Copyright at the supreme court: A jurisprudence of deference

Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 317-347

  Hamilton, Marci A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042916374     PISSN: 08863520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (182)

1. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834).
2. See CRAIG JOYCE et al., COPYRIGHT LAW 18 (4th ed. 1998); L. Ray Patterson, Copyright Overextended: A Preliminary Inquiry into the Need for a Federal Statute of Unfair Competition, 17 U. DAYTON L. REV. 385, 404 (1992); Howard B. Abrams, The Historic Foundation of the American Copyright Law: Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright, 29 WAYNE L. REV. 1119, 1173 (1983).
3. See CRAIG JOYCE et al., COPYRIGHT LAW 18 (4th ed. 1998); L. Ray Patterson, Copyright Overextended: A Preliminary Inquiry into the Need for a Federal Statute of Unfair Competition, 17 U. DAYTON L. REV. 385, 404 (1992); Howard B. Abrams, The Historic Foundation of the American Copyright Law: Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright, 29 WAYNE L. REV. 1119, 1173 (1983).
4. See CRAIG JOYCE et al., COPYRIGHT LAW 18 (4th ed. 1998); L. Ray Patterson, Copyright Overextended: A Preliminary Inquiry into the Need for a Federal Statute of Unfair Competition, 17 U. DAYTON L. REV. 385, 404 (1992); Howard B. Abrams, The Historic Foundation of the American Copyright Law: Exploding the Myth of Common Law Copyright, 29 WAYNE L. REV. 1119, 1173 (1983).
5. See U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
6. See THE FEDERALIST No. 43 (Madison); JAMES MADISON, NOTES OF DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 at 580 (Adrienne Koch ed., 1966); see also PAUL GOLDSTEIN, COPYRIGHTS HIGHWAY: FROM GUTENBERG TO THE CELESTIAL JUKEBOX 52 (1994); 1 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §1.01[A] (1997).
7. THE FEDERALIST No. 43 (Madison)(available in Westlaw [BICENT])(emphasis added).
8. See Marci A. Hamilton, The Historical and Philosophical Underpinnings of the Copyright Clause, OCCASIONAL PAPERS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY #5 (Cardozo School of Law 1999) [hereinafter Historical and Philosophical Underpinnings]; Abrams, supra note 2.
9. By 1786, all states except Delaware had adopted copyright statutes: Connecticut (Jan. 1783); Massachusetts (Mar. 1783); Maryland (Apr. 1783); New Jersey (May 1783); New Hampshire (Nov. 1783); Virginia (Oct. 1785); North Carolina (Nov. 1785); Georgia (Feb. 1786); New York (Apr. 1786). LYMAN RAY PATTERSON, COPYRIGHT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 183-89 (1968).
10. See generally U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1783-1862 (1962).
11. See generally Hamilton, supra note 6.
12. See id.; cf. Marci A. Hamilton, Religion and the Law in the Clinton Era: An Anti-Madisonian Legacy, - L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. - (forthcoming 2000).
13. See GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, 409 (1998); see generally BERNARD BAILYN, THE IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1992).
14. See GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, 409 (1998); see generally BERNARD BAILYN, THE IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1992).
15. See letter to Congress accompanying draft Constitution in MADISON, NOTES OF THE DEBATES (visited Oct. 19, 1999) 〈http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/912.htm〉; JACK N. RAKOVE, JAMES MADISON AND THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 53, 68 (1990).
16. See letter to Congress accompanying draft Constitution in MADISON, NOTES OF THE DEBATES (visited Oct. 19, 1999) 〈http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/912.htm〉; JACK N. RAKOVE, JAMES MADISON AND THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 53, 68 (1990).
17. "The Congress shall have power to 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," U.S. CONST, art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
18. See Copyright Act, 1 Stat. 124 (1790); 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 1082-83, 1143, 1145, 1342 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) ( passage of bill in the House of Rep.); 2 ANNALS OF CONG. 1004, 1006-07, 1009-10 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) (passage of bill in the Senate).
