Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works

[ulmont]

I agree, but since I don't buy Valmy's contention that copyright limits 1st Amendment rights, I don't see any constitutional problems with the ruling.

It's not just Valmy's contention that a) Copyright restricts freedom of speech or that b) Copyright is subject to some First Amendment restrictions.

Concerning the First Amendment, we recognized that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright
...
We then described the "traditional contours" of copyright protection,  i.e., the "idea/expression dichotomy" and the "fair use" defense.  Both are recognized in our jurisprudence as "built-in First Amendment accommodations.

[dps]

I agree, but since I don't buy Valmy's contention that copyright limits 1st Amendment rights, I don't see any constitutional problems with the ruling.

It's not just Valmy's contention that a) Copyright restricts freedom of speech or that b) Copyright is subject to some First Amendment restrictions.

Concerning the First Amendment, we recognized that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright
...
We then described the “traditional contours” of copyright protection,  i.e., the “idea/expression dichotomy” and the “fair use” defense.  Both are recognized in our jurisprudence as “built-in First Amendment accommodations.

I buy the Court's version, but not Valmy's.

[Ed Anger]

Wow. Ever heard of lex retro non agit?

Lex Luthor has nothing to do with this.

[The Brain]

I don't get it. What's retroactive about it?

[ulmont]

I don't get it. What's retroactive about it?

The act gave copyright protection for works in the United States that had previously fallen into the public domain.

[The Brain]

I don't get it. What's retroactive about it?

The act gave copyright protection for works in the United States that had previously fallen into the public domain.

So? The state taketh away all the time.