DOCSLIB.ORG

Codifying Copyright Comprehensibly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CODIFYING COPYRIGHT COMPREHENSIBLY David Nimmer The UCLA Law Review has been proud to present Articles based on the annual tribute to Professor Melville B. Nimmer that takes place at the UCLA School of Law. The Review continues that tradition by publishing an Article by this year's presenter, Professor David Nimmer. In the form of a tribute to the author's father, the Article evaluates each provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 and each amendment to that legislation through the present. The author concludes that the crafting of that enactment started out strong and continued in a positive vein through 1992. Since that time, however, a marked decline in quality has afflicted the draftingof copyright amendments. To correct that downward slide, Professor David Nimmer proposes principles, culled from the wisdom of Professor Melville Nimmer, that will once again imbue copyright legislation with the proper balance to confront the advances of technology. IN TRO DU CTIO N ........................................................................................................... 1235 A . MBN , The Series ......................................................................................... 1235 B. H ow to V iew this Installm ent ...................................................................... 1236 II. MEL NIMMER THE COPYRIGHT LEGISLATOR ........................................................ 1239 A . C opyright C odifier ....................................................................................... 1240 B. 1965 T estim ony ........................................................................................... 1246 1. Prepared Rem arks ................................................................................. 1247 2. C olloquy ............................................................................................... 1252 3. Special C om m ission ............................................................................. 1254 4. Personal Postscript ................................................................................ 1256 C . C O N T U ....................................................................................................... 1256 1. Statutory Background ........................................................................... 1256 2. Chartering a Presidential Commission ................................................. 1257 3. Substantive Recommendations ............................................................ 1259 a. Photocopying ................................................................................ 1260 b. C om puter Program s....................................................................... 1260 c. A dditional Voices ......................................................................... 1261 4. R esulting A mendm ent ......................................................................... 1265 * © 2004 by David Nimmer, Visiting Professor, UCLA School of Law; Of Counsel, Irell & Manella LLP. I thank the deans of the UCLA School of Law, Jonathan Varat and Norman Abrams, for their kindness and support. With my gratitude also for helpful comments from James Boyle, Bert Hugenholtz, Peter Jaszi, Robert Kasunic, Mark Lemley, Paul Marcus, Peter Menell, Neil Netanel, Louis Petrich, Pamela Samuelson, Lon Sobel, Bernie Sorkin, and Neil Wilkof. Additional thanks to John Wilson and the UCLA library staff for their wonderful assistance. 1233 1234 51 UCLA LAW REVIEW 1233 (2004) 5. Personal Postscript ................................................................................ 1266 D . Father Knows Best ........................................................................................ 1266 III. EVALUATING LEGISLATION ................................................................................. 1268 A . A M yriad of C hoices .................................................................................... 1268 B. Form al Indicia of Success ............................................................................. 1269 1. C riteria ................................................................................................. 1270 a. Coherence ..................................................................................... 1270 b. Transparency ................................................................................. 1271 c. Reality ........................................................................................... 1275 d. Breadth .......................................................................................... 1276 e. O ther D esiderata ........................................................................... 1277 2. Sam ple A pplication .............................................................................. 1278 C . A pplying these C riteria to the C opyright A ct ............................................. 1282 1. A t Enactm ent ....................................................................................... 1282 a. C atalog of Provisions .................................................................... 1285 b. Tw in C haracteristics ..................................................................... 1290 (1) Endless "D .C . Regulations" ........................................................ 1290 (2) Terse "National Copyright Legislation" .......................1292 c. Evaluation ..................................................................................... 1293 2. Continuity in Character Through Two Dozen A m endm ents ............................................................................. 1299 a. C atalog of A m endm ents ............................................................... 1299 b. Evaluation ..................................................................................... 1304 3. Subsequent D eform ing A m endments ................................................... 1307 a. C atalog of A m endm ents ............................................................... 1307 b. Evaluation ..................................................................................... 1313 D . Tally of N eutral C riteria .............................................................................. 1315 1. C oherence, Transparency, Reality, Breadth ......................................... 1315 2. Public A ccountability ........................................................................... 1316 3. Stability ................................................................................................ 1320 4. Retroactivity ......................................................................................... 1322 5. Random ness .......................................................................................... 1324 IV . THE ROAD DOWN - A N A KANTHOLOGY ............................................................ 1326 A . H istorical Perspective .................................................................................. 1326 B. Sui G eneris Addenda ................................................................................... 1327 1. Sem iconductor C hip Protection A ct of 1984 ...................................... 1327 2. V essel H ull D esign Protection A ct ....................................................... 1329 3. A n A ct C left in Twain ......................................................................... 1330 C . A udio H om e Recording A ct of 1992 ........................................................... 1331 D . U ruguay Round A greem ents A ct ................................................................. 1334 E. Perform ance R ights in Sound Recordings .................................................... 1335 1. Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings A ct of 1995 ........................................................................................... 1336 2. T itle IV to D igital M illennium C opyright A ct .................................... 1339 3. Sm all Webcaster Settlem ent A ct of 2002 ............................................ 1339 F. D igital M illennium C opyright A ct .............................................................. 1342 Codifying Copyright Comprehensibly 1235 G. Coming Up For Oxygen-Interpretive Corrections .................................... 1344 1. Success of the Enterprise ...................................................................... 1344 2. Im perfect Im plem entation .................................................................... 1347 V . LISTEN ING TO M EL ............................................................................................... 1350 A . M el N im m er's N apster ................................................................................. 1350 1. N apster '83 ............................................................................................ 135 1 2. N apster '99 ............................................................................................ 1355 3. A & M Records v. N apster ..................................................................... 1362 4. N apster '04 ............................................................................................ 1367 B. Technological Protection Measures Gone Berserk ...................................... 1370 C . N othing Beats Something ............................................................................ 1374 D . CO N TU 's Better Example ........................................................................... 1378 VI. STRATEGIES FOR MOVING FORWARD ..................................................................
Recommended publications
  • West V. Mead Data Central: Has Copyright Protection Been Stretched Too Far Thomas P

