In a victory for corporate control of cultural heritage, the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected a constitutional challenge to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998 (U.S.) by a majority of seven to two. This paper evaluates the litigation in terms of policy debate in a number of discourses — history, intellectual property law, constitutional law and freedom of speech, cultural heritage, economics and competition policy, and international trade. It argues that the extension of the copyright term will inhibit the dissemination of cultural works through the use of new technologies — such as Eric Eldred's Eldritch Press and Project Gutenberg. It concludes that there is a need to resist the attempts of copyright owners to establish the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998 (U.S.) as an international model for other jurisdictions — such as Australia.
[1]
Matthew Rimmer,et al.
Rip, Mix, Burn: The Politics of Peer to Peer and Copyright Law
,
2002,
First Monday.
[2]
Edward W. Said,et al.
Representations of the Intellectual
,
1994
.
[3]
Christina N. Gifford,et al.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
,
2000
.
[4]
T. Ochoa.
Patent and Copyright Term Extension and the Constitution: A Historical Perspective
,
2001
.
[5]
G. Williams.
The Amicus Curiae and Intervener in the High Court of Australia: A Comparative Analysis
,
2000
.
[6]
James Boyle,et al.
A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?
,
1997
.
[7]
M. Rose.
The Author as Proprietor: Donaldson v. Becket and the Genealogy of Modern Authorship
,
1988
.