RE: Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster and Sonny Bono

The research in that article is impressive. Ironically, the petitioners in Eldred take great pains to distance themselves from this definition. (see, eg, reply brief note 12). And the good professor's amicus brief nowhere mentions this theory.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org [mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of M. Pollack
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:35 AM To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 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-brie f.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_copyri ght.htm
> Associate Professor copyright musings: humor and
dread
> Slippery Rock University

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