    West V. Mead Data Central: Has Copyright Protection Been Stretched Too Far Thomas P

    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 10 | Number 1 Article 4 1-1-1987 West v. Mead Data Central: Has Copyright Protection Been Stretched Too Far Thomas P. Higgins Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas P. Higgins, West v. Mead Data Central: Has Copyright Protection Been Stretched Too Far, 10 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 95 (1987). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol10/iss1/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. West v. Mead Data Central: Has Copyright Protection Been Stretched Too Far? by THOMAS P. HIGGINS* Introduction Users of Lexis1 will not find pinpoint cites2 to page numbers in West's reporters. In a decision that has raised some eye- brows in the legal community,3 the Eighth Circuit held that Mead Data Central's (MDC) case retrieval system, LEXIS, probably infringes on the copyright of West Publishing's case reporters by including West's page numbers in its database.4 The decision raises important questions about the extent of copyright protection. For example, the Arabic number system is not copyrightable,5 and neither are judicial opinions.6 How- * A.B., Vassar College; Member, Third Year class.
  • Exploring the Application of Copyright Law to Library Catalog Records, 4 Computer L.J

    Exploring the Application of Copyright Law to Library Catalog Records, 4 Computer L.J

    The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law Volume 4 Issue 2 Computer/Law Journal - Fall 1983 Article 3 Fall 1983 Ownership of Access Information: Exploring the Application of Copyright Law to Library Catalog Records, 4 Computer L.J. 305 (1983) Celia Delano Moore Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Celia Delano Moore, Ownership of Access Information: Exploring the Application of Copyright Law to Library Catalog Records, 4 Computer L.J. 305 (1983) https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol4/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OWNERSHIP OF ACCESS INFORMATION: EXPLORING THE APPLICATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW TO LIBRARY CATALOG RECORDS by CELIA DELANO MOORE* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 306 II. TRADITIONAL CATALOGING AND COPYRIGHT LAW. 307 A. COPYRIGHT IN THE CATALOG RECORD ................... 307 1. Nature of the Catalog Record ....................... 307 a. Descriptive Cataloging........................... 308 b. Subject Cataloging............................... 310 2. Subject Matter of Copyright ......................... 311 a. Fixation .......................................... 312 b. Authorship ....................................... 312 c. Originality........................................ 312 3. The Catalog Record As the Subject of Copyright ... 314 B. COPYRIGHT IN THE LIRARY CATALOG ................... 315 1. Nature of the Library Catalog .....................
  • Saturday Faith Community News

