(entry last updated: 2003-01-16 19:14:32)

• I’m just going to assemble Eldred news analyses here today. I read the opinion and the dissents last night, but I think I’m going to need a little time to digest. I will say that the majority’s argument that the quid pro quo in the copyright clause only applied to the patent power is really distressing, particularly in light of the addition of derivative works under copyright control.

  • Read Larry’s most recent weblog posting - he asks some serious questions about the decision, albeit in what appears to be a classic middle-of-the-night funk. (Lawmeme picks up on this and other recent commentaries)

  • Apparently the earlier version of the New York Times article was double-plus-ungood, and now the URL points to the much revised and extended article in today’s paper.

  • On the other hand, there’s a Times editorial entitled The Coming Copyright Perpetuity that articulates the fallback position: "The court’s decision may make constitutional sense, but it does not serve the public well."

  • The Boston Globe: Justices uphold copyright extension
  • Wired News: Court Deaf to Public-Domain Pleas
  • Law.com: Supreme Court Upholds Copyright Extension

  • ZDNet/Declan McCullagh: Supreme Court backs copyright extension - with TalkBacks

  • The Register, with a typically inflammatory head: Supremes back Disney and pigopolists vs science and culture

  • In case you missed it yesterday, Balkinization: Mickey in Chains, Part II, or Why the Court Got It Wrong in Eldred v. Ashcroft

  • The Coloradoan News: Supreme Court Upholds Extended Copyrights - notable quote:
    

    Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said: “This decision demonstrates this country’s commitment to encouraging authorship and free expression.”

  • Dan Gillmor: Supreme Court Endorses Copyright Theft

  • Forbes: Supreme Court Upholds Copyright Extension

  • Copyfight: Mickey in for the Long Haul

  • How Appealing: Ashcroft trounces Eldred as “limited Times” is construed to mean the opposite of “a period of time with no specified limit whatsoever”
  • The Washington Post: Supreme Court Copyright Ruling

    With Jonathan Zittrain (transcript)

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education: Supreme Court Upholds Law Adding 20 Years to Copyrights

  • The Los Angeles Times has a couple of pieces
    • Entertainment Industry Breathes Sigh of Relief Over Court Action

    • Justices OK Copyright Extension

    • Disney Wins Big in Battle to Keep Company Icons - Opening sentence: "The legislation may have been called the Sonny Bono copyright act, but it had Disney’s name written all over it." It then gives the history of the bill, including this:

      Disney’s general counsel at the time, Sanford Litvack, compiled a range of options, including a search for legal grounds to protect the characters regardless of a copyright expiration. But not until 1996 did Disney firmly decide to fight for a new law, rather than searching for salvation in the old ones.

      The catalyst was a decision by the European Union to extend its copyrights for 20 years. With that precedent, Disney officials were convinced that they could weather an expected storm of opposition to any copyright extension. Now, they could argue that they were defending not just their own self-interest but the rights of U.S. musicians and artists who would otherwise be at a competitive disadvantage to the Europeans.

• Jenny Levine points to a Reuters newswire: Sharman plans to file counterclaim in Kazaa suit

• Simson Garfinkel gets some Slashdot ink (and a Boston Globe article) for his computer forensics research.

• The iCommune programmer has received a cease-and-desist from Apple. Slashdot discussion

• Madster is back in court, arguing for a complete lifting of sanctions - this is a weird jurisdiction case, since he’s asking for this from a bankruptcy judge.

• Wired News describes the actions of at least some Democrats worried about Total Information Awareness.