Court To Rule On Internet Copyright

010315 napster mp3 background CBS/AP

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to intervene in a fight over copyrights, deciding whether Congress has sided too heavily with writers and other inventors.

The outcome will determine when hundreds of thousands of books, songs and movies will be freely available on the Internet or in digital libraries.

Groups challenging copyright law argued that justices should protect the public's right to material.

The Bush administration urged the court to reject the groups' appeal. Because copyrighted material can be used under some circumstances, "the concerns and values reflected in the First Amendment are therefore fully satisfied," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote the court.

Also on the docket:
  • The Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of Internet registries listing names of convicted sex offenders who long ago completed their punishment.

  • States lost another round in the fight to get around federal labor laws that require them to pay their workers overtime. Iowa, supported by eight other states, asked the court to rule that states have a constitutional right to set their own labor policies. Justices declined to review the case, without comment.

  • The Court upheld the common schoolroom practice of having one student grade another's work, ruling that such paper-swapping does not violate federal privacy law. The 9-0 ruling ended a challenge filed by a mother whose learning-disabled son was ridiculed as a "dummy" when his poor grades were read aloud to classmates.

  • The Court refused to consider making it harder for shoppers to sue stores claiming discrimination. Justices declined to review a $1.2 million verdict against the department chain Dillard's Inc., which was accused of keeping a black woman from claiming a cologne sample. Stores frequently fend off customer complaints. Dillard's wanted the court to set boundaries for lawsuits under a federal civil rights law.
  • The Constitution authorizes Congress to give authors and inventors the exclusive right to their works for a "limited" time. In 1790, copyrights lasted 14 years. Now it's 70 years after the death of the inventor, if the person is known.

    Lawrence Lessig, attorney for the challengers, said the latest 20-year extension approved by Congress in 1998 is ill-timed and unconstitutional.

    "Just as the time that the Internet is enabling a much broader range of individuals to draw upon and develop this creative work without restraint, extensions of copyright law are cosing off this medium to a broad swath of common culture," he wrote.

    The challengers include organizations and businesses that specialize in former copyrighted material, like books, movies and songs. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that they "lack any cognizable First Amendment right to exploit the copyrighted works of others."

    The Bush administration said Congress promotes progress by giving people rights to their material. The administration also defended lawmakers' decision to apply the 20-year extension to all current copyrighted material, not just future.

    "Congress was entitled to establish a system of copyright that treats authors in a more evenhanded fashion," Olson wrote in the government filing.

    The 1998 copyright changes, known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, bring U.S. rules in line with those in the European Union.

    Congress extended the term of copyright 11 times in the past century, said law professor Mark Lemley, representing the non-profit Internet Archive.

    Lemley told the Supreme Court that copies of old books, movies and sound recordings are being lost before they can be archived. He said in 1930, 10,027 books were published but as of last year, all but 174 were out of print.

    If it wasn't for the law, "digital archives could inexpensively make the other 9,853 books published in 1930 available to the reading public starting in 2005," he wrote. If the law "still stands, we must continue to wait, perhaps eternally, while works disappear and opportunities vanish."

    Justices last reviewed a large copyright case in 1985, but the laws have changed since then.

    The case is Eldred v. Ashcroft, 01-618.



    By GINA HOLLAND
    ©MMII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
    • CBSNews.com staff CBSNews.com staff

    Comments