    Saturday Faith Community News

    Wildcat RELIGION tennis action Saturday Faith community news ...................................Page 3 .............Page 6 March 17, 2007 INSIDE Mendocino County’s World briefly The Ukiah local newspaper ..........Page 2 Sunday: Clouds followed by sunshine 7 58551 69301 0 Monday: Afternoon rain 50 cents tax included DAILY JOURNAL ukiahdailyjournal.com 14 pages, Volume 148 Number 342 email: [email protected] Vet meds MOVING DAY FOR CALFIRE UKIAH UNIFIED stolen in Charter nighttime burglary school By KATIE MINTZ The Daily Journal If you love your pet, don’t buy flea, tick and heartworm products petition peddled on the street, said Dr. Kerry Levin, a veterinarian at North State Animal Hospital. The medicine, she said, could be part of the approximate $7,000 in denied loot a thief or thieves made away By LAURA MCCUTCHEON with from her clinic at 2280 N. The Daily Journal State St. sometime Thursday night. The Ukiah Unified School District has Levin said that when her assis- denied Charter Academy of the Redwoods’ tant showed up Friday morning to petition for the Career Academy of Ukiah open shop, he found a large rock because it needed more development, had been thrown through a win- specifically in the proposed educational dow and the hospital had been bur- program, said Dolores Fisette, administra- glarized. tive consultant with Ukiah Unified. “I would think they’d be look- “The concept was good; it just was too ing for money and drugs. I’m sur- Isaac Eckel/The Daily Journal general,” she said. “The petition is the prised they took medicine that is The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has now moved into its major document for a charter school.
  • PRO Licensing of Jointly Owned Works

    PRO Licensing of Jointly Owned Works

    The Register of Copyrights of the United States of America United States Copyright Office · 101 Independence Avenue SE ·Washington, DC 20559-6000 · (202) 707-8350 January 29, 2016 Dear Vice-Chairman Collins: On behalf of the United States Copyright Office, I am pleased to deliver the attached response to your letter of January 12, 2016 requesting the views of the Copyright Office regarding the licensing of jointly owned works by the performing rights organizations ("PROs"). We appreciate your continuing interest in the fair and efficient functioning of our music licensing system, which, as you know, was the subject of the Office's February 2015 report, Copyright and the Music Marketplace. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information on this subject. Respectfully, Maria A. Pallante Enclosure The Honorable Doug Collins Vice-Chairman Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet United States House of Representatives 1504 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Views of the United States Copyright Office Concerning PRO Licensing of Jointly Owned Works In February 2015, the Copyright Office released a comprehensive report on U.S. music licensing practices, Copyright and the Music Marketplace.1 The report surveys the current music licensing landscape—much of which is subject to government regulation, including the federal antitrust consent decrees that govern the performing rights organizations (“PROs”) ASCAP and BMI2—and recommends a number of structural changes. The Office
  • Rules and Regulations

    Rules and Regulations

    GOLD COAST GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION RULES AND REGULATIONS As Amended and Adopted August 5, 2015 r TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Pg. 3 Exterminating Pg. 28 Building Access “ Fire Extinguishers and Smoke Detectors Pg. 29 Basic Entry Procedures “ Plumbing Facilities “ Deliveries, Guests, and Service Access “ Ventilation “ Guests and Non-Residents Pg. 5 Waste Disposal “ Keys, Locks, Security Systems, Lockouts “ Window Washing Pg. 30 Elevators Pg. 6 Emergency Procedures Pg. 31 Security Pg. 7 Emergency Numbers “ Solicitation “ Fire Safety “ Common Elements-Use & Restrictions “ Ambulances “ Advertisements, Communications, and Solicitations Pg, 8 Water Emergencies/Leaks “ Balconies “ Damages to Personal or Common Property/Insurance Pg. 32 Bicycles, Tricycles, Rollerblades Pg. 9 Enforcement Pg. 33 Exterior Appearance and Attachments “ Rule Violation Enforcement “ HVAC Pg, 10 Fines “ Lobby Appearance “ Rules Regarding Elections Pg. 34 Hallways, Stairwells, and Lobby “ Nominations of Candidates “ Mail Pg. 11 Qualifications “ Parking “ Election Inspectors “ Unit Occupancy-Use & Restrictions “ Election & Tabulation of Ballots “ General Use and Restrictions “ Results of Election “ Interior Appearance Pg. 12 Campaign Rules “ Construction and Remodeling “ Conclusion Pg. 35 Drain Cleaners Pg. 13 Useful Telephone Numbers “ Employees of Residents “ Index Pg. 36 Jacuzzi/Hot Tubs “ Musical Instruments “ Noise/ Nuisances “ Washers and Dryers Pg. 14 Water Furniture “ Windows “ Pets “ General Restrictions and Pet Registration Pg. 15 Visiting Pets Pg.17 Amenities “ Sundeck “ Cable/Satellite Television Pg.18 Laundry Room “ Luggage Carts “ Assessments & Collections Pg.19 Monthly Statements “ Due Date & Late Fee “ Non-Sufficient Funds Check “ Collection of Past Due Accounts “ Sales, Leasing & Refinancing Procedures Pg.20 Sales of Units “ Mortgage Disclosure Forms & Refinancing “ Leases and Owner Responsibility Pg. 21 Open House, Estate Sales, and Auctions Pg.
  • Copyright and the Fall Line

