Re: Mary Baker Eddy

On 06/14/2000, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> On 06/13/2000, Ransford Pyle <pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/12/2000, Tyler T. Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/08/2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Think what would happen if Congress passed a law to allow a certain
> > > > church to copyright all texts and translations of the Bible. How
> > > > could setting up such a monopoly be justified under copyright law?
> > >
> > > Interestingly enough, Congress tried to do exactly that with Mary
> > > Baker Eddy's "Science and Health," the basic text of the Christian
> > > Science religion. The Church was concerned that various "polluted"
> > > versions of the text were being disseminated by splinter groups, so
> > > it got Congress to pass a law reviving and extending Eddy's copyright
> > > for 75 years and assigning it solely to the trustees of the Church.
> > > And, yes, the law was held invalid as a violation of the Establishment
> > >
> > > clause of the First Amendment. [The alternative argument, that the
> > > law violated the "limited times" provision of the Copyright Clause,
> > > was unfortunately never ruled upon; the ruling that the law was
> > > invalid made such a ruling unnecessary.]
> >
> > What a fascinating story about Mary Baker Eddy. Couldn't a separation
> > of powers argument be used there as well? Is there a ready source of
> > the details of this case?
>
> I don't see any separation of powers argument. The power to enact
> copyright [and patent] laws is given to Congress, not to the executive
> or judicial branches. Of course, such laws have to comply with the
> copyright clause and the rest of the Constitution.
>
> See United Christian Scientists v. Christian Science Board of Directors,
> First Church of Christ, Scientist, 616 F. Supp. 476 (D.D.C. 1985), aff'd,
> 829 F.2d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

By the separation of powers I mean particularizing legislation to the point that the legislature invades judicial prerogatives. Sure, the Constitution gives Congress authority over copyrights. Does that mean Congress can pass laws governing copyright or does it mean Congress can make special grants to individual authors? So when Congress enacts a new time limit, can it also say, "This act shall not apply to Tyler Ochoa. The copyright on his work ends as soon as the ink dries (or its digital equivalent)" Or, conversely, can Congress grant a special dispensation to Tyler Ochoa so that his work is covered by copyright until the year 2500?

I know this is old-fashioned but I thought legislatures were supposed to make laws of general application and courts were supposed to apply them to specific situations. Frankly, I don't recall a recent separation of powers case and I know post-modern analysis ridicules the rule of law as a patriarchal power play, but I would be angered if Congress tried to do such a thing today.

Ransford Pyle
<pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> Received on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 10:35:11 GMT