Eldred v. Ashcroft case
brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
537 U.S. 186
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioners,
individuals and businesses, sued respondent United States Attorney
General, challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Term
Extension Act (CTEA) under the First Amendment and the Copyright and
Patent Clause (Copyright Clause), U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld the CTEA. The United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari.
FACTS: Under the CTEA, Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years in order to, inter alia, harmonize the baseline United States copyright term with the term adopted by the European Union. Petitioners argued that the CTEA violated the "limited times" prescription of the Copyright Clause. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contended that the CTEA was a content-neutral regulation of speech that failed inspection under the heightened judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations.
HOLDING:
The Court determined that the CTEA was constitutional. The CTEA's extension of existing copyrights did not exceed Congress' power under the Copyright Clause.
ANALYSIS:
The Court rejected petitioners' arguments that (1) the extension was a congressional attempt to evade or override the "limited times" constraint, (2) Congress could not extend an existing copyright absent new consideration from the author, and (3) the extensions should have been subject to heightened judicial review. The Court also rejected petitioners' argument that the CTEA violated the First Amendment.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed the judgment.
FACTS: Under the CTEA, Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years in order to, inter alia, harmonize the baseline United States copyright term with the term adopted by the European Union. Petitioners argued that the CTEA violated the "limited times" prescription of the Copyright Clause. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contended that the CTEA was a content-neutral regulation of speech that failed inspection under the heightened judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations.
HOLDING:
The Court determined that the CTEA was constitutional. The CTEA's extension of existing copyrights did not exceed Congress' power under the Copyright Clause.
ANALYSIS:
The Court rejected petitioners' arguments that (1) the extension was a congressional attempt to evade or override the "limited times" constraint, (2) Congress could not extend an existing copyright absent new consideration from the author, and (3) the extensions should have been subject to heightened judicial review. The Court also rejected petitioners' argument that the CTEA violated the First Amendment.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed the judgment.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment