Justices Uphold Copyrights in a Huge Victory for Walt Disney, Other Media Cos

[JackSpratts]

Gina Holland
AP

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld lengthier copyrights protecting the profits of songs, books and cartoon characters - a huge victory for Disney and other companies.

The 7-2 ruling, while not unexpected, was a blow to Internet publishers and others who wanted to make old books available online and use the likenesses of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and other old creations without paying high royalties.

Hundreds of thousands of books, movies and songs were close to being released into the public domain when Congress extended the copyright by 20 years in 1998.

Justices said the copyright extension, named for the late Rep. Sonny Bono, R-Calif., was neither unconstitutional overreaching by Congress, nor a violation of constitutional free-speech rights.

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," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench.

A contrary ruling would have cost entertainment giants like The Walt Disney Co. and AOL Time Warner Inc. hundreds of millions of dollars. AOL Time Warner had said that would threaten copyrights for such movies as "Casablanca," "The Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With the Wind."

Also at risk of expiration was protection for the version of Mickey Mouse portrayed in Disney's earliest films, such as 1928's "Steamboat Willie."

The ruling will affect movie studios and heirs of authors and composers. It will also affect small music publishers, orchestras and church choirs that must pay royalties to perform some pieces.

The Bush administration defended the extension, telling the court that while justices may personally disagree with the latest extension, Congress had the authority to pass it.

Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with lucrative copyrights.

The Constitution allows Congress to give authors and inventors the exclusive right to their works for a "limited" time, and during oral arguments in the case in October some justices seemed to question whether the extension fit that requirements.

The majority in Wednesday's ruling, however, ultimately found that Congress was within its rights.

"We find that the (extension) is a rational enactment; we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be," the court said.

Congress has repeatedly lengthened the terms of copyrights over the years. Copyrights lasted only 14 years in 1790. With the challenged 1998 extension, the period is now 70 years after the death of the creator. Works owned by corporations are now protected for 95 years.

Eric Eldred challenged the copyright extension, which he said unfairly limits what he can make available on a public web library he runs.

The extension "protects authors' original expression from unrestricted exploitation," Ginsburg wrote in rejecting Eldred's free-speech claims. "Protection of that order does not raise the free speech concerns present when government compels or burdens the communication of particular facts or ideas."

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer disagreed with their colleagues.

Stevens wrote that the court was "failing to protect the public interest in free access to the products of inventive and artistic genius."

The case is Eldred v. Ashcroft, 01-618.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...N&SECTION=HOME

- js.

[theknife]

...not unexpected but sickening nonetheless.... :

i'm gonna go sulk for awhile

[theknife]

ok, i've had time to digest this - it tastes no better, but life will go on...

wonder how the good P'fessor Lessing is doing tonight?

probably not too well...he gave it a good shot, but t'was all for naught

"We find that the (extension) is a rational enactment; we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be," the court said.

sounds like the Court knew the idea of perpetual copyright extension is fucked...but unfortunately, they do not dispute the right of Congress to make such an extension.

it's easy to see a bleak future for art and American culture after this, if that's what you're looking for. in essence, nobody here will live to see any piece of music, writing, art etc. created since the 20's pass into the public domain - and maybe nothing will ever go into the public domain again. these artifacts of our culture will not be passed down from generation to generation - they will be owned and sold to those who wish to use them. there is nothing positive here...unless of course, you're a shareholder of Disney, Time-Warner et al.

of course, the ultimate irony is that these companys have made a fortune from works that were already in the public domain (think Sleeping Beauty, Beauty & The Beast and dozens of others). but nobody else will be able to do the same...

i know, it's not a life-or-death issue...and most Americans are not even aware of this stuff. i've come to my own terms with coprporate america and their ability to buy politicians and legislation - every time something like this comes down, it only increase the civil disobedience value of p2p.

it gets clearer every day who is stealing from whom

goodnight, Professor Lessing - thanks again

[Drakonix]

sounds like the Court knew the idea of perpetual copyright extension is fucked...but unfortunately, they do not dispute the right of Congress to make such an extension.

Yeah, the Court had to rule based on (Constitutional) law. Unfortunately, the extension is unreasonable and unethical - but not illegal.