DOCSLIB.ORG

Case Reporter Copyright and the Universal Citation System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Florida State University Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 8 1996 Freeing the Law: Case Reporter Copyright and the Universal Citation System James H. Wyman [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James H. Wyman, Freeing the Law: Case Reporter Copyright and the Universal Citation System, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 217 (1996) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol24/iss1/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW FREEING THE LAW: CASE REPORTER COPYRIGHT AND THE UNIVERSAL CITATION SYSTEM James J. Wyman VOLUME 24 FALL 1996 NUMBER 1 Recommended citation: James J. Wyman, Comment, Freeing the Law: Case Reporter Copyright and the Universal Citation System, 24 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 217 (1996). FREEING THE LAW: CASE REPORTER COPYRIGHT AND THE UNIVERSAL CITATION SYSTEM* JAMES H. WYMAN** I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 217 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................................................................. 221 A. The Copyrightability of Case Reporters...................................................... 221 1. Wheaton v. Peters................................................................................ 221 2. Callaghan v. Myers.............................................................................. 223 3. Banks Law Publishing Co. v. Lawyers’ Co-operative Publishing Co. ........................................................................................................ 225 B. The Rise of West and the Emergence of LEXIS.......................................... 228 1. West Publishing Company: “Everywhere Familiar” ............................ 228 2. The Arrival of LEXIS ........................................................................... 230 III. DECONSTRUCTING THE WEST “MONOPOLY”........................................................ 232 A. West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc........................................ 233 1. The Opinion.......................................................................................... 233 2. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc.............. 237 3. Analysis ................................................................................................ 240 a. The Tenability of Mead After Feist................................................ 240 b. Public Policy................................................................................... 244 B. Mead Revisited: A Failed Attempt to Free Florida Law............................. 247 C. The “Crown Jewels”: Electronic Case Law Databases on the Internet ...... 254 IV. THE UNIVERSAL CITATION SYSTEM.................................................................... 259 A. Toward the Wisconsin Proposal ................................................................. 259 B. Analysis of the New Citation Format ......................................................... 264 1. Criticism of the Proposed Form............................................................ 266 a. A Citation to Nowhere.................................................................... 266 b. Citations to “Any Reliable Source”................................................. 266 c. Disadvantaging the Print Medium................................................ 268 d. Letting the Market Decide.............................................................. 271 2. Theory: Requirements of Legal Citation Form..................................... 272 3. Practice: The Potential Application of the Universal Citation Form in Florida ............................................................................................. 275 a. Background.................................................................................... 275 b. The Opinion Dissemination Process in Florida............................. 277 c. Implementing the New Citation Form ........................................... 278 V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 280 I. INTRODUCTION K. must remember that the proceedings were not public; they could certainly, if the Court considered it necessary, become public, but the Law did not prescribe that they must be made * Copyright © 1996 James H. Wyman. 1996 Florida State University Law Review Ausley Scholarship paper. ** The author thanks his mother, Marjory R. Moran, Esq., who taught him a thing or two about principle, and Mr. DuBose Ausley, whose generous financial support facili- tated much of the research for this Comment. 217 218 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24:217 public. Naturally, therefore, the legal records of the case . were inaccessible to the accused and his counsel, consequently one did not know in general, or at least did not know with any pre- cision, what charges to meet in the first plea; accordingly it could only be by pure chance that it contained really relevant matter.1 Franz Kafka The striking and seemingly sudden rise of the Internet has had a dramatic effect upon public access to information. For a minimal monthly fee—or even for no charge2—citizens with a computer and a modem are able to instantly browse anything from their Senator’s most recent musings in the Congressional Record3 to the latest notices of proposed rulemaking in the Fed- eral Register.4 Perhaps nowhere have the ramifications of such readily available information been as intensely debated as they have been in the legal profession. For twenty years, case law has been electronically available to the bench and bar via the WESTLAW and LEXIS computer-assisted legal research serv- ices, albeit at a steep price.5 The prospect of an extensive body of case law archived on the Internet and inexpensive CD-ROMs has engendered a stormy and sometimes cantankerous debate among information activists, law librarians, and legal publishers. The courts of this country—for whom “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty . to say what the law is”6—have slowly be- gun to promulgate their decisions on “what the law is” over the Internet.7 In part because of the enterprising offices of several 1. FRANZ KAFKA, THE TRIAL 115 (Willa & Edwin Muir trans., Schocken Books 1988) (1925). 2. A number of communities throughout the United States have set up, generally through public libraries, FreeNet systems that provide free access to the Internet. See Rob Pegoraro, Free; The Info Freeway; On-Line on the Cheap, WASH. POST, June 28, 1995, at R5. 3. See Search Full Text of the Congressional Record—104th Congress, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r104query.html (Aug. 16, 1996). 4. See, e.g., GPO Access on the Web, available at http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/vlibrary/ reference/gpo/index.html (Aug. 16, 1996). 5. Both WESTLAW and LEXIS charge upwards of $200 per hour for the use of their services. See Susan Hansen, Fending Off the Future, AM. LAW., Sept. 1994, at 76. 6. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). 7. Although a bulletin board system (BBS) is not strictly a part of the Internet, each U.S. Court of Appeals has a BBS through which decisions can be retrieved for 75 cents a mi- nute. Laura Mansnerus, Easing Limits on Legal Publishing, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 9, 1995, at D5. In addition, many state supreme courts place their opinions on a BBS as well. However, a number of courts delete older cases on their BBSs and replace them with newer cases. Morenike Efuntade, Alternative Case Citation Issue Examined by Joint DOJ-Judicial Group, U.S. L. WEEK—DAILY ED., May 1, 1995, available in LEXIS, News library, Wires file. Moreo- ver, a BBS can only be accessed by dialing—usually while incurring long distance tolls—a dedicated phone line the court has set up for its BBS. See American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 833-34 (E.D. Pa. 1996). 1996] FREEING THE LAW 219 law schools around the nation,8 the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court,9 all U.S. Courts of Appeals,10 and over a third of all state supreme courts11 are now available on the Internet’s World Wide Web. Far from providing a complete body of case law to the user, however, these Web sites generally offer opinions dating back a few years at most.12 More important, though, is the fact that the opinions on the Internet are virtually useless to anyone who wishes to cite them in a court document.13 Almost all federal courts and a large num- ber of state courts require citations that contain the page num- bers of West Publishing Company’s case reporters.14 Although it is in almost all other respects an outstanding corporate citizen, West’s assertion of copyright in its case reporter pagination15 8. See, e.g., Bill Rankin, Law Libraries: Emory Offering Court Rules, Legal Docu- ments, ATLANTA J. & CONST., Feb. 14, 1996, at D7. 9. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/ supct.table.html (Aug. 16, 1996) (providing all decisions since 1990). 10. A list of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the addresses of the Web sites containing their opinions, and the dates of the earliest opinions available may be found in the Ap- pendix to this Comment. 11. As of August 1996, 19 state supreme courts had World Wide Web sites that pro- vided and archived their opinions.
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.
  • 01-618. Eldred V. Ashcroft

