So the American Supreme Court has ruled that America can extend copyright for 20 years without changing the constitution.
I have two comments.
One. Having read the opinions, I did not find any answer to the question if Congress would be free to enact yet another extension of the copyright protection term some time in the future. They refused to annul the politicians' decision this time, but I don't see any clear indication that Congress would be free to extend for any term. I don't see any clear decision for the contrary position either. Like "we accept this one, but that's the end of the line". So I think that this point is left open to debate.
Two. The international harmonization argument works in the other direction from now on. It will be difficult to find pretexts for yet another extension as long as nowhere else a term longer than 70 years is adopted.
And while member countries of TRIPS have all kind of obligations regarding the minimum protection term for other rights, the minimum term rule in Article 9 to 12 TRIPS for copyright is fifty years after death of author and leaves lots of leeway even for member countries of TRIPS to adopt shorter protection terms than America.
So even if America has decided not to free that particular part of culture yet, Mr. Eldred might still be able to post that part on the Internet. All he needs is one free country left on the planet and someone ready to operate a server for the part illegal in America in that country.
The U.S. Supreme Court, while rather important for America, has only local influence on the Internet.
Posted by Karl-Friedrich Lenz at January 16, 2003 10:52 PM | TrackBack