserted that Congress overstepped its authority and violated
the Constitution's principle of free speech by extending the
protection of copyright.
The US Constitution, the lawsuit claimed, gives Congress the
power to grant copyright protection for "limited times", but
Congress extended copyrights 11 times in the past 40 years. This,
it was argued, "rendered meaningless" the Constitution's "plain and
express intent to restrict the duration of monopolies over
speech."
It was argued that the law effectively made copyrights
perpetual, inhibiting intellectual and artistic productivity.
Those opposing the law also argued that the Congress passed it
after lobbying from media companies whose copyrights were about to
expire.
Before yesterday's decision, a federal district court and the
Federal Appeals Court in Washington, DC, both ruled that the law
was constitutional.
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court upheld those decisions. In a 7-2
ruling, the court ruled that the law was neither an overstepping of
the Congress's power, nor a violation of free speech.
In their decision, the majority judges found that the copyright
extension in dispute was a reasonable use of congressional power,
which partially brought US copyright law in line with EU
legislation.
They said that the Constitution "gives Congress wide leeway to
prescribe 'limited times' for copyright protection and allows
Congress to secure the same level and duration of protection for
all copyright holders, present and future."
They added: "The First Amendment securely protects the freedom
to make – or decline to make – one's own speech... It bears less
heavily when speakers assert the right to make other people's
speeches."
In their dissenting opinion, the two minority judges claimed
that the court had misinterpreted the central purpose of copyright
and patent law, which is, according to their opinion, to protect
the public interest in free access to "products of inventive and
artistic genius."
They also claimed that the decision granted Congress the right
to authorise "virtually perpetual copyrights."
The decision has already been subject to criticism by on-line
publishers, who hoped to release more material into the public
domain.
The US Supreme Court's decision can be found at:
cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/01-618o.pdf
