Golan v. Holder (10-545)

argument 10-545

Golan v. Holder

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central constitutional issue raised in Golan v. Holder?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case ten five four five, Golan versus Holder. Mr Falzoni?

Lawrence G. VanDyke 0:06

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice. May it please the court. Section five fourteen did something unprecedented in American copyright law. It took millions of works out of the public domain where they had remained for decades as the common property of all Americans. That violated the copyright clause and the First Amendment. Let me turn first to the copyright clause. In Eldred, this court held Congress gets to pick the date on which a copyright expires, and it can extend that date before we reach that date.

Unknown 0:39

a time limit. In this case we're dealing with Let's say Aaron Copeland, who gets the benefit of copyright, And Congress says, you know we think Chastakovich should be treated just like Copeland. Yeah, we took care of our own when we weren't part of the world community, but now we are. And so all that Congress is doing is giving Justakovich works. the same limited time as Aaron Copeland. And why does that Violate. the limited time. prescription.

Lawrence G. VanDyke 1:16

The problem is Congress is now setting a second limit long after the first one has come and gone.

Unknown 1:22

But the first the person we're talking about, the work we're talking about, never got the first limit. There was no there was no time. There was no time when that work could have been protected.

How does the Court interpret the Copyright Clause’s “limited time” requirement?

Unknown 1:34

So why isn't it consistent with the copyright clause to say you are entitled to limited time protection. We're not talking about a case where you've had the protection. enjoyed it and then it expired. And then Congress says, We like we we like your work so much we're gonna give you another term. What's affected here are people who were unprotected. And Congress says we think that they should have a limited time.

Lawrence G. VanDyke 2:02

So let me just clarify one thing. Many of the works that were restored here did get some time, twenty eight years, and were not renewed. But to get back to your question about the works that got done

Unknown 2:11

they didn't get the equivalent of what a US author. But let's take the large category, because it's the ones that you feature. You're talking about Jostakovich, Strabinsky, and I say, well, what's wrong with giving them the same time that Aaron Copeland got?

Lawrence G. VanDyke 2:26

Congress has been setting the limited time at zero since seventeen ninety. In the seventeen ninety Act, Congress set the limit at zero for a wide array of works. Those that did not comply with formalities, those that were limited That's not a limited time.

Unknown 2:40

That's saying you have no time.

Lawrence G. VanDyke 2:42

Well, but saying you have no time is itself picking the limit because the language of the copyright clause forces Congress to pick a limit that constrains copyright by marking its end. And when if if if a limit does not mark the end once reached, then there is no limit. But it has to have a

Unknown 2:58

beginning too. And that's the for these people who were unprotected. Because we didn't recognise that copyright. There's no beginning.

Lawrence G. VanDyke 3:07

No, it there does not need to be a beginning. It is within Congress's discretion. Remember, this is permissive. Congress may grant exclusive rights, uh, but it can also say your limit is going to be zero. We decide that you're not going to get the exclusive rights. And every Congress since seventeen ninety, every time it went to add subject matter, every time it went to extend the duration of copyright, respected that choice to give no time. And in fact, the time the the the decision to make foreign authors ineligible is a decision that Congress has never gone back on. None of the exceptions the government points to remove anything from the public domain that was placed there based upon a lack of national eligibility.

Lawrence G. VanDyke 3:47

Two hundred years of history is crystal clearly. I can

Unknown 3:49

understand your argument with That the public domain is untouchable. I'm not sure I get that from uh the constitution that says to secure to authors For a limited time. the exclusive right. That that's talking about what you can secure to officers. So I don't see why. Using the words of the constitution to secure to author authors for a limited time. Congress can say.