19. See Copyright Act, 1 Stat. 124 (1790); 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 1082-83, 1143, 1145, 1342 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) ( passage of bill in the House of Rep.); 2 ANNALS OF CONG. 1004, 1006-07, 1009-10 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) (passage of bill in the Senate).
20. See Copyright Act, 1 Stat. 124 (1790); 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 1082-83, 1143, 1145, 1342 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) ( passage of bill in the House of Rep.); 2 ANNALS OF CONG. 1004, 1006-07, 1009-10 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) (passage of bill in the Senate).
21. See Appendix A.
22. See Appendix B.
23. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991); Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903); Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428 (1891); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884); Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834). See also Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984); Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).
24. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 346-47 (1998); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 698 (1984); Sony, 464 U.S. at 431; Goldstein, 412 U.S. at 570; Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964); Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 402-03 (1941).
25. See Appendix D.
26. Feist, 499 U.S. at 358-59.
27. See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 500 (1979).
28. See Marci A. Hamilton, Justice O'Connor's Intellectual Property Opinions: Currents and Crosscurrents, 13 WOMEN'S RTS. L. REP. 71, 73-74 (1991).
29. 17 U.S.C. 102(a) (1994); Feist, 499 U.S. at 362.
30. See, e.g., Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 250-25 (1903); Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428, 433 (1891); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58-60 (1884); Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 662-63 (1834). See also In re Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879).
31. Since 1941, the Court has addressed the Supremacy Clause in its preemption cases including: Capital Cities, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 698 (1984); Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 570 (1973); Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 402-03 (1941); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964). Other constitutional cases include: Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) (Seventh Amendment); Feist, 499 U.S. at 346 (1991)(Copyright Clause); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S 539, 556 (1985) (First Amendment); Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984) (separation of powers).
32. 33 U.S. 591 (1834).
33. See id. at 634-35.
34. See id. at 651-52.
35. See id. at 638-39.
36. Id. at 659.
37. See Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property, 102 YALE L.J. 1533 (1993).
38. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 660 (1834).
39. See id. at 661.
40. For discussion of the role of the legislator in the Constitutional scheme, see Marci A. Hamilton, Nondelegation and Representation: Back to Basics, 20 CARDOZO L. REV. 807 (1999); Marci A. Hamilton, The People: The Least Accountable Branch, 4 U. CHI. ROUNDTABLE 1 (1997); Marci A. Hamilton, Discussion and Decisions: A Proposal to Replace the Myth of Self-rule with an Attorneyship Model of Representation, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 477 (1994). Cf. Edward Rubin, Beyond Public Choice: Comprehensive Rationality in the Writing and Reading of Statutes, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1991).
41. For discussion of the role of the legislator in the Constitutional scheme, see Marci A. Hamilton, Nondelegation and Representation: Back to Basics, 20 CARDOZO L. REV. 807 (1999); Marci A. Hamilton, The People: The Least Accountable Branch, 4 U. CHI. ROUNDTABLE 1 (1997); Marci A. Hamilton, Discussion and Decisions: A Proposal to Replace the Myth of Self-rule with an Attorneyship Model of Representation, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 477 (1994). Cf. Edward Rubin, Beyond Public Choice: Comprehensive Rationality in the Writing and Reading of Statutes, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1991).
42. For discussion of the role of the legislator in the Constitutional scheme, see Marci A. Hamilton, Nondelegation and Representation: Back to Basics, 20 CARDOZO L. REV. 807 (1999); Marci A. Hamilton, The People: The Least Accountable Branch, 4 U. CHI. ROUNDTABLE 1 (1997); Marci A. Hamilton, Discussion and Decisions: A Proposal to Replace the Myth of Self-rule with an Attorneyship Model of Representation, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 477 (1994). Cf. Edward Rubin, Beyond Public Choice: Comprehensive Rationality in the Writing and Reading of Statutes, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1991).
