Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On 5/10/2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 May 2000, James Powers <jpowers[_at_]wbklaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > Copyright does not, and I'd propose need not, live a "dodgy existence"
> > (itself a rather cool characterization) in light of the first amendment.
> > This is because copyright does not protect meaning. Copyright protects
> > a particular articulation of 'something'. It does not protect or
> > embrace the something.
>
> I understand the distinction. I am not sure that the Constitution
> does. It says "no law"... abridging freedom of speech or of the
> press, not "no law restricting freedom of ideas".

But John, you know that "no law" is a mirage. There are countless laws abridging freedom of speech in that broad sense, and a number of constitutional doctrines under which they have been upheld. Libel, obscenity, national security, and of course copyright; compelling government interest, narrowly tailored remedy, incitement to imminent violence, time/place/manner. At its core, and hopefully invulnerable, the First Amendment protects the marketplace of ideas, and prevents the suppression of opinion and fact, and allows for vehement opinions, and unprovable "facts." But copyright restrictions, which don't dent the marketplace of ideas seem more easily reconciled with the First Amendment than, e.g., lible laws.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> Received on Thu May 11 2000 - 20:22:05 GMT