Congress should look at copyright extension law

The U.S. Supreme Court muffed a chance last week to make antiquated copyright law conform to modern standards. Given a chance to put a limit on copyright protections, the high court instead deferred to Congress.

That’s too bad. When it comes to copyright law, Congress has repeatedly favored the commercial interests of Hollywood and corporate America over greater public access to artistic creations. Even so, Congress should be pressured to ease restrictions on how and when artists’ work is introduced into the public domain.

The Supreme Court’s ruling means that nursery schools that play Disney tunes for preschoolers technically will be liable to pay royalties to Disney for 20 more years. It means that a company that upgrades old films to a digital format would be required to fork over cash to the studio and that Internet publishers would be discouraged from reproducing works from popular early 20th-century authors.

In a 7-2 vote, the court refused to reverse Congress’ 1998 extension by 20 years of all existing copyrights. The extension may be bad policy, the court said, but it is within Congress’ authority — and not the court’s — to update copyright law. Under existing law, a copyright lasts for the duration of the creator’s life plus 70 years if the work is by an individual, or 95 years if the copyright is held by a corporation.

The practical effect of the court’s decision is to slow down the use of modern technology and the Internet as powerful new tools in the creative process. Those who believe in unfettered access to the public domain should demand that Congress reconsider the copyright extension.

This column appeared in the Miami Herald. It was distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

credits

TCU Daily Skiff © 2003