43. For discussion of the role of the legislator in the Constitutional scheme, see Marci A. Hamilton, Nondelegation and Representation: Back to Basics, 20 CARDOZO L. REV. 807 (1999); Marci A. Hamilton, The People: The Least Accountable Branch, 4 U. CHI. ROUNDTABLE 1 (1997); Marci A. Hamilton, Discussion and Decisions: A Proposal to Replace the Myth of Self-rule with an Attorneyship Model of Representation, 69 N.Y.U. L. REV. 477 (1994). Cf. Edward Rubin, Beyond Public Choice: Comprehensive Rationality in the Writing and Reading of Statutes, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1991).
44. See Marci A. Hamilton, Nondelegation and Representation: Back to Basics, 20 CARDOZO L. REV. 807 (1999).
45. U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
46. See Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984); Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 214 (1954); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 (1932); Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 221 (1917); Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Serv. Co., 215 U.S. 182, 188 (1909); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker, 219 U.S. 356, 362 (1908); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 346 (1908); White-Smith Music Publ'g Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1, 15 (1908); American Tobacco Co. v. Werkmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 252 (1888); Callaghan v. Meyers, 128 U.S. 617, 648 (1888).
47. Sony, 464 U.S. at 429.
48. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 607 (1834).
49. Id. at 664.
50. U.S. CONST. art. I, §8, cl. 8.
51. The best work done on the desert theory is by Professor Wendy Gordon, who has labored consistently in Locke's vineyard. See Wendy J. Gordon, Toward a Jurisprudence of Benefits: The Norms of Copyright and the Problem of Private Censorship, 57 U. CHI L. REV. 1009 (1990); Wendy J. Gordon, An Inquiry Into the Merits of Copyright: The Challenges of Consistency, Consent, and Encouragement Theory, 41 STAN. L. REV. 1343 (1989).
52. The best work done on the desert theory is by Professor Wendy Gordon, who has labored consistently in Locke's vineyard. See Wendy J. Gordon, Toward a Jurisprudence of Benefits: The Norms of Copyright and the Problem of Private Censorship, 57 U. CHI L. REV. 1009 (1990); Wendy J. Gordon, An Inquiry Into the Merits of Copyright: The Challenges of Consistency, Consent, and Encouragement Theory, 41 STAN. L. REV. 1343 (1989).
53. 104 U.S. 557 (1881).
54. Id. at 561-62.
55. 131 U.S. 123 (1889).
56. Id. at 149-51.
57. See Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903); Mifflin v. R.H. White Co., 190 U.S. 260 (1903); Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899).
58. See Louis Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 235 U.S. 33 (1914).
59. See Bolles v. Outing Co., 175 U.S. 262 (1899).
60. See Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co., 207 U.S. 375 (1907); see also Hills & Co. v. Hoover, 220 U.S. 329 (1911) (owner of copyright in engravings is restricted to a single suit to enforce the forfeiture and penalties prescribed by law in case of infringement).
61. See Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903); Mifflin v. R.H. White Co., 190 U.S. 260 (1903); see also Holmes v. Hurst,174 U.S. 82 (1899) (holding that the serialization of a literary composition in a magazine prior to registration of the work as a whole constitutes publication under the 1831 Act and precludes the author from restraining others who publish the uncopyrighted serialized parts as a consecutively paginated book).
62. See Dutton, 190 U.S. at 268; R.H. White, 190 U.S at 264; Holmes, 174 U.S. at 609.
63. 128 U.S. 617 (1888).
64. 175 U.S. 148 (1899).
65. See American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284 (1907).
66. 209 U.S. 1 (1908).