    Copyright and the Fall Line

    Nimmer Galley 7.11 FINAL (Do Not Delete) 7/12/2013 4:49 PM COPYRIGHT AND THE FALL LINE DAVID NIMMER* I. BODY VS. SPIRIT ............................................................................ 810 II. COSMOGONY VS. EVOLUTION ....................................................... 816 A. The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act .......................... 816 B. The Audio Home Recording Act ...................................... 818 C. Sound Recordings and Music Videos ............................... 819 D. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ............................ 821 E. The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act ............................ 823 III. ESOTERIC VS. EXOTERIC REVELATION ........................................ 826 IV. IDPPPA: THE FASHION BILL ...................................................... 830 EDITOR’S NOTE In March 2012, the Penn Intellectual Property Group hosted a symposium on the topic of Fashion Law at The University of Pennsylvania Law School. Keynote speaker David Nimmer assessed a proposed bill amending the Copyright Act to add protection for fashion designs. While teaching a seminar at Cardozo Law School in January 2013, Professor Nimmer delivered an illustrated lecture on his experience at the symposium and more recent developments with respect to the fashion bill. The following Article is an edited transcript of Professor Nimmer’s lecture and its accompanying graphics. * The author thanks Shyam Balganesh and the Penn Intellectual Property Group for the initial invitation that prompted this lecture, adding
  • Defending the Public Domain—The First Amendment, the Copyright Power, and the Potential of Golan V. Gonzales

    Defending the Public Domain—The First Amendment, the Copyright Power, and the Potential of Golan V. Gonzales

    Defending the Public Domain—The First Amendment, the Copyright Power, and the Potential of Golan v. Gonzales I. Introduction The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides unequivocally that “Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”; 1 yet this has not been the case since Congress’s first exercise of the Progress Clause: the Copyright Act of 1790. 2 The Progress Clause, 3 which serves as the basis of United States Copyright Law, provides Congress the power “[t]o 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.” 4 On its face, the Progress Clause appears incompatible with the First Amendment, in that it “abridg[es] the freedom of speech” and “of the press” 5 by prohibiting all speech that is protected by the clause’s grant of “exclusive Right[s]” to “Authors and Inventors.” 6 Despite the blatant conflict, courts have generally refused to recognize the First Amendment as a wholesale restraint on copyright. 7 Consistent with the general trend in federal courts, 8 in 1985 the Supreme Court in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises held First Amendment scrutiny of copyright unnecessary because copyright itself has built-in freedom of speech protections in the form of the idea/expression dichotomy and the fair use exception. 9 In 2003, the Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft tweaked this proposition to provide that copyright is not categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment, but that First Amendment scrutiny is necessary where 1.
  • Nov11noreaster Color.Indd

    Nov11noreaster Color.Indd

    Porsche & Polo! Autumn Ramble: A Report Sign up for our Annual Dinner Gala! AX Season Ends with a BASH! OV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 201 theast Region Porsche Club of America Northeast Region Porsche Club of America Northeast Region Porsche Club of America Northeast Region Porsche Club of Amer 13 Zone 1 Auto Cross 14 Call for Action for Auction for Anfel Flight! 20 15 NER’s Not-Quite-Annual Photo Contest Canceled 16 2011 Annual Dinner Gala 18 Denise McCluggage 19 The 2012 Tour of Paul Russell 20 Porsches and Polo: A Report 22 Brunch at Eyespot Pics and Story 26 24 Biannual Auction 26 NER Rambles to the Saratoga Auto Museum 30 AX Celebrates it’s Year End! 35 The NER/PCA Statement of Ownership 30 8 Anniversaries 4 On the Edge Cover Photo 14 Calendar 5 Around the Cones by PCNA 40 New Members 6 Four Speeds & Drum Brakes 41 Marketplace 7 Flat Sixer 42 Board of Directors 8 Minutes Of The Board Porsche & Polo! Autumn Ramble: A Report Sign up for our Annual Dinner Gala! and Committee Chairs 9 Ahead of the Curve AX Season Ends with a BASH! NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 NOV 2011 10 The Long and Winding Road Northeast Region Porsche Club of America Northeast Region Porsche Club of America Northeast Region Porsche Club of America Northeast Region Porsche Club of America The NOR’EASTER (ISSN-0199-4425) is published credit is given the NOR’EASTER and the author.
  • January 2021 • Assisted Living

