Re: Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster and Sonny Bono

For a much better (I wrote it :-)smile) supported and argued discussion of the language in the Copyright Clause, see Malla Pollack, What Is Congress Supposed to Promote? Defining ‘Progress" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, or Introducing the Progress Clause, 80 Nebraska L. Rev. 754 (2001) (published October 2002). Prepublication draft available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304180 and http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/progress.html. The best reading (in the Clause) of "progress" is dissemination, however, this means that Eldred wins (not Congress).

David Dailey wrote:
>
> In preparation for the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the Copyright Term
> Extension, the respondent's brief (visible at
> http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/supct/government-brief.pdf)
> makes reference to both Samuel Johnson's (1755) "A dictionary of the
> English language" and a more modern edition (1958 -- didn't anyone have a
> newer copy around when they wrote this?) of Webster's dictionary
> essentially to argue that "limited" doesn't have to mean "brief".
>
> A Johnsonian scholar and friend of mine writes "It's a pity that SJ should
> be quoted in this case, because he was wary of authors and publishers using
> copyright laws to prevent the dissemination of knowledge". My friend goes
> on to add that citing the differences between the obsolete first definition
> and the second in the OED might have made a better argument.
>
> I think a more formal semantic analysis using linguistic methodologies
> might have given an even more solid argument:
>
> "the legislature's understanding of copyright law is limited" isnot~ "the
> legislature's understanding of copyright law is brief"
>
> "a brief departure from the constitution" isnot~ "a limited departure from
> the constitution"
>
> See? The two words aren't the same! Justice prevails!
>
> On the other side of the coin, it was apparently Noah Webster's energy more
> than anyone else's to get Congress to pass the U.S.'s original federal
> copyright law. He also thought it was a good idea to have a constitution.
>
> So the Attorney General's office may have been right after all, it's just
> that the witnesses they lined up didn't happen to agree with their conclusions.
>
> David Dailey see
> http://www.sru.edu/depts/cisba/compsci/dailey/copyright/dailey_on_copyright.htm
> Associate Professor copyright musings: humor and dread
> Slippery Rock University

-- 
Malla Pollack
Visiting Associate Professor
University of Memphis, Law
mpollack[_at_]memphis.edu