67. Id. at 17-18.
68. Id. at 15.
69. Id. at 12 (quoting Kennedy v. McTammany, 33 F. 584 (D. Mass. 1888)).
70. See id. at 14.
71. See id. at 16-17.
72. Id. at 20.
73. See Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390, 400-01 (1968) (holding that the operator of a community antenna television (CATV) does not perform under the Copyright Act); Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 415 U.S. 394, 405 (1974) (holding that a CATV operator does not perform under the Copyright Act even though new services were implemented such as commercial and interconnection); Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (holding that the sale of videotape recording equipment did not significantly harm the copyrights on television programs by shifting the viewing time).
74. Fortnightly, 392 U.S. at 391.
75. See id. at 393-99.
76. Id. at 395 (emphasis added).
77. See id.
78. From the standpoint of literary criticism, this is a fascinating turn in which the Court constructs a rudimentary outline of the relationship between author and viewer that echoes the debates about that relationship in the literary criticism literature of the time. See, e.g., WOLFGANG ISER, THE ACT OF READING: A THEORY OF AESTHETIC RESPONSE 76 (1978); WOLFGANG ISER, THE IMPLIED READER: PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION IN PROSE FICTION FROM BUNYAN TO BECKETT (1974).
79. From the standpoint of literary criticism, this is a fascinating turn in which the Court constructs a rudimentary outline of the relationship between author and viewer that echoes the debates about that relationship in the literary criticism literature of the time. See, e.g., WOLFGANG ISER, THE ACT OF READING: A THEORY OF AESTHETIC RESPONSE 76 (1978); WOLFGANG ISER, THE IMPLIED READER: PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION IN PROSE FICTION FROM BUNYAN TO BECKETT (1974).
80. Fortnightly, 392 U.S. at 397.
81. See id. at 397-98.
82. See id. at 399.
83. Id. at 405 (Fortas, J., dissenting).
84. See Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 415 U.S. 394 (1974).
85. See id. at 405.
86. Id. at 411 (emphasis added).
87. See id. at 410.
88. Fortnightly, 392 U.S. at 401-02.
89. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
90. Id. at 431
91. Id.
92. The Court cited legislative history from the 1909 Copyright Act that declared that federal copyright law is "not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings." See id. at 429 n.10.
93. Id. at 448, 451.
94. See id. at 449-50.
95. Id. at 456.
96. 222 U.S. 55 (1911) (public exhibition of motion picture version of a copyrighted book constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right given to the author to dramatize his work).
97. Id. at 61.
98. See Buck v. Jewell-La Salle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191 (1931).
99. Id. at 196. In Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975), the Court held that a radio broadcast in a restaurant was not a performance on the ground that (1) there would be no way to avoid infringement and liability since there is no way to anticipate all of the copyright owners with rights in the compositions to be broadcast and no way, therefore, to obtain licenses from all such owners prior to broadcast; and (2) that it would essentially authorize the sale of multiple licenses for what is essentially a single public rendition of a copyrighted work. Id. at 162-63.
100. 140 U.S. 428 (1891).
101. See id. at 431.
102. See id.
103. Id.
104. 188 U.S. 239 (1903).
105. Id. at 251.
106. See id. at 250.
107. Id. at 251.
108. See MARTHA WOODMANSEE, THE AUTHOR, ART, AND THE MARKET: REREADING THE HISTORY OF AESTHETICS (1994); James Boyle, A Theory of Law and Information: Copyright, Spleens, Blackmail, and Insider Trading, 80 CAL L. REV. 1413 (1992); Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of "Authorship", 1991 DUKE L.J. 455.
109. See MARTHA WOODMANSEE, THE AUTHOR, ART, AND THE MARKET: REREADING THE HISTORY OF AESTHETICS (1994); James Boyle, A Theory of Law and Information: Copyright, Spleens, Blackmail, and Insider Trading, 80 CAL L. REV. 1413 (1992); Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of "Authorship", 1991 DUKE L.J. 455.
110. See MARTHA WOODMANSEE, THE AUTHOR, ART, AND THE MARKET: REREADING THE HISTORY OF AESTHETICS (1994); James Boyle, A Theory of Law and Information: Copyright, Spleens, Blackmail, and Insider Trading, 80 CAL L. REV. 1413 (1992); Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of "Authorship", 1991 DUKE L.J. 455.
111. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 346 (1991) (holding that originality is a constitutional requirement of copyrightability); Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 249 (1903) (holding that circus posters are not excluded from the useful arts which Congress is empowered by the Constitution to promote); Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428, 430 (1891)(holding that the Copyright Clause does not encompass labels which merely designate or describe the articles to which they are attached, since such labels have no connection to the progress of science or the useful arts); Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884)( holding that the Copyright Clause is broad enough to encompass an act authorizing copyright in photographs, in so far as they are representative of original intellectual conceptions of the author); Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 660 (1834) (holding that the Copyright Clause does not sanction an existing right, but creates a new one).
112. See Capital Cities Cable v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 698-99 (1984) ( holding that state requirement of blocking alcohol commercials in out-of-state signals retransmitted by cable operators is pre-empted by federal law); Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 551 (1973) (holding that the States did not relinquish to Congress all of their powers to regulate copyright); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 231 (1964) (holding that states cannot prohibit the copying of uncopyrighted and unpatented work through unfair competition laws); Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 337, 404 (1941) (holding that a state statute regulating combinations in restraint of trade not preempted by the copyright act).
113. See Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 431 (1984).
114. See Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556-57 (1985).
115. See Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 346-47 (1998).
116. See supra notes 28-30 and accompanying text.
117. U.S. CONST., art. I, §8, cl. 8.
118. See 33 U.S. at 660.
119. Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 56 (1884).
120. See id. at 53-55.
121. See id.
122. See id. at 57-58
123. See id. at 57.
124. See id. Cf. Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (citing Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22 (1922) (Holmes, J.): "If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by a common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it.").
125. Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).
126. See id.
127. See id.
128. See id. at 59 (declining to decide whether the "ordinary production of a photograph" should be accorded "no protection").
129. Id. at 58.
130. See Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S. 428, 430 (1891).
131. Id. at 431.
132. See id.
133. For a satirical treatment of Bleistein's expansion of the copyright marketplace, see Marci A. Hamilton, Farewell Madison Avenue, 16 CONST. COMM. 529 (1999).
134. See Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 249 (1929).
135. Id. at 249.
136. 423 U.S. 546 (1973).
137. See id. at 553.
138. Id. at 555.
139. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 362-64 (1991).
140. Id. at 346.
141. See supra note 109 and accompanying text.
142. see 499 U.S. at 346 (citing to Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884) and Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879)).
143. 499 U.S. at 346.
144. Marci A. Hamilton, Historical and Philosophical Underpinnings, supra note 6; Alden v. Maine, 119 S.Ct. 2240 (1999); College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 119 S.Ct. 2219 (1999); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 119 S.Ct. 2199 (1999); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
145. Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) ("copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work") (citing Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556-57 (1985)).
146. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); cf. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ("A principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."). See also Marci A. Hamilton, Database Protection and the Circuitous Route Around the United States Constitution, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND THE COMMON LAW WORLD (Charles Rickett, ed.) (2000).
147. See 313 U.S. 387 (1941).
148. See id. at 404.
149. See id. at 405.
150. See 376 U.S. 225 (1964).
151. Id. at 232.
152. 412 U.S. 546 (1973).
153. See id. at 546.
154. See id. at 570.
155. Id. at 553; see also id. at 560 (stating that the language of the "Constitution neither explicitly precludes the States from granting copyrights nor grants such authority exclusively to the Federal Government").
156. See 412 U.S. at 560.
157. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thundercraft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 162 (1989) (discussing the purpose of the Patent and Copyright Clause with reference to THE FEDERALIST No. 43); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 228 (1964) (citing Madison's THE FEDERALIST No. 43 that "the States 'cannot separately make effectual provision' for either patents or copyrights"); Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 675 (1834) (discussing the nature of the power granted by the Copyright Clause within the context of powers described in THE FEDERALIST No. 34); Id. at 681-82, 685 (discussing Madison's positions as expressed in congressional report on the topic and in THE FEDERALIST No. 43).
158. See Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 552-53 (1973).
159. See id. at 555.
160. See 467 U.S. 691 (1984). Florida Prepaid, though a patent case, reinforces the Court's refusal to give the Congress carte blanche under preemption analysis, even though the topic is intellectual property.
161. See Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984).
162. See id.
163. The Court employed some familiar precepts from First Amendment jurisprudence in Feist, but did not embark upon an explicit or conscious discussion of the First Amendment. The Court also avoided a First Amendment question when it reached the preemption issue posed by Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984).
164. See 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
165. See id. at 555-56.
166. See id. at 556.
167. See id. at 557-58
168. Cases involving a conflict between copyright and First Amendment values have not yet reached the Court, but certainly will given the number of cases in the lower courts involving political or religious speech and copyright law. See Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1992); New Era Publications Int'l v. Carol Publ'g Group, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1990); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); New Era Publications Int'l. v. Henry Holt and Co., 873 F.2d 576 (2d Cir. 1989); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 796 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1986); Bridge Publications, Inc. v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 254 (D. Colo. 1998); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 945 F.Supp. 1470 (D. Colo. 1996); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Serv., Inc., 923 F.Supp. 1231 (N.D.Cal. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Serv., 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 908 F.Supp. 1362 (E.D. Va. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 908 F.Supp. 1353 (E.D. Va. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 897 F.Supp. 260 (E.D. Va. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 901 F.Supp. 1528 (D.Colo. 1995); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 901 F.Supp. 1519 (D. Colo. 1995); Bridge Publications, Inc. v. Vien, 827 F.Supp. 629 (S.D. Cal. 1993); New Era Publications v. Carol Publ'g Group, 729 F.Supp. 992 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); New Era Publications v. Holt, 695 F.Supp. 1493 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); New Era Publications v. Holt, 684 F.Supp. 808 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 660 F.Supp. 515 (C.D. Cal. 1987). See also Shelia McCann, Web Site Prompts Mormon Church to Sue Critics, SALT LAKE TRIB., OCT. 15, 1999, at A1 (reporting that Mormon Church sued critics for copyright infringement because they had posted information from an internal church handbook on the Internet).
169. See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 568 (1985).
170. See 523 U.S. 340 (1998).
171. See id. at 342-46.
172. See id. at 346; Justice Scalia concurs in the judgment, because he reads the plain language of the copyright act to permit jury trials in statutory damage cases. Id. at 356 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).
173. See id. at 348.
174. See id. at 350.
175. See Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 516 (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)) ("The judicial authority to determine the constitutionality of laws, in cases and controversies, is based on the premise that the 'powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.'").
176. See generally Appendix A.
177. See Eldred v. Reno, 74 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). The complaint and brief can be found at 〈http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/complaint amd2.html〉.
178. See generally Marci A. Hamilton, Database Protection and the Circuitous Route Around the United States Constitution, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND THE COMMON LAW WORLD (Charles Rickett ed., 2000).
179. See supra note 154.
180. Jessica Litman, Revising Copyright Law for the Information Age, 15 OR. L. REV. 19 (1996); Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read, 13 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 29 (1994).
181. Jessica Litman, Revising Copyright Law for the Information Age, 15 OR. L. REV. 19 (1996); Jessica Litman, The Exclusive Right to Read, 13 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J. 29 (1994).
182. See Hamilton, supra note 164; Letter from Marci A. Hamilton, Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property Law Program, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Sept. 4, 1998) (last visited Oct. 26, 1999) 〈http://www.marcihamilton.com/ip/hatchdatabase.html〉.