    01-618. Eldred V. Ashcroft

    1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 3 ERIC ELDRED, ET AL., : 4 Petitioners : 5 v. : No. 01-618 6 JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY : 7 GENERAL : 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 9 Washington, D.C. 10 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 12 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 13 10:03 a.m. 14 APPEARANCES: 15 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ., Stanford, California; on behalf of 16 the Petitioners. 17 THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ., Solicitor General, Department of 18 Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the 19 Respondent. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE 3 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ. 4 On behalf of the Petitioners 3 5 ORAL ARGUMENT OF 6 THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ. 7 On behalf of the Respondent 25 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF 9 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ. 10 On behalf of the Petitioners 48 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (10:03 a.m.) 3 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument 4 now in Number 01-618, Eric Eldred v. John D. Ashcroft. 5 Mr. Lessig. 6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF LAWRENCE LESSIG 7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 8 MR.
  • 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 .....................
  • Illustrators' Partnership of America and Co-Chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Is One of Those Opponents

    Illustrators' Partnership of America and Co-Chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Is One of Those Opponents

    I L L U S T R A T O R S ‘ P A R T N E R S H I P 8 4 5 M O R A I N E S T R E E T M A R S H F I E L D , M A S S A C H U S E T T S USA 0 2 0 5 0 t 7 8 1 - 8 3 7 - 9 1 5 2 w w w . i l l u s t r a t o r s p a r t n e r s h i p . o r g February 3, 2013 Maria Pallante Register of Copyrights US Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 RE: Notice of Inquiry, Copyright Office, Library of Congress Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (77 FR 64555) Comments of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America In its October 22, 2012 Notice of Inquiry, the Copyright Office has asked for comments from interested parties regarding “what has changed in the legal and business environments during the past four years that might be relevant to a resolution of the [orphan works] problem and what additional legislative, regulatory, or voluntary solutions deserve deliberation at this time.” As rightsholders, we welcome and appreciate the opportunity to comment. In the past, we have not opposed orphan works legislation in principle; but we have opposed legislation drafted so broadly that it would have permitted the widespread orphaning and infringement of copyright-protected art. In 2008, the Illustrators’ Partnership was joined by 84 other creators’ organizations in opposing that legislation; 167,000 letters were sent to members of Congress from our website.
  • A Handbook of Citation Form for Law Clerks at the Appellate Courts of the State of Hawai#I

