Re: Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster and Sonny Bono

Yup, for tactical reasons, this argument is not pushed on the Court. For one thing, the research was not completed in time to be aruged below.

         But the good professor's article makes very clear that the quid pro quo principle is built into the Clause by other words, by the anti-government corruption history of the Statute of Monopolies, and that, furthermore, the Copyright Term Extension Act hurts distribution of works over all.

        Thanks for the kind works
:-) "the good professor"

Chris Mohr wrote:
>
> 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

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