SCOTUS rules that Congress can re-copyright works that had fallen into the public domain here in the US — in this case to comply with the Berne convention.
Far be it from me to agree with anything Sameul Alito says, but …
In dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito said the legislation goes against the theory of copyright and “does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work.” Copyright, they noted, was part of the Constitution to promote the arts and sciences.
Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, called the decision “unfortunate” and said it “suggests *Congress is not required to pay particularly close attention to the interests of the public when it passes copyright laws.*”
(Emphasis mine.)
Which should come as no surprise, because when it comes to copyright and intellectual property issues, Congress' primary priorities have for many years been corporate copyright holders, not the general public.
Embedded Link
Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works | Threat Level | Wired.com
Congress may take works out of the public domain and grant them copyright status, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. The top court was ruling on a petition by a group of orchestra conductors, educator…
Google+: View post on Google+
As much as I think this would be a very bad thing to happen, I can't disagree with the Supreme Court here. It is ethically wrong, intellectually wrong, but unlike so many recent actions of the USG, it is not technically wrong (read: unconstitutional).
I think there's room to differ on that. Given the stated purposes for copyright in the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," it could be argued that extending the timeframe (or taking something already in public domain back into copyright) is not promoting progress of science and useful arts, and doesn't directly benefit authors and inventors. It could be argued the other way, too, of course, so then the value of the respected outcomes tends to determine which way one "should" decide.