    A Handbook of Citation Form for Law Clerks at the Appellate Courts of the State of Hawai#I

    A HANDBOOK OF CITATION FORM FOR LAW CLERKS AT THE APPELLATE COURTS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ###I 2008 Edition Hawai #i State Judiciary 417 South King Street Honolulu, HI 96813 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CASES............................................ .................... 2 A. Basic Citation Forms ............................................... 2 1. Hawai ###i Courts ............................................. 2 a. HAWAI #I SUPREME COURT ............................... 2 i. Pre-statehood cases .............................. 2 ii. Official Hawai #i Reports (volumes 1-75) ............. 3 iii. West Publishing Company Volumes (after 75 Haw.) . 3 b. INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ........................ 3 i. Official Hawai #i Appellate Reports (volumes 1-10) . 3 ii. West Publishing Company Volumes (after 10 Haw. App.) .............................................. 3 2. Federal Courts ............................................. 4 a. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ......................... 4 b. UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS ...................... 4 c. DISTRICT COURTS ...................................... 4 3. Other State Courts .......................................... 4 B. Case Names ................................................... 4 1. Case Names in Textual Sentences .............................. 5 a. ACTIONS AND PARTIES CITED ............................ 5 b. PROCEDURAL PHRASES ................................. 5 c. ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... 5 i. in textual sentences .............................. 5 ii. business
  • List of Abbreviations

    List of Abbreviations

    List of Abbreviations A. C. Appeal Cases, English Law Reports, r8gr-. Aetas de las Sesiones Aetas de las Sesiones del Congreso Sud-Amer­ icano de Derecho Internacional Privado, Buenos Aires, r88g. Adl. Clem. Sammlung von Entscheidungen zum Handels­ gesetzbuch, zusammengestellt von Adler und Clemens, fortgesetzt von Friedlander (Austria). Ala. Alabama Reports. All E. R. All England Law Reports, Annotated. Allg. BGB. Allgemeines Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch (Aus- tria). Allg. HGB. Allgemeines Handelsgesetzbuch (Austria). All g. W echselord- Allgemeine Wechselordnung (Germany). nung A. L. R. American Law Reports, Annotated. Am. Dec. American Decisions ( Select Cases) . Am. J. Int. Law American Journal of International Law. Am. Jur. American Jurisprudence. San Francisco, New York, 1936-. Am. Marit. Cas. American Maritime Cases. Am. Rep. American Reports. Annales de Droit Annales de droit commercial et industriel Commercial fran~ais, etranger et international, fondees par M. E. Thaller, Paris, r887-. Ann. Cas. American Annotated Cases. Annuaire Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international. Annual Digest Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, London. Annual Survey Annual Survey of American Law, New York University School of Law. Annuario Dir. Camp. Annuario di diritto comparato e di studi legis­ lativi. App. Cour d'appel; corti d'appello. App. Cas. Appeal Cases, English Law Reports, 1876- r8go. xxxi XXXll LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS App. D.C. Appeal Cases, District of Columbia. App. Div. New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Reports. Arch. Civ. Prax. Archiv fiir die civilistische Praxis (Germany) . Arch. Jud. Archivo judiciario (Brazil). Ariz. Arizona Reports. Ark. Arkansas Reports. Asp. Marit. Cas. Aspinall's Maritime Cases. Atl. Atlantic Reporter, National Reporter System (United States).
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones

    ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones

    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
  • 13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of MD. V. Wynne (05/18/2015)

    13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of MD. V. Wynne (05/18/2015)

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND v. WYNNE ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 13–485. Argued November 12, 2014—Decided May 18, 2015 Maryland’s personal income tax on state residents consists of a “state” income tax, Md. Tax-Gen. Code Ann. §10–105(a), and a “county” in- come tax, §§10–103, 10–106. Residents who pay income tax to anoth- er jurisdiction for income earned in that other jurisdiction are al- lowed a credit against the “state” tax but not the “county” tax. §10– 703. Nonresidents who earn income from sources within Maryland must pay the “state” income tax, §§10–105(d), 10–210, and nonresi- dents not subject to the county tax must pay a “special nonresident tax” in lieu of the “county” tax, §10–106.1. Respondents, Maryland residents, earned pass-through income from a Subchapter S corporation that earned income in several States. Respondents claimed an income tax credit on their 2006 Maryland income tax return for taxes paid to other States. The Mary- land State Comptroller of the Treasury, petitioner here, allowed re- spondents a credit against their “state” income tax but not against their “county” income tax and assessed a tax deficiency.
  • The Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended and Codified)

    The Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended and Codified)

