Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 8

Golan v. Holder
FACTS The United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989, but it failed to give foreign copyright holders the same protections enjoyed by U.S. authors. Contrary to the Berne Convention, the United States did not protect any foreign work that had already entered the public domain. In 1994, Congress enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which "restored" copyright protection for many foreign works that were already in the public domain. The URAA put foreign and domestic works on the same footing, allowing their copyrights to extend for the same terms.
Lawrence Golan, along with a group of musicians, conductors, and publishers, filed a suit against Eric Holder, in his capacity as the U.S. Attorney General, challenging the URAA and claiming that it violated the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution. These individuals had enjoyed free access to foreign works in the public domain before the URAA's enactment and argued that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority in passing the URAA. A federal appellate court held that Congress did not violate the copyright clause by passing the URAA. The petitioners appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the matter.
ISSUE Does the URAA violate the copyright clause in the U.S. Constitution by restoring copyright protection for foreign works in the public domain?
DECISION No. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the federal appellate court. Thus, Golan and the others could no longer use, without permission, any of the previous public domain foreign works, which are indeed protected by the URAA. By passing the URAA in the United States, Congress, in effect, took the foreign works that Golan and others had been using out of the public domain. Henceforth, U.S. copyright and patent laws cover all such foreign intellectual property.
REASON The copyright clause empowers Congress "to promote the Progress of Science... by securing for limited Times to Authors... the exclusive Right to their Writings." The Court concluded that Congress is not barred from protecting works in the public domain simply because a copyright must exist for only a "limited time." The Court relied heavily on the precedent set by its decision in an earlier case in which it held that Congress did not violate the copyright clause by extending existing copyrights by twenty years.a In that case, the Court declined to interpret the text of the copyright clause as requiring that a "time prescription, once set, becomes forever 'fixed' or 'inalterable.'" In passing the URAA, Congress did not create perpetual copyrights. Therefore, the URAA does not violate the copyright clause.
CRITICAL THINKING-Global Consideration What does the Court's decision in this case mean for copyright holders in the United States who want copyright protection in other countries? Will other nations be more or less inclined to protect U.S. authors? Explain.