    January 2021 • Assisted Living

    PREMIER PREMIER Making beautiful decoupage ornaments! The Movin’ and Groovin’ Walking Club in action! This year’s Chanukah program was organized by members of the Yiddish Club The Bacons enjoyed the season at Premier Residences January 2021 • Assisted Living 8600 W. Sunrise Blvd. • Plantation, FL 33322 An excited group heads out to see the holiday lights! Enjoying a cozy Christmas by the fireplace (954) 476-9500 8 Five Star Premier Residences of Plantation www.FiveStarPremier-Plantation.com A Note from the Director News and Notes It’s That Wonderful Time of the Year! 2021 Resident Advisory Board Several family members and residents have kill the virus if the person becomes infected. The It is my honor to have been elected and to serve as President of the expressed concerns about taking the COVID-19 immunity may vary depending on the vaccine but Resident Advisory Board for 2021 here at Five Star Premier Residences vaccination. I can’t urge you enough not miss out it is likely that the COVID vaccine will be similar of Plantation. I am also excited to work with all of the newly elected on this opportunity. By now, to the flu vaccine and require board members: thousands of individuals have taken annual dosing. More research will Pat Gunther, Vice-President the vaccine and are going great. be required to fully answer this Shirley Brandt, Secretary With the increasing spread and question. Lynn Thaxton, Doris Axinn & Aileen Rubenstein – Welcome Committee liaisons Executive concern that the virus is now Everyone will be notified once Pat Dever – Lifestyle 360 Committee liaison Director mutating and becoming more we are given our vaccine clinic date.
  • Making Available

    Making Available

    Rick G. Sanders, Jr.# 11 Lea Avenue, Suite 606# Nashville, TN 37210 T 615–734–1188# F 615–250–9807# [email protected] http://www.aaronsanderslaw.com Comment for the Right of Making Available Submitted by Rick Sanders of Aaron & Sanders, PLLC, a private law firm I. INTRODUCTION I am a lawyer in private practice in Nashville, Tennessee. Along with my law partner, Tara Aaron, I am a partner at Aaron & Sanders, PLLC, a technology and intellectual-property law firm. We represent both rights holders and licensees, and we both enforce intellectual-property rights and defend against them. As a matter of firm policy, we do not advocate for major policy changes in copyright, since most such changes would benefit only some of our clients but would hurt others. Thus, this comment will not advocate for or against the "making available" right, but will simply point out that, if Congress decides there should be such a right, it will need to create one, and it should take certain practical consequences into account in doing so. I am also an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, where I teach copyright. I wrote an article, Will Professor Nimmer’s Change of Heart on File Sharing Matter?, 15 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 858 (2013), on the subject of the existence of a "making available" right. It is publicly available at http://www.jetlaw.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/05/Sanders.pdf. Because of this article, I have been encouraged to respond to this request for comment. Much of what follows is drawn from this article, and if further support for the points below is desired, the article may be consulted.
  • International Copyright from an American Perspective

    International Copyright from an American Perspective

    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1990 International Copyright from an American Perspective Marshall A. Leaffer Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Leaffer, Marshall A., "International Copyright from an American Perspective" (1990). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 665. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/665 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. International Copyright from an American Perspective Marshall Leaffer* Introduction In our age of information the international dimension of copyright law grows in importance with each day. Satellite communications and other developing technologies permit worldwide access to copyrighted works as never before. Copyrighted works can be copied cheaply and disseminated quickly, unimpeded by time, space, or national boundary. This results in copyright owners having less and less control over their creations, particularly in light of the systematic piracy of copyrighted works which occurs in some foreign countries. As the world's largest user and producer of copy- righted works, the United States has a special interest in an orderly and responsive international regime of copyright pro- tection. The United States's recognition of this special interest is reflected in its March 1, 1989 entry into the Berne Conven- tion, the oldest and preeminent multinational copyright treaty.
  • Eldred V. Ashcroft: a Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision

    Eldred V. Ashcroft: a Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision

    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 13 Issue 1 Spring 2003 Article 7 Eldred v. Ashcroft: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision Jaime Davids Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Jaime Davids, Eldred v. Ashcroft: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Decision, 13 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 173 (2003) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol13/iss1/7 This Case Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Davids: Eldred v. Ashcroft: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court Deci ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION "A page of history is worth a volume of logic."' I. INTRODUCTION On October 9, 2002, Brewster Kahle parked his green Ford Aerostar outside the United States Supreme Court building. Washington D.C. was one of many places where Kahle - armed with a satellite dish, a laptop, high-speed printer, book cutter and bookbinder - printed public domain books for free from his Bookmobile. On his cross-country journey he stopped at public schools, libraries, universities, mobile home parks, and retirement homes connecting users to an online library, consisting solely of public domain works, where they can choose, download and print a book. Inside the courthouse, the case of Eldred v.