    The Copyright Act of 1976 (as amended and codified) The Act of October 19, 1976 , Public Law Number 94-553 , 90 Stat. 2598, effective January 1, 1978. Chronology of Amendments Public Law No. 95-94 , 91 Stat. 653, 682 (Aug. 5, 1977) amended Sections 203 and 708. Public Law No. 95-598 , 92 Stat. 2676 (Nov. 6, 1978) amended Section 201. Public Law No. 96-517 , 94 Stat. 3028 (Dec. 12, 1980) amended Sections 101 and 117. Public Law No. 97-180 , 96 Stat. 93 (May 24, 1982) amended Section 506. Public Law No. 97-215 , 96 Stat. 178 (July 13, 1982) amended Section 601. Public Law No. 97-366 , 96 Stat. 1759 (Oct. 25, 1982) amended Section 110, 708. Public Law No. 98-450 , 98 Stat. 1727 (Oct. 4, 1984) amended Sections 109 and 115. Public Law No. 98-620 , 98 Stat. 3347 (Nov. 8, 1984) added Chapter 9 (§ § 901 et seq. ). Public Law No. 99-397 , 100 Stat. 848 (Aug. 27, 1986) amended Sections 111 and 801. Public Law No. 100-159 , 101 Stat. 900 (Nov. 9, 1987) amended Sections 902 and 914. Public Law No. 100-568 , 102 Stat. 2853 (Oct. 31, 1988) added Section 116A and amended Sections 101, 116, 205, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 411, 501, 504, 801, and 804. Public Law No. 100-617 , 102 Stat. 3194 (Nov. 5, 1988) amended Section 109 and 17 U.S.C. § 109 note. Public Law No. 100-667 , 102 Stat. 3949 (Nov. 16, 1988) added Section 119 and amended Sections 111, 501, 801, and 804.
  • An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P

    An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P

    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 104 | Issue 1 Article 5 2016 An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris Temple University Beasley School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Harris, Donald P. (2016) "An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 104 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol104/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris' "[B]y virtually ignoring the central purpose of the Copyright/Patent Clause ... the Court has quitclaimed to Congress its principal responsibility in this area of the law. Fairly read, the Court has stated that Congress' actions under the Copyright/Patent Clause are, for all intents and purposes, 2 judicially unreviewable." INTRODUCTION On July 15, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, held one of a number of hearings reviewing the Copyright Act.3 This particular hearing focused, among other things, on the copyright term (the length over which copyrights are protected).4 While it is not surprising that Congress is again considering the appropriate term for copyrights- Congress has reviewed and increased the copyright term many times since the first Copyright Act of 1791 5-it is troubling because Congress has unfettered discretion in doing so.
  • Principles of Administrative Law 1

    Principles of Administrative Law 1

    CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD PRINCIPLES OF LAW SERIES Professor Paul Dobson Visiting Professor at Anglia Polytechnic University Professor Nigel Gravells Professor of English Law, Nottingham University Professor Phillip Kenny Professor and Head of the Law School, Northumbria University Professor Richard Kidner Professor and Head of the Law Department, University of Wales, Aberystwyth In order to ensure that the material presented by each title maintains the necessary balance between thoroughness in content and accessibility in arrangement, each title in the series has been read and approved by an independent specialist under the aegis of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board oversees the development of the series as a whole, ensuring a conformity in all these vital aspects. David Stott, LLB, LLM Deputy Head, Anglia Law School Anglia Polytechnic University Alexandra Felix, LLB, LLM Lecturer in Law, Anglia Law School Anglia Polytechnic University CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney First published in Great Britain 1997 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX. Telephone: 0171-278 8000 Facsimile: 0171-278 8080 e-mail: [email protected] Visit our Home Page on http://www.cavendishpublishing.com © Stott, D and Felix, A 1997 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, without the permission in writing of the publisher.
  • Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred V. Ashcroft

    Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred V. Ashcroft

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred v. Ashcroft Lawrence B. Solum Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/879 http://ssrn.com/abstract=337182 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1-82 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons CONGRESS'S POWER TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT* Lawrence B. Solum** I. INTRODUCTION: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT ................................... 3 A. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act ................. 4 B. ProceduralHistory ............................................................ 7 II. A TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COPYRIGHT C LA U SE .......................................................................................... 10 A. The Structure of the Clause .................................................... 11 1. The parallel construction of the copyright and patent powers in the Intellectual Property Clause .................... 11 2. The structure of the Copyright Clause ........................... 12 * © 2002 by the Author. Permission is hereby granted to duplicate this Essay for classroom use and for the inclusion of excerpts of any length in edu- cational materials of any kind, so long as the author and original publication is clearly identified and this notice is included. Permission for other uses may be obtained from the Author. ** Visiting Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow, Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University.