[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] LawMeme In-Person Eldred Report
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LawMeme In-Person Eldred Report
- From: Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:12:53 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <3DA495E6.F362E165@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> First Amendment issues. Conclusion: Eldred loses the First
> Amendment issues completely.
This is basically my impression as well.
> Justice Breyer was particularly hard on the government's
> position. He brought in a number of economic arguments.
> Basically, he made the point that the expected value of the
> extended copyright was so small as to be virtually zero. He
> also asked whether the government could recopyright Ben
> Johnson. The government did not say "no." Justice Stevens
> appeared skeptical of the government's arguments. The
> government made much of the inequities of not providing
> retroactive and prospective extension together. Scalia
> questioned whether the inequities argument could be turned
> around. J. Breyer, in essence, answered "yes" by claiming
> that existing copyright owners get all the benefit and,
> inequitably, prospective copyright owners get very little
Along these lines, I rather liked the question "Who are these people [who
want retroactive extensions, the benefit being so small]?" even though
Disney was never mentioned by name.
> Only 25 members of the general public were permitted to
> watch the oral arguments. Anyone who lined up after three
> AM, did not get in (thankfully, it didn't rain).
Actually, the first 50 people got in. I was #46. Of course, they seated us
in the vestibule behind the pillars and curtains, so we couldn't see
anything leftwards beyond the C.J. but it was still great to be there.