I agree that looking to the court to fix legislation is dangerous, though tempting after a legislative loss. Given results like *Eldred* compared with the responsiveness of Congress to the current SOPA/PIPA backlash, I have much more confidence in a balanced legislative outcome than in a judicial one. Also, from a free culture perspective, there's something to be said for a disappointing democratic loss trumping a favorable outcome from an ultimately unrepresentative and unaccountable handful of individuals.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Christian Curtis <[email protected]>wrote: > I don't know that I can say that I'm surprised. The Supreme Court > signaled that it was going to take a hands off approach in its > constitutional analysis of copyright law *Eldred v. Ashcroft*, and it > would have been unexpected for them to reverse course here. Congress has a > very free hand in how to shape copyright law. > > In a way, I feel that popularized constitutional arguments can do more > harm than good. There's a somewhat dangerous tendency to equate important > rights with the constitution, and to then assume that any bad law passed by > Congress can be somehow fixed in the courts. With copyright, however, > almost every battle will be won in the legislature, not the judiciary. > > I hope that SOPA and PIPA serve as something of wake up call, in this > respect. Rights holder have long painted themselves as the only > stakeholders in copyright, and have a great track record at lobbying. They > can quite easily get bills with very scary consequences on track to pass > without much debate. Frequently, we the public don't pay much attention > until the eleventh hour, quietly assuming that anything horrific would have > been challenged early on will be found invalid by the courts. With > copyright law, however, neither of these assumptions are true, and the > eleventh hour is often too late. > > --Christian > > > > On 1/18/2012 7:31 AM, Elizabeth Stark wrote: > > On a day of such significance for online activism, this is quite a let > down for the public domain. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Phil Malone" <[email protected]> > Date: Jan 18, 2012 7:26 AM > Subject: [berkmanfriends] Big Loss for the Public Domain in the Supreme > Court Today -- Golan v. Holder > To: "Berkman Friends" <[email protected]> > > http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf > > 6-2 (with Kagan recused), the Court says Congress is not barred by the > Constitution from ripping works that have passed into the public domain out > and placing them back under copyright. Not surprising but truly > unfortunate. > > P > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing > [email protected]http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
