ginsburg's opinion for the majority (pdf link on lessig's site) seems pretty cut and dried to me...

why shouldn't congress be able to extend a copyright that's already in place?

what's the difference between that and extending any other limited grant of public property (eg mineral rights, loans, spectrum allocations, etc)?

not that i'm entirely unsympathetic to lessig's general crusade, but this case didn't seem that strong...



- big jimmy 1-16-2003